Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.
The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).
What Is Heresy?
Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).
To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.
A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.
Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.
With this in mind, let’s look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.
The Circumcisers (1st Century)
The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’"
Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God’s covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.
But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.
Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.
Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ’s imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).
Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God’s relation to man, not in objective reality.
Arianism (4th Century)
Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.
Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.
Pelagianism (5th Century)
Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God’s grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one’s efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.
Nestorianism (5th Century)
This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").
There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.
Monophysitism (5th Century)
Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius’s implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).
Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ’s full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.
Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).
Catharism (11th Century)
Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.
The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.
Protestantism (16th Century)
Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"— the idea that we are justified by faith only).
The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.
The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.
Jansenism (17th Century)
Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.
Heresies have been with us from the Church’s beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ’s promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul’s words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).
I'm not sure what the intent is here. There are 10 Hail Marys in a Rosary decade, hence the term decade. So really the ratio is 10:1.
Did I miss something obvious? I probably did.
Truly I find your moonlight/sunlight metaphor interesting as you relate it to the darkness of night - but I do not subscribe to the Light of God being a reflection in a Christian - Catholic or Protestant or Whatever.
For me, the gemstones of Scripture are a better metaphor.
Each Apostle was unique. And each unique one was chosen specifically by Jesus Christ. John was not like Peter who was not like Paul who was not like doubting Thomas.
The gemstones in the foundation layers of the New Jerusalem are a beautiful metaphor. Each layer of the foundation is named after an Apostle. And each gemstone is a different color.
Likewise when the Light of God shines through us into the world our own uniqueness will often “color” the Light.
For ye were sometimes darkness, but now [are ye] light in the Lord: walk as children of light: - Ephesians 5:8
Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. – I Thessalonians 5:5
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. – Matthew 5:14-16
God didn’t make us with a cookie cutter. Nor does He, the master artist, mix all the colors into one on His palette but rather has made a beautiful living masterpiece of all of us.
Mortals that we are, we often protest that all other Christians must be sapphires, e.g. "there is only one truth and only we the sapphires know it."
But Christ chose each of twelve very unique disciples and He accepted with commendations and rebuke seven very unique churches in Revelation 2 and 3.
God is not a "minimalist."
To God be the glory, not man, never man!
I suggest to new Christians that they start with the book of John...But regardless, Paul was instructed by the Resurrected Jesus to take his ministry to the Gentiles...And God told Paul to preach Romans and Galatians, etc...
I am a Gentile...Why would a Gentile NOT focus on what God told Paul to teach us???The Gospels were written to the Jews...'Salvation is of the Jews'...James was written to the 12 Tribes scattered abroad...Hebrews was written to - the Hebrews...I am not a Jew nor a Hebrew...
You guys claim you are the 'new' Israel...That you have taken over the promises given to the Jews...
Romans 11 and countless scriptures disagree with you...
Acts is a transitional Book...Starts out with the Jewish church and ends up with with a new doctrine of a Jewish/Gentile church...
Jesus showed up to be the Messiah FOR THE JEWS...With an Earthly Kingdom...The Gospels were given to the Jews concerning the Kingdom...
The Jews rejected their Messiah...When God is finished with the church, the Bride of Christ, He will again turn to the Jews and then the Jews will accept and understand the Gospels, James, Hebrews, etc...
That is not to say that Christians can not apply what they read in these Jewish books to themselves Spiritually; they can...But doctrinally, NO...
So of course we listen to Paul...He (through God) started the Gentile church...
As to the Novena, I guess I think it's anything you do for 9 days. I could attend a novena of Masses, making a personal "offering" of all of them for, oh, whatever, and that would be a novena with nary a Hail Mary in sight?
Am I totally missing the point?
And what you do continually is to "make this personal" by discussing me and not the issues.
There is plenty on primacy of Peter and on apostolic succession.
No, there's not. Paul corrected Peter numerous times. Even Peter knew he was just as fallible as the rest of the apostles...
But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man." -- Acts 10:25-26"And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
If Peter was some kind of vicar of Christ, why didn't God tell us that in the Bible? Why does Scripture say Christ is still the head of His church if He isn't? Why does the RCC desire for the pope and the magisterium to be men's teacher instead of the Holy Spirit? Why does the RCC even want its pope to be the final authority instead of Jesus Christ?
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." -- John 14:23-24 "If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
It seems pretty clear the RCC's incorrect institution of the papacy is grounded in a misreading of the Matthew 16:18...
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." -- Matthew 16:18
But we know by the fact that Scripture interprets Scripture that the "rock" is not Peter, but Christ and Peter's God-given faith in Christ...
"for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." -- 1 Corinthians 10:4
Christ is the only rock, prophesied in the Old Testament...
"The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner." -- Psalm 118:22
And revealed in the New Testament...
"And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" -- Ephesians 2:20
So the question becomes why would a church deflect the truth of Scripture away from the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit toward men and committees of men?
The only conclusion to reach is that some men love power and control more than they love God's word. Scripture is there in black and white, preserved by God for all to see and understand, if God so wills. Whereas men and committees can change with the times and declare just about any foolish thing they want, such as giving the blasphemous title of "co-redeemer" to Mary. And obviously this human control benefits the earthly power structure and keeps men beholden to its whims and good will and purported "distribution" of God's free grace.
None of which is found in Scripture.
Now you've told us recently on the open forum that your wife was a Baptist for the 15 years of your marriage until she apparently converted this year. I can only imagine all the anti-Protestant resentment and frustration a Catholic might experience living with a Protestant spouse for their entire marriage.
For the harmony of your household it's probably been a good thing for you she converted. For her, not so much.
Well, I'd say that's the main rub of every Catholic-Protestant discussion, isn't it? Proddies want the glory to go directly to the Sun...the Son. Catholics think it suffice that time, energy, attention, prayer, $, resources that dilute attention, devotion, worship, focus, orientation, piety, prayer and the like away from Jesus, Father, and Holy Spirit is A-OK because such attention on the moonlight at least yields indirect glory to the Sun.
I think it's of note to point out here that the only "requirement" for Catholics in terms of prayer is to attend Mass, and Mass is solely devoted to the worship of the Triune God. It only mentions Mary three times (I think), and then only in passing. The other Saints are mentioned during the Liturgy of the Eucharist during the act of consecration, but only to join their intentions with ours in worshipping God.
IOW, our focus, when it's really boiled down, is really on "the Sun", not "the moon" (to use your analogy). So it doesn't "suffice" if a Catholic only prays the Rosary, or donates money to needy causes, etc. If a Catholic only did those things, and never went to Mass, that Catholic would have a problem. We aren't required to do anything more (pray the Rosary, pray to the Saints for their intercession, etc). We're required to go to Mass. That's what "suffices". The fact that our only requirement with regards to prayer is in worship of God should, IMO, should lead one to conclude that our focus is indeed on the "sun".
Are you suggesting that a Catholic can leave your church and become a Protestant, but as long as he is not convinced it is wrong, he's ok???
Or, a person who refuses to join your church because he feels it is wrong???
I'm just trying to nail this thing down...
“I may have stated this before, but it seems to many (including me) that Protestants start with St. Paul and interpret Christ and the Gospels from that context”
This reply is long but your unqualified generalization concerning “Protestants” belief in scripture and baptism is so off base it requires a detailed response.
As to the scriptures:
The primary purpose and function of Scripture is to lead us to Christ, that its proper place is within the framework of God’s plan for our redemption. It was the Old Testament Scriptures, viewed in their entirety—”the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms”—which the risen Savior expounded to His disciples, emphasizing the necessity that all things written in them concerning Him should be fulfilled. Throughout the New Testament, indeed, the whole of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is seen in the light of the fulfillment of Holy Scripture, and therefore as a vindication of the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Because the Roman Catholic church claims to be in some sense an extension of the incarnation, its emphasis tends to fall on this point, while Protestantism focuses on the cross and resurrection as the final message to man and the completion of his deliverance from sin. Hence, the Protestants make Scripture the ultimate authority.
Paul advised Timothy that the Holy Scriptures were able to make him “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus”; 2 Tim. 3:15 Peter reminds his readers that “the word of the Lord abideth for ever,” adding that “this is the word of the gospel which was preached unto you”;1 Pet. 1:25, and John, in describing the purpose of what was possibly the last in time of the biblical writings, asserts: “These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.” John 20:31
Roman Catholics make some combination of Scripture, tradition and the living, speaking voice of the church the final authority. The appeal to tradition is fundamentally different in the Roman and Protestant churches. The Roman attitude is that in her official Councils the church is the supreme legislature whose decisions are binding. The Protestant attitude is that the individuals in the church may act in the nature of witnesses (and, sometimes, jury) in a court of law, but not as judges.
It is at the very root of the evangelical position that the supremacy of Holy Scripture be held in its fullest sense. This does not mean that an Evangelical does not recognize the use of the church and reason in a secondary sense and in confirmation, but that he insists on the inviolate supremacy of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct. It means that no words can too strongly express the importance of securing, beyond doubt, the unsuperseded authority of the sacred Scriptures in all religious discussions whether of doctrine or practice— It follows, as a corollary, that the ecumenical Creeds, decisions of General Councils, the Confessions of Faith, and the rulings of all modem synods must be regarded as authorities only in a secondary sense. Their words can never be finally binding unless they can be proved by warrant of Holy Scripture and not merely the calling of Scriptures to authenticate their theology.
The witness of history to the Bible is the witness of the history of the Christian church. Until modem times the Bible was always acknowledged by the church to be the inspired Word of God. The significance of this fact can hardly be overemphasized. The definition of the canon of Holy Scripture—and especially of the New Testament, since that of the Old was already established—in the period that succeeded the age of the apostles, so far from being the result of the assertion of an authority superior to the Bible (as though the books of the Bible became canonical because the church pronounced them to be so), was in fact a recognition of this very principle of the divine inspiration of the Bible. It was recognition of an authority vested in the biblical books, which is unique and normative precisely because together they constitute the Word of God written. If there was one external factor which played a decisive role in the fixing of the New Testament canon, it was the equating of canonicity with apostolicity. Books which were not of apostolic origin were not admissible as canonical. In other words, the authority vested in the apostles is now vested in their writings, through which they continue to govern the church.
All the words in the Bible are God’s words. Therefore, to disbelieve or disobey them is to disbelieve or disobey God himself. Oftentimes, passages in the Old Testament are introduced with the phrase, “Thus says the LORD” (see Ex. 4:22; Josh. 24:2; 1 Sam. 10:18; Isa. 10:24; also Deut. 18:18—20; Jer. 1:9). This phrase, understood to be like the command of a king, indicated that what followed was to be obeyed without challenge or question. Even the words in the Old Testament not attributed as direct quotes from God are considered to be God’s words. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:16, makes this clear when he writes that “all Scripture is breathed out by God.”
The New Testament also affirms that its words are the very words of God. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter refers to all of Paul’s letters as one part of the “Scriptures.” This means that Peter, and the early church, considered Paul’s writings to be in the same category as the Old Testament writings. Therefore, they considered Paul’s writings to be the very words of God.
In addition, Paul, in 1 Timothy 5:18, writes that “the Scripture says” two things: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain” and “The laborer deserves his wages:’ The first quote regarding an ox comes from the Old Testament; it is found in Deuteronomy. 25:4. The second comes from the New Testament; it is found in Luke 10:7. Paul, without any hesitation, quotes from both the Old and New Testaments, calling them both ”Scripture” Therefore, again, the words of the New Testament are considered to be the very words of God. That is why Paul could write, “the things Jam writing to you are a command of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37).
Since the Old and New Testament writings are both considered Scripture, it is right to say they are both, in the words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “breathed out by God.” This makes sense when we consider Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would “bring to” the disciples’ “remembrance” all that Jesus said to them (John 14:26). It was as the disciples wrote the Spirit-enabled words, that books such as Matthew, John, and 1 and 2 Peter were written.
The Bible says there are ‘many ways” (Heb. 1:1) in which the actual words of the Bible were written. Sometimes God spoke directly to the author, who simply recorded what he heard (Rev.2:1, 8, and 12). At other times the author based much of his writings on interviews and research (Luke 1:1-3). And at other times, the Holy Spirit brought to mind the things Jesus taught (John 14:26). Regardless of the way the words came to the authors, the words they put down were extensions of them – their personalities, skills backgrounds, and training. But they were also exactly the words God wanted them to write – the very words that God claims as his own.
If God claims that the words of Scripture are his own, then there is ultimately no higher authority one can appeal to for proof of this claim than Scripture itself. For what authority could be higher than God? So, Scripture ultimately gains its authority from itself. But the claims of Scripture only become our personal convictions through the work of the Holy Spirit in an individual’s heart.
As God’s very words, the words of Scripture are more than simply true; they are truth itself (John 17:17). They are the final measure by which all supposed truth is to be gauged. Therefore, that which conforms to Scripture is true; that which doesn’t conform to Scripture is not true. New scientific or historical facts may cause us to reexamine our interpretation of Scripture, but they will never directly contradict Scripture.
Therefore, since the Bible affirms that it is the very words of God, we are to seek to understand those words, for in doing so, we are seeking to understand God himself. We are to seek to trust the words of Scripture, for in doing so, we are seeking to trust God himself. And we are to seek to obey the words of Scripture, for in doing so, we are seeking to obey God himself.
Paul hints at this when he asks how anyone can hear about becoming a Christian “without someone preaching” (Rom. 10:14). For “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). If there is no one preaching the word of Christ, Paul says, people won’t be saved. And that word comes from the Scriptures. So in order to know how to become a Christian, ordinarily one must either read about it in the Bible or have someone else explain what the Bible says about it. As Paul told Timothy, “the sacred writings ... are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).
But the Christian life doesn’t only start with the Bible, but it also thrives through the Bible. Jesus said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Just as our physical lives are maintained by daily nourishment of physical food, so our spiritual lives are maintained by daily nourishment with the Word of God. To neglect regular reading of the Bible is detrimental to the health of our souls.
Although those alive during the Old Testament period didn’t have the benefit of God’s complete revelation, which is found in the New Testament, They had access to all the words of God that he intended them to have during their lives. Today, the Bible contains all the words of God that a person needs to become a Christian, live as a Christian, and grow as a Christian. In order to be “blameless” before God, we just have to obey his Word: “Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord” (Ps. 119:1). And in the Bible, God has given us instructions that equip us for every good work” that he wants us to do (2 Tim. 3:l6—This is what it means to say that Scripture is “sufficient.”
Consequently, it is in Scripture alone that we search for God’s words to us. And we should, eventually, arrive at contentment with what we find there. The sufficiency of Scripture should encourage us to search through the Bible to try to find what God would have us think about a certain issue or do in a certain situation. Everything that God wants to tell all his people for all time about that kind of issue or situation will be found on the pages of the Bible. While the Bible might not directly answer every question we can think up— for “the secret things belong to the LORD our God” (Deut, 29:29) it will provide us with the guidance we need “for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:17).
Therefore, in our doctrinal, ethical, and moral teachings and beliefs, we should be content with what God has told us in Scripture. God has revealed exactly what he knows is right for us. One should, therefore, exhibit a humble hesitancy in placing more emphasis on the many of these issues than the Bible does.
As to baptism:
Baptism is considered a sacrament (ordinance). The term sacrament is derived from sacramentum, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word mysterion, which meant ‘a secret now revealed’, and so ‘something of mystical significance’, ‘a symbol’. Its Latin equivalent applied to a soldier’s oath on entering the army, and also to a solemn engagement or pledge of a religious nature.
By the third century the word sacrament had come to have a more specialized meaning in ecclesiastical Latin and was confined to the more sacred acts pertaining to the Christian ministry. The Church of England Catechism defines the meaning of the word as ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’. The Westminster Shorter Catechism says: ‘A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented, sealed and applied to believers.’
The mediaeval church became a community in which the ‘mysteries’ of religion were performed with increasing ritual observances. A type of Christianity was produced which consisted in the laity’s paying the clergy to perform on their behalf rites which they did not understand and to which they superstitiously attributed an unfailing efficacy which absolved them from the heart-service of God. A sacrament was provided for each main requirement of life. This reduced the practice of religion to mere attendance on the sacraments.
Externally sacraments are regarded as visible tokens (‘badges and seals’) of God’s grace. Compare circumcision and the Jewish feasts, such as the Passover. The concept of baptism is rooted in the Old Testament law, which prescribed certain washings for the cleansing of diseased persons. Lev. 14:8 Proselytes entering Judaism were expected to strip themselves of their former clothing, submit to circumcision, and bathe themselves completely, after which they were reckoned members of the Jewish community. The rite was acknowledgment of defilement and of the acceptance of the law as a purifying agent.
Its observance is an outward sign of the Christian’s profession to the world around him. Internally it is, to the Christian himself, a pledge of the certainty of God’s covenanted grace. It is an outward ‘sign’ whereby God declares the fact of His operation on behalf of the recipient and a ‘seal’ in which He pledges the truth of His promises to the one participating. In this latter sense of a ‘seal’ the sacrament is God’s signature and token that He will assuredly complete all that He has promised under the covenant of redemption and that He is actually operating in fulfillment of these covenant promises.
Hence, the three requirements for a sacrament (in the evangelical sense) are that it must be by Christ’s own appointment, it must have a visible sign or emblem, and it must be associated with an inward grace.
In approaching the subject as to how the sacrament is to be regarded as ‘means of grace’, it is necessary to be certain what we mean by ‘grace’. It is easy to state what it is not. It is not a vague, indefinable divine influence. It is not a ‘commodity’ which can be distributed at will in the manner of the material of which the symbol is composed. It is not something different from what we understand of the grace of God elsewhere. ‘Grace’ is God’s constant approach in unmerited favor towards men, which has displayed itself in the giving of His Son and in His continued working for human redemption. By using the words ‘means of grace’ I do not intend to imply that there is a special type of favor to be obtained from God in its use, but that it is a means through which God’s constant activity towards us becomes more fully known and His favor is definitely apprehended.
The Roman Catholic doctrine, as expressed in its official formulas of the Council of Trent, states: ‘If anyone shall say that grace is not conferred ex opere operato (i.e., ‘by the act performed’), but that belief in the divine promise alone suffices to obtain grace, let him be anathema.’ The mediaeval ex opere operato view is: Grace is objectively conveyed in a sacrament by virtue of the execution of the sacramental action, and this holds true so long as the participants are not in a state of mortal sin and the administrator’s ‘intention’ is in conformity with that of the church. This mechanical view was accompanied by the equally unscriptural doctrine of ‘intention’. This taught that, on the one hand, the grace conferred was independent of the administrator’s mode of life and, on the other, that he was necessary to the due performance in that it has no efficacy apart from the minister’s ability to perform the ceremony according to the correct ‘intention’ of the church.
The suggestion of grace ex. opere operato must be refused in any form; there is no shred of evidence for it in Scripture. In effect, the mechanical application of the rite of baptism by a member of the priesthood, or even a layman or woman, removes the disabilities of original sin and results in the subject’s justification. The emphasis is upon the right administration when the grace is automatically conferred and it is directly opposed to the whole scheme of God’s dealings with men on the basis of faith. The Reformers placed their emphasis on right reception and insisted on the fact of faith accompanying.
The Calvinistic view insists on ‘worthy reception’, and attributes the effect to God working in us, so that the sacrament becomes a ‘sure witnesses’, and pledge of God’s favor to us. The emphasis is moved from an inherent power in the sacrament to the direct work of God in the believing soul. The sacrament also represents man’s pledge of loyalty to God. The emphasis must surely be on faith and on ‘worthy reception’. ‘Without faith it is impossible to please God.’ In all God’s operations in the hearts of men, His Agent is the Holy Spirit, and the instrument whereby man receives Him is faith. On the other hand, faith does not transform the nature of a sacrament. It merely enables a man to appropriate God’s prior provision for him. The sacraments represent God’s approach to men in the form of special covenant pledges, and man’s attitude in return should be one of faith.
The efficacy of baptism lies in the relation of the individual to God, rather than in any property of the water. The only passage in the New Testament that connects salvation directly with baptism is 1 Peter 3:20, 21:0 “wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God. . . .“ Although the translation seemingly conveys the idea that baptism saves men, a careful study of the context reveals that “saved through” does not mean “saved by” but “preserved through.” The baptismal water does not provide the means of our salvation, but is rather representative of the peril through which we are brought into a new life, as Noah passed through the waters of the flood to safety. Obviously, water cannot save any man; salvation is by the grace of God.
Where the New Testament speaks clearly, it emphasizes the personal belief of those concerned. Faith must precede commitment; the external act of water baptism will not transform an unbeliever into a Christian. At the moment of baptism, the Christian makes an irrevocable commitment to Christ, whose death is the means of his redemption and whose life will be the continuing dynamic of his career. He takes a step in spiritual experience which he cannot retrace, and need not, if he is sincere. He enters a new relationship with God and with other members of the redeemed community who constitute the church.
Baptism is ‘the outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace’. This is the rite by which a professed believer was inducted into the fellowship of the New Testament church. By submitting to immersion
in water, pouring, or sprinkling, he confessed publicly his need of cleansing from sin and his faith in Christ. Peter instructed his audience on the day of Pentecost to “Repent, and be baptized . . . in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,” Acts 2:38, and each subsequent stage of the church’s growth was marked by baptism of the believers. Acts 8:12, 38; 9:10; 10:47, 48; 16:33; 18:8
Baptism is a sign of his new membership in the body of Christ and, to the man himself, a seal of his union with Christ and his covenant relationship with God. The apostle appeals upon the basis of baptism for a ‘reckoning’ that henceforth the man’s old life has been crucified and buried with Christ and that he is now risen to a new life in which he is exhorted ‘to walk in newness of life’. He is vividly assured of the benefits which are his by virtue of his union with his new Owner.
The key passage on baptism is connected with Paul’s argument for holiness in Romans 6:4—6: “We were buried therefore with him through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.” Assuming that the Roman Christians were familiar with the ceremony, he explained it in terms of death and resurrection. Since the claims of retributive justice cannot be executed upon a dead person, the union of the Christian with Christ in His death frees him from condemnation, and through the resurrection he shares in a new life. By the rite of baptism, he enacts this experience symbolically and accepts its reality by faith, though his full realization of the truth may develop gradually. The teaching of Paul in Colossians 2: 9-13, 20-3:2 indicates that the baptized believer is obligated to put away his former loose thinking and conduct and to adopt the standards of the new fellowship of the regenerate into which he has been inducted. Such a life is the spontaneous response of a renewed conscience to the ethical revelation of God. Baptism, according to the New Testament, is not merely a religious ceremony, but it is also a moral and spiritual pledge of devotion to holiness.
A very beautiful reminder of God’s supremacy and creativity. Many thanks to you, my dear sister in Christ - and all praise and honor and glory be unto the Lamb.
This does not mean that an Evangelical does not recognize the use of the church and reason in a secondary sense and in confirmation, but that he insists on the inviolate supremacy of the Bible in all matters of faith and conduct.
Amen!
I've always found it interesting that among the 33 chapters in the Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of the Holy Scriptures" is #1 and "Of the Church" is #25.
This would appear to beg the question, "Well why not just let non-Catholics be what they are? Let them be ignorant and then they'll be ok."
Only at first blush. While I do not know if God holds us to similar standards where His Church is concerned, let us recall His standard where His own existence is concerned.
The book of Romans tells us the existence of God is obvious through that which is made, so that no man has excuse. Now I don't have to tell you how many of our contemporaries are fully convinced "that which is made" proves exactly the opposite in their commitment to darwinism.
Personally, I think anti-Catholics are in the same position as educated darwinists; they know enough to know they are wrong, and their sincere conviction to their doctrine is actually the result of a darkened mind consequent to a willful decision.
Wonderful exposition B-D
or to Monday ? or Tuesday ? or Wednesday ? or Thursday ? or Friday ?Is Yah'shua not the same G-d as YHvH ?
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
NAsbU John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father,
Did Yah'shua teach about the Sabbath ?
you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God,
for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.
NAsbU John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
Yes !
See Matthew 12, Matthew 24, Matthew 28,
Mark 1, Mark 2, Mark 3, Mark 6, Mark 15, Mark 16,
Luke 4, Luke 6, Luke 13, Luke 14, Luke 23,
John 5, John 7, John 9, John 19,
Acts 1
Did Yah'shua change the day of worship from Shabbat to Sunday ?
No!
The creator of the universe has stated on many occations
that He wants His created beings to worship Him on Shabbat.
He even made it one of the Ten Commandments for our understanding.
You are stating that the mere created being can say to YHvH
we do not like worshiping you on the day you commanded us to worship,
we are free to pick some other day.
Or, a person who refuses to join your church because he feels it is wrong???
This one is the easiest:
Because the person is "feeling" instead of thinking he is allowing himself to be ruled by passion. That's a vice and vice is bad for one. But the good news is that he hasn't really committed a deliberate act.
Now in his separation from the CC he is separating himself from assured means of grace but I don't think anyone would say that it was the act of refusal alone that was his BIG problem. The BIG problem is why he makes this kind of decision based on feelings.
Are you suggesting that a Catholic can leave your church and become a Protestant, but as long as he is not convinced it is wrong, he's ok???
If the person was persuaded by non-Catholics who tell him the kind of untruths about the CC that many post here, he is maybe guilty of imprudence, of going to bad sources for info, for not checking and double-checking before he makes an important decision. There might be some other stuff going on, some fearfulness for example, or some laziness. IF someone really thinks we are idolaters, he should get out. But before he gets out, he ought to study up on the question a little more, a LOT more, to be sure he's right. But if he's utterly persuaded that we're wrong, he is certainly wrong if he stays with us.
After VatII there were plenty of CC clergy who rapidly joined the "it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you're sincere" school of stupidity. Not everyone likes to dig into stuff the way we do. Some don't have the digging tools. So a parishioner of such a priest incurs less sin. BUT he STILL cuts himself off from assured means of grace.
IN general what I'm trying to say is that vices and possibly even mortal sins might play into the decision either to reject or to leave the CC, but the decision itself might not be mortal.
I've told before the story of the "missionaries" in the area around Burma. I've often thought that they, both RC and Protestant) were so awful that there might be some mortal sins being committed by those who accepted their message, while rejecting it, although not a perfect act by any means, might be a sign of virtue and even of grace.
But I think I'm not going beyond my brief to assert that in any case a person who leaves or who refuses to join is forgoing assured means of grace and places himself in peril that way.
I think PART of the complexity of my response is that when you get down to cases, thing get complex. The short answer is that leaving the CC or refusing to join is not always a mortal sin, but in might be accompanied by other sins which are mortal and in any event it desprives the person or real benefits.
Celebrate how? Celebrate what?
What is common between Christian Easter and the pagan whatever? The day? And what is different? Everything of substance.
Oh my. This alone will show the difficulty in this kind of conversation. I learned that Formula in the Episcopal Church, where I was taught that Baptism is efficacious. Different people of good will can come to the same words and find something very different in them.
Here's an example. You write:
The Bible says there are ‘many ways” (Heb. 1:1) in which the actual words of the Bible were written.It may say that, but not in Hebrews 1:1! Looking at the first verse of Hebrews I find,
(RSV) In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; ...I find nothing there about the Bible. I have been familiar with this text since I was 11. I translated Hebrews 1 from Greek to English 32 years ago. I never thought that the first verse meant the Bible, (there were prophets, after all, who left no writings) but had to do with the ways God communicated to us in the past. It included the Scriptures, but was not limited to them.heard," and this in one of the loveliest pieces of Scriptural meditation in the NT.
As far as I'm concerned this raises the issue of whether and how anything can be "proved" from Scripture.
Or, a person who refuses to join your church because he feels it is wrong???
I'm just trying to nail this thing down...
Absolutely no offense taken, it's a difficult concept to get one's mind around.
Let me use some hypothetical (and I stress the term hypothetical here, because again, no one but God can read a man's heart) situations to illustrate what' I'm saying. I think these hypotheticals will address both your questions.
Let's say Johnny *knows* in his heart of hearts that the Church is the one true Church founded by God (Jesus), yet still chooses to leave the Church for whatever evil reason (most likely because of some pride issue, like the Protestants of old seemed to do; they left because they saw corruption in the Church, and believed they could found a better one).
Then Johnny would have a problem at the judgement seat.
But let's say Johnny left the Church because Pastor Jimmy from some JW, Mormon, SDA, historic Protestant or otherwise Fundamentalist church convinced him, by using the Bible alone, that the Church was "pagan" (the worship of Mary and the Saints, Christmas and Easter, the changing of the Sabbath, etc), that the Church violates Scripture ("call no man Father", "Jesus is the only mediator", etc), and, through no fault on Johnny's part (he honestly tried to find answers to these questions: he went to his priest, but his priest was of no help, i.e., brushed off his questions, told him in so many words he was foolish for believing this, but gave no reasons to prove he was, etc, or, he went to the Catechism, and found no answers to the charges, or, he asked other friends and they had no answers) he didn't find any answers. Here, Johnny would be in a tough, almost untenable position: stay with the Church anyway, just because his priest told him too, or just because his friends or family would be hurt if he didn't, OR, follow his desire to truly serve GOD, and thus be forced to leave the Church. After all, if what Pastor Jimmy from the JW, Mormon, SDA or any other church said was TRUE (and since Johnny had found no reason to not believe Pastor Jimmy), then Johnny would HAVE to leave, or really, be a hypocrite when he said he loved God more than anything.
Now some things to remember here. The first hypothetical deals with the situation that is largely confined to the history of the 16th and 17th centuries. It is highly unlikely that someone, who is *convinced* (and that's the key word to remember in this hypothetical) the Church really is/was founded by Christ would leave it to found their own today. The reason it happened back then (and really the only reason it would happen today) is because of the sin of pride. "Pride goeth before the fall". This is a truth that is proven time and time again, in many different situations, but in this situation it also holds true. In this situation, the hypothetical person says (like the Protestants of old may have said) *in their heart of hearts* (another key phrase to remember here), that "I know better than the Church Christ founded. I KNOW BETTER THAN GOD HIMSELF". I'm going to leave the Church because of this scandal or that. These scandals prove to me that the *entire* Church is corrupted.
What such people forget, BECAUSE of their pride, (that is, their pride in themselves overshadows this fact), is that the Church was founded precisely to be a refuge for the *sinner*, and not the saint. Indeed, as Christ Himself said, He came for the "sick" and not the healthy. So it truly follows that in the Church itself, one would probably find the most egregious of sins and sinners, but this has no impact on the Church's ability to be free of doctrinal error, since a house built on rock (Christ, and His representative, His steward on Earth St. Peter), unlike that built on sand, will stand. It will stand in spite of the sin inside it.
But I digress. The point to remember here in this hypothetical (the first one) is that it was Johnny's pride in himself, and his own particular avoidance of the scandal in question (Johnny probably said to himself, "I never took money for indulgences. I never abused a child sexually"), led him to erroneously believe that since he never fell to that sin, then NO one in the Church should have! It is PRIDE that says to man, "The sins you yourself can easily avoid are sins EVERYONE should be able to avoid easily, and thus, if you find it in the Church, that means THAT church can't be from GOD!" This pride then leads Johnny to WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY leave the Church, even though he KNOWS its the Church that Christ founded. IOW, he believes it became corrupted at some point, because of his own pride in himself.
As for the second hypothetical, here I would say Johnny is not at fault, at least in the situation he finds himself at that precise moment. In all the sources Johnny checked to see if Pastor Jimmy was right, he couldn't find any reason to doubt Pastor Jimmy. This hypothetical actually touches upon the discussion you and I had about "reason". A reasonable man should not be afraid of the Truth, wherever that leads him. Thus, if Johnny can actually/honestly say to himself (something of course only the man HIMSELF, and of course God, can know for certain), "I have THOROUGHLY exhausted all avenues/sources of truth before me and I have found that the Church is NOT what it claims to be", then I would not only say he can leave the Church, but that he SHOULD.
Now this may sound shocking to you. Indeed, some of my fellow Catholics reading this now may be cringing, saying to themselves, "I can't believe 47 just said that!" A Catholic saying someone SHOULD leave the Church? How can this be, right? Well, this is because I firmly believe in what I said above, that is, that if one is REASONABLE, then one must not be afraid of the Truth, no matter where this leads one. Thus, I cannot reasonably say that in the hypothetical above, GIVEN the fact that Johnny did all he REASONABLY COULD to examine Pastor Jimmy's claims, that he should still stay in the Church, or that he should come to it. He shouldn't. As I said to you before, a man must have a "fact" to believe in something. A fact based on reason. A man cannot be denied his own reason for the sake of even the Church. It would be preposterous to claim otherwise, as it would be akin to saying, "You should be afraid of Truth" which is the same thing as saying "You should be afraid of finding God". (note, this entire discussion is assuming the man in question is a reasonable man, a man in possession of all his faculties, and not a child or otherwise burdened by some mental defect)
This is the key point here. One should never be afraid of finding the ultimate Truth, because this will ALWAYS lead one to God. However this NECESSARILY means he should ALSO be open to FUTURE CORRECTION. For if, say a few years after Johnny joins the JW's/Mormons/SDA's/historic Protestant/Fundamentalist church, he finally comes across some reasonable explanations for Pastor Jimmy's assertions, then Johnny should ALSO be willing to explore them, no matter where it leads him, even if it leads him right back (or into) the Church. He may be called "a fool" by the "wise of the world", for "only a fool would flip flop like that", but remember Christ said, "Those who are called a fool FOR MY SAKE, shall be exalted in the Kingdom" (paraphrased) (as an aside, the preceding three paragraphs is EXACTLY what happened to me)
So that's it. Hopefully that was helpful to you, I pray it was. The key point to remember is as I've said in other posts, "One must have full knowledge of what one is doing is a sin, for it to be a mortal sin", and indeed, only the man in question and God can know that precisely. To clarify using the hypotheticals, Johnny #1 is in mortal sin, Johnny #2 is not, as long as he continues to be open to correction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.