Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I stop in for a visit and suddenly I'm dizzy. :)
From today's election news:
Both candidates are Roman Catholic. Landrieu supports abortion rights and Terrell is anti-abortion. Louisiana is heavily Catholic - 1.3 million of the 4.4 million people - and in the 1996 campaign abortion was central. Former archbishop Philip Hannan even issued a statement saying it would be a sin to vote for Landrieu.Sounds like my kind of guy! "I'm not endorsing a candidate, you understand (that could be deemed unconstitutional), I'm just letting you know what God thinks."
This seems to be the belief of most Catholics when we discuss our relationship with God through His Holy Spirit of truth, and I don’t remember anyone ever dealing with what we NC’s really mean when we talk about it.
I can only tell you how I believe, and I would love to hear from anyone who has a different perspective on it, RC or NC or others.
I’d like to see if I can explain to you and other Catholics, what I mean when I say, Gods Holy Spirit (or as John said the anointing) teaches us truths, and new truths.
As a child, I could never learn math by using formulas already developed by others and than given to me to use in solving other problems, I always had to start from scratch and understand the whole thing myself.
While in the WWCG, I found myself taking others word for why I believed certain things, and once I accepted their authority enough to trust them, I soon began giving the answers they had taught me, but I hadn’t understood them from my own discovery.
When the Church began to show how human they were, and how many mistakes they had made in doctrinal teachings and in their personal lives, I realized I had to make a choice.
I had to either follow the Church, and believe their teachings with out question, or I had to get back with God and the Bible, and allow His Spirit to teach me. That way I had no dependence on other men, but I would take personal responsibility for my own salvation, and put none on other men.
In regards to my saying that God leads his people into truths and new truths, I’m not implying that I’m learning new doctrines or beliefs that change the solid teachings of the scripture. I mean that God works miracles with us who are allowing Him to teach us from his word and through His Spirit every day.
First, God has to know that when we ask for help in understanding a matter, that if He shows us, we have to be willing to change and incorporate it into our lives if need be.
The excitement and closeness I feel towards God when He makes answers virtually come right out of the scripture is beyond words. To think, the Creator of all things loves me enough to take His time to sit down with me and show me things I could never have found with out a miracle is beyond words.
This happens almost daily, but in trying to remember just one example, a couple of years ago I was still dealing with Leviticus 11, and clean and unclean meats, and with Acts 10:15.
I couldn’t understand how God was able to cleans a Gentile who had always been unclean to a Jew, simply by pronouncing him clean. I had reasoned that since Jews would never be required to eat a Gentile, I could see how God cleansed him simply by telling Peter they were no longer unclean.
But trying to use this same reasoning to explain how a pig could be cleansed simply by God’s pronouncing it cleansed, just didn’t work, because the final test of a pig being cleansed, was not the same as a man being cleansed, since the obvious test was that a pig had to be eaten, where a man wasn’t.
I was stumped, and could find no way out of this dilemma. I thought to myself, God must not have cleansed the animals after all. Herbert may have been correct on this one, but since I eat very few pork products anyway, I guess I’ll just have to stop eating it all together.
I was about to wrap up my studies and put things away, when my eye was directed to one of the scriptures I had printed out from my search of the word “unclean.” I read the next couple of verses past Deut 14:19, and verse 21 jumped out of the page at me.
V- 21. Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God.
I asked myself why would God tell Israel to give contaminated meat to the stranger or alien, when it was unclean for a Jew to eat? Didn’t God care if they became sick and died from eating spoiled or contaminated meat?
I knew God would never do this to the Gentiles since he was going to open salvation to them soon, and then the Spirit of truth (Jn16:13) brought to the frontals of my mind, “THE MEAT IS ONLY UNCLEAN TO THE JEWS, NOT THE GENTILES.”
I realized there was nothing in the food that would harm anyone who didn’t believe it would be hurtful to them, thus, unclean is a state of mind for the Jew, it could make them sick because they knew they were going against God’s command not to eat it, not because it was physically unclean.
The strangers or Gentiles, had no such command, so it was harmless to them to eat.
Clean meats, could become just as unclean for a Jew as the unclean meats were, and both were then “unclean.” It always meant the same Hebrew word “tame”SHN-2931 which was the same for both, the clean which became unclean, or the unclean which God told Israel not to eat such as pork and etc.
It was a matter of ceremonial law, and had nothing to do with actual harmful foods such as spoiled and rotten meats that could actually be harmful if eaten.
Now my point is this. There are possibly millions of people who knew this long before I did, but this was “my truth,” as it was revealed to me and no one else in my exact situation.
I didn’t understand it because some Church gave me the formula in a missal or a tract or at a Mass or a sermon, I was given this truth by God through His Holy Spirit for my personal need, it will always be mine, regardless of who else writes about it or quotes it or discovers it for their first time.
God has given me answers to 100’s of dilemmas in my search for truth, and to me they were profound truths, which were all memorable experiences.
A Catholic can not build his faith in this manner, because someone has already given them the answers to all the questions before they had the need or interest to ask the question.
Possibly you will say, big deal, I’d rather just ask someone who has already done the leg work and take their word for it, then to go through all the work you had to go through, just to come up with the same conclusions.
If all Catholics are conditioned to think this way, then you must have other ways of being drawn close to God by using His Spirit in you.
I know there are other ways of using God’s Spirit, such as charitable services and helping in the Church, or visiting the sick or giving offerings, but for me, this is what being able to discern truth and search the scriptures daily is all about, and my faith is built on personal contact with God.
This truth is part of me, and I’ll never have to ask myself, what if someone down the line was wrong, or if God ever ask me how I knew my beliefs were based on His truth. IMHO :-)
JH
Again, you just don’t get it. You clearly don’t care to discuss this with an open mind. You’ve made up your mind that 2+2=6, and nobody will ever change it.100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.Now define "solely" and tell me where you fit in.You will note it makes no difference whether the magisterium has spoken or not. you are not trusted to interpret the Word of God!
What you are doing, is not only strip mining one quote and reading it out of context, you are now strip mining one word out of that brief quote, and reading it as the sole support of your “solely” position. You totally ignore the meaning other words, such as “authentically” have on that sentence. The sentence above means that the laity cannot speak finally on an interpretation, and cannot bind the rest of the Church. Only the Magisterium can do that. But you aren’t willing to accept that. Instead you put an interpretation on it that just plain doesn’t make sense when read with the rest of the document.
That is nearly always a sign you messed up in your interpretation, but instead of seeing that warning sign, and instead of listening to what actual Catholics say about their belief system, you charge right ahead assuming you are right and we are wrong.
News flash: we know what we believe better than you do. We know the Catholic faith better than you do. And when your oddball interpretation of one phrase conflicts with both the remainder of the book, and with what actual Catholics do and say, then you are being dishonest when you refuse to consider that.
As to defining solely and telling you where we fit in, I’ve previously explained that. You just don’t read so well, or you keep ignoring it.
You will note it makes no difference whether the magisterium has spoken or not. you are not trusted to interpret the Word of God!No, I don’t note that. I note that you have no idea what you are talking about, and you don’t have any interest in an honest discussion on this. I leave the field to you and your fantasy about what Catholicism is. I’m done with this discussion.
patent +AMDG
A Catholic need not “build” his faith in that manner because all of the answers are answered before he asks the question. It is only human folly (or perhaps vanity) that makes any of us think we have “discovered” something new.
I do not intend to be insulting (I certainly hope you have that impression of me by now), but I think you identify a real misunderstanding between the two camps and come at it precisely backwards.
It’s really pretty straightforward. If the RCC is not the “true” Church, then by definition many of their pronouncements are wrong, cannot be infallible, and any Christian who blindly follows them is in some measure of danger. Since no other “organized” denomination could be the single true church, it must be a nebulous body of believers tied by the Scriptures and by the HS. Thus, your confusion makes perfect sense.
If the RCC is the Church that Christ founded as His Body and the working of the HS is through that church then you present a logical impossibility. An individual cannot be lead by the HS to conclude a spiritual truth in conflict with Church teaching because the source of the two is the same and does not change. When the Pope speaks infallibly it is only because it is God speaking through him, just as God has done for at least four thousand years. It is not because he is somehow imbued with some extraordinary power to create new “truth” any more than we might decry a NC who believes that the HS has “led” him to a “new” truth.
You see, the confusion is not whether or not a Catholic can be individually led by the HS... of course we can. It is whether the HS would ever lead us anywhere other than where He has led the Church for two thousand years. You postulate a scenario where the HS leads a Catholic to a foundational “truth” apart from what “someone down the line” has taught. I claim that scenario is a “null set”.
Does the HS lead individuals to truths that are new to them that they do not even know the Church has taught? Certainly, and the experience is just what you describe for yourself, I recognize it. Does He lead us on topics that the Church adresses that are not issues of salvific faith (like how to handle a pedopriest)? Yep. Does the HS teach us individually on topics that the RCC has never even mentioned? Of course. But does He lead us about in dozens of contradictory directions to “new” “truths”? No. The journey is taken anew by millions of Christians each year, and may seem “new” to each of them (and is no less profound for being taken before), but the destination is (and must be) the same since there is nothing new under the Son. “Jesus Christ. The same yesterday, today, and forever”
This is not to say that those who disagree with the RCC are nor Christians, not saved, or not honestly seeking His will. It merely means that “fell short of the fullness” as you have no doubt heard it said.
A Catholic can not build his faith in this manner, because someone has already given them the answers to all the questions before they had the need or interest to ask the question.Well, this isn’t all that accurate. I’ve spent a great deal of time doing just what you did. There are some things we are called to accept the church teaching on, yes. On these things we should not reach conclusions contrary to the Church’s teachings. However, I have built onto my faith by reading the Bible on my own, studying it on my own. Every time I open the Bible I first sit and talk to God, asking Him for His guidance, that I may accept His Word the way He means for me to, rather than how I want to. I’ve even read the sections that relate to our dogma this way, though I have wound up coming to the same conclusions the Church has.
I guess that’s part of why I’m still Catholic.
If all Catholics are conditioned to think this way, then you must have other ways of being drawn close to God by using His Spirit in you.Well, we do consider there to be other ways of drawing close to God than merely reading the Scriptures, but they all involve God’s grace, as I don’t think man can approach Him without that Grace, that tremendous gift. We believe we receive it in prayer, reading the Word, as well as through the Sacraments, which for us are the primary interaction/prayer we have with God.
Dominus Vobiscum
patent +AMDG
Here's a question that came to me while I was shoveling show from my driveway. First off, let me admit that it falls somewhere (at least in my mind) in the realm of mental gymnastics. But I found it an interesting question nonetheless.
Which would be better for me to be: A Catholic who had grave personal doubts about the Immaculate Conception or a Protestant who believed strongly in the divinity of Christ? This is just for fun. There will be no grades given for your answers.
The problem that I keep running into with the statement "A Catholic believes..." is that your (Catholics in general) belief rests upon the idea that there is a monolithic true Church that is infallible. But if the people in the pew ain't having it, it doesn't really matter that the Church is infallible does it (at least to said people)? It's like me saying that socialism works in theory. Which of course it does. It's actual track record is somewhat less than stellar (please do not take that as me trying to associate Catholicism with socialism, they've done a good enough job of that themselves in Central America. Ok, that was me associating Catholicism with Socialism but it was too easy to pass up.... My apologies).
So again, when your system rests upon the absolute authority of the church (and you would point out guided by the Holy Spirit), it's only a nice little theory when the people in the pew are wrapped up in animism as much as the sacraments. Yes? No? This probably comes off as a bit too clever or none-too-clever but maybe if I keep repeating my idea in different ways some dim idea of what is running round my mind might make its way to yours....
I'm trying desperately not to separate doctrine from anything. Actions and doctrine are inextricably bound. If our doctrine doesn't inform our disciplines, doesn't inform our actions, doesn't change the way we relate to each other, then we might as well chuck it out on the trash heap. For it is rubbish. (Probably doesn't answer your question, but dadgummit that will preach!)
Having said that, I think Iowa is a better football team than OU. USC probably is as well. Playoffs! Playoffs! Playoffs! (All together now!)
At 1:42am ET?
Which would be better for me to be: A Catholic who had grave personal doubts about the Immaculate Conception or a Protestant who believed strongly in the divinity of Christ?
There's not a straight-line comparison to be made there. Would it be better to be a Catholic with "grave personal doubts about the Immaculate Conception" but no doubts about the divinity of Christ? Yes. But there is a certain hierarchy of truths here. One does not become "less-true" for being less important, but either person who doubts the divinity of Christ is in big trouble.
your (Catholics in general) belief rests upon the idea that there is a monolithic true Church that is infallible.
Not exactly. It rests on an eternal God who continues to communicate with His people in the same way He always did. Your belief system must rest on God ceasing to communicate with us. Or, in other words, an unchanging God changing.
But if the people in the pew ain't having it, it doesn't really matter that the Church is infallible does it (at least to said people)?
Does that analogy fit throughout Scripture? When God spoke infallibly through a prophet did everyone immediately change their beliefs and behaviors toward God? Or were there those who continued to act and say "his system rests upon the absolute authority of Moses (and he would point out guided by God, but how can we believe this?)." Isn't Scripture just full of hundreds of examples of God laying down the law infallibly through His church and the people ignoring it?
An idea is "running around your mind"? Isn't that animism? :)
You beat me to it. I was gonna say that.
(After knowing the results).
I’m done with this discussion.
I'm not surprised. You simply can't deal with those who question your all knowing.
Us Pentecostals are hardly cessationists. God continues to communicate with us through His word, His Holy Spirit and His church. We just disagree with you about the definition of that last noun "church."
While I'll grant that I did not state it very well, I think it is safe to say that the primary difference between Protestants and Catholics is the amount of authority which each group ascribes to the church body. Catholics see it as a reflection of the Divine Will of the Holy Spirit. (which is the point I was trying to make). Is that a fairer statement?
And this from a man who had been a vegetarian his whole life?
First off it's pure speculation on your part that Noah was a vegetarian. There is no biblical record of what he ate. I think the evidence is better that he ate meat.
When you use the argument that not all herbs were good for food, it was up to man to figure out which ones were and which ones weren't, the same way God allowed Noah to discover which animals were the best for him.
Here's an interesting fact:
"Wheat was thought to have first been domesticated about 8,000 B.C. in the Fertile Crescent, an area that crosses parts of modern day Iraq, Iran and Jordan. "
This is an interesting time period and area. Do you think God could have created certain types of plants, domesticated wheat for one, and instructed Adam and Eve on how to till and eat it? I know it's speculation, but I think it's more plausible biblically then people experimenting and figuring out what plants killed them and made them sick...
What green herb could a man eat, that would kill him instantly ? Man didn't gobble down everything that was green just because it was green, he tasted it first, or else he observed whether animals ate it or not.
Look at these verses:
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
God is specifically telling them what kind of herbs to eat here. The "herb of the field". The next verse specifically says "bread" which is made from wheat, a herb of the field.
"Herb", or Strongs number 6212, is defined:
From an unused root meaning to glisten (or be green); grass (or any tender shoot): - grass, herb.
So God didn't tell them they could eat any plant, but specifically grasses of the field.
I suppose that might cover a lot of plants though. Anything that is considered a grass, like wheat, barley, bamboo, etc. There might even be poisonous grasses..I don't know.
But God narrowed it down ever further in verse 19. He tells them they are going to eat bread. I guess we know what kinds of plant can be used to make bread. And since God didn't have to explain to Adam and Eve what "bread" was they must have already been eating it.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
So I just showed you that God specified what types of plants Adam and Eve were going to eat when they were kicked out of the garden. As he specified what kinds of plants to eat, he also specified what kinds of animals to eat...those that were designated as clean.
(After knowing the results).
And before ever knowing the results. Ever been to Norleans?
Ahhh. Pentacostal. I don't remember knowing that. But it makes for a good point that I've failed to get across well in the past. There are any number of people who are led by the spirit to believe in an active (and frequent) exercise of the gift of Tongues (or a form of tongues depending on your definition). There are others (a large percentage of the NCs here, I suspect), who feel equaly led by the HS that there is no such thing. Both believe that their sole arbiter and rule of faith must be Scripture, and for some it is a almost a salvation issue. It seems obvious that it is some "other" "spirit" that is "leading" one of you, right? If one is a true Christian, will the HS not guard against such error? If only God had left us some way of resolving these issues. You know, like when a prophet would lay down exactly what God was saying (infallibly)?
Of course, if your church is like others I've been to (and perhaps charismatic is closer) you have surely seen (and perhaps been given) the gift of tongues and/or prophesy. If God is actually speaking through these people are they not infallible utterences? But what if two get up and have "contradictory" words to give? Who is there to decide? And if they are speaking for God, why is it so easy to believe that dozens of people have this gift but hard to believe that there would actually be an office (the keys of course) akin to "prophet" that carries on that role today? Why would God stop?
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.