The Papacy and Islam

Bearean Beacon ^ | Richard Bennett and Robert J. Nicholson

[Alex Murphy]

Since the protestant wolves decended on the sheep, they've been divided 20,000 ways.

Earlier this week that number was at 30,000, down from a high of 1,000,000 in March (and 40,000 just the month prior). If we take your numbers into account, we've just healed another 1/3 of our divisions in the last few days (for a total of 50% of divisions healed this year) after enjoying a 25,000% growth rate in the first five months of this year alone!

[adiaireton8]

Saying that is akin to saying the Holy Spirit's main concern is buildings.

There it is: one must choose between "Church = buildings" or "Church = the set of all believers". There is no other option. :-)

-A8

[kawaii]

20000 is an old figure, maybe it is 30000 now.

Satan works fast.

[armydoc]

Yeah, but that was his own theological opinion. He wasn't teaching that as Catholic dogma. As I said before, I am free to disagree.

Nope. You, according to Paragraph 25 of Lumen Gentium of V2, are to "check your mind at the door":

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Kawaii is incorrect. The great dividing line is the Trinity which places all Trinitarian Christians in Scriptural distinction from the rest of the world.

So imagine an old Jewish man who has never heard the Christian gospel, but has worshipped God his whole life according to the OT. He then hears the Christians gospel and rejects it. According to your revised principle, his rejection of the gospel would entail that as soon as he goes back to the synagogue and begins to worship what he thinks is the same Being he has been worshipping his entire life, he has instead suddenly begun to worship an idol (i.e. some being other than God). Is that really plausible?

While I'm certainly on your side of the debate on this one, your example of the old Jewish man who was presented with the truth of Christ and yet still denied it is kind of troubling. What do we make of the following Scripture?

Peter says...

"And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.

But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled." -- Acts 3:17-18

Then John further explains...

"Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the father also." -- 1 John 2:23

And...

"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 1:9

From these verses it would appear that those without the Son, having once been shown the truth, are "without excuse."

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." -- Romans 1:19-21

Of course this raises the possibility that it might be better for the old Jewish man never to have heard the Gospel of Christ and then he'd still be "right" with his Old Testament God.

Which makes no sense, according to Christ's directive to make disciples of all the world.

Bottom line is that it is God who gives understanding and God who gives unmerited mercy through Christ's atonement of the fallen sinner. The best recourse is to do as we're told.

[kawaii]

the Greek of St Paul doesn’t translate to anything like buildings, at best it’d be congregations. This dog is straw.

The fact is that numerous remenants of New Testament era Christian communities (who were hiding from Roman persecutors) left behind a WEALTH of evidence as to how they practiced their faith and it’s utterly at odds with the protestant understanding (based on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of books written in that time, assembled by the Apostolic church [in the presence of the Holy Spirit] hundreds of years before angry west europeons decided they knew better than the church Christ established.)

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I meant to ping you to 205. I’m scattered today. 8~)

[kawaii]

Kawaii is incorrect. The great dividing line is the Trinity which places all Trinitarian Christians in Scriptural distinction from the rest of the world.

Invoking the Trinity and suggesting that alone makes you a Christian is no more logical than my dawning a Yankees uniform and sugesting I'm a pro baseball player.

[kawaii]

ping

[Pyro7480]

LOL! You’re shameless. The key word in that is “authentic magisterium.” Moral theologians have long stated that even the clerics don’t have absolute authority. They are bound to perennial teachings of the Catholic faith. If the bishops teach something contrary to this, they are not to be followed. Even St. Paul says in Galatians, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.”

[Alamo-Girl]

To be a Christian requires trusting those whom Christ appointed to be His Apostles.

I realize that many believe that the successors to the Apostles were always trustworthy and followed the Holy Spirit perfectly. And I thank God that they have the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, ROCOR and so forth - who trace their succession back to the Apostles.

But I do not trust men - not even wonderfully jaw-dropping saintly Christian men. Nor do I trust my own sensory perception and reasoning. As I said on another thread:

As for me, I have thrown all caution to His wind. I’m like an infant in His arms, trusting Him to feed me as He wills and lead me where He wants me to go. Thus I don’t worry about false prophets and religions, I am trusting Him alone. My fate is in His hands.

You may find that disturbing. That's ok with me. I'm believing God and trusting Him alone. I am His to do with according to His own will.

For Spiritual guidance and truth, I look to the Father's four revelations: in Jesus Christ, in the indwelling Holy Spirit, in Scripture and in Creation.

And for those who may be thinking "Aha, Scripture was written/compiled by the Apostles and successors" I say:

To the contrary, it is the Spirit Himself who authenticates to me that God is the author of them. He brings His own words alive within me: (emphasis mine)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. – Matt 22:29-32

[kawaii]

I realize that many believe that the successors to the Apostles were always trustworthy and followed the Holy Spirit perfectly

Actually we beleive CHRIST when he mentions that the HOLY SPIRIT WILL BRING THE TRUTH TO THE LIPS OF EVEN THOSE WHO HADN'T HEARD THE TRUTH.

[P-Marlowe]

Again, if you affirm that they "pay homage to the God of Abraham" and affirm that "they do not worship God", then you must think there is a difference between "paying homage" and "worshipping". What's that difference?

Good question inasmuch as the Catholics claim to pay homage to and venerate Mary. What is the difference?

I do believe that Muslims worship the one true God.

I do believe that Catholics worship Mary.

[kawaii]

To the contrary, it is the Spirit Himself who authenticates to me that God is the author of them. He brings His own words alive within me: (emphasis mine)

1Cr 14:36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1Cr 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lo

[HarleyD]

"...based on misinterpretations and misrepresentations of books written in that time, assembled by the Apostolic church [in the presence of the Holy Spirit] hundreds of years before angry west europeons decided they knew better than the church Christ established...

You can hardly blame us. We got tired of waiting for the Orthodox to write something down.

[Quix]

To be a Christian requires trusting those whom Christ appointed to be His Apostles.

I realize that many believe that the successors to the Apostles were always trustworthy and followed the Holy Spirit perfectly. And I thank God that they have the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox, ROCOR and so forth - who trace their succession back to the Apostles. But I do not trust men - not even wonderfully jaw-dropping saintly Christian men. Nor do I trust my own sensory perception and reasoning. As I said on another thread:

As for me, I have thrown all caution to His wind. I’m like an infant in His arms, trusting Him to feed me as He wills and lead me where He wants me to go. Thus I don’t worry about false prophets and religions, I am trusting Him alone. My fate is in His hands.

You may find that disturbing. That's ok with me. I'm believing God and trusting Him alone. I am His to do with according to His own will.

For Spiritual guidance and truth, I look to the Father's four revelations: in Jesus Christ, in the indwelling Holy Spirit, in Scripture and in Creation.

And for those who may be thinking "Aha, Scripture was written/compiled by the Apostles and successors" I say:

To the contrary, it is the Spirit Himself who authenticates to me that God is the author of them. He brings His own words alive within me: (emphasis mine)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. – Matt 22:29-32

I still contend that the above is the or one of the wisest perspectives and stances I've read or encountered from mortal humans of our era.

It certainly is closer to my own than I've often ran across--and it articulates portions of my own which I'd not articulated at all, before--much less as well.

[kawaii]

You can hardly blame us. We got tired of waiting for the Orthodox to write something down.

oh like what the new testament? against heresies? The Orthodox wrong tons down thanks.

[adiaireton8]

It seems to me that we have to be extremely careful when determining whether someone has "denied the Son". In other words, just because a person has technically "heard the gospel" and not embraced it, it does not follow that he has immediately been transferred from among "those who have never heard" to "those who have heard and rejected". What I mean is that there are different senses of "hear". Those who have ears to ear, and then reject, they are in deep trouble. But those who do not (yet) have ears to hear, even what they hear they do not truly hear. And so it may be the case that the old Jewish man in my fictional example, did not have ears to ear, in which case he remains (in the eyes of God) in the state of those who have never heard.

I think the Romans 1 passage is not about the Trinity or the deity of Christ, but about the existence and justice of God and the final judgment, which all people can know by reason and from nature itself.

I agree with you that it makes no sense to think that some people who would otherwise by lost by rejecting the gospel are saved by *not* hearing the gospel.

-A8

[HarleyD]

oh like what the new testament? against heresies? The Orthodox wrong tons down thanks.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Trouble is no one can read them.

[adiaireton8]

Invoking the Trinity and suggesting that alone makes you a Christian is no more logical

I agree with kawaii on this one. It really is arbitrary to take the first two Ecumenical Councils, and make their decisions the line between Christian and non-Christian.

-A8