Posted on 07/13/2007 11:13:07 AM PDT by JZelle
Nothing stirs the blood like talking about religion. That's why it's taboo to talk about it in casual social conversations. Better to ask the boss's wife whether she ever considered a face-lift.
But Pope Benedict XVI is a man of firm conviction and blunt talk. Not for this pontiff the Vatican II tradition of warm and fuzzy, as the message of Vatican II, which put a friendly expression on the stern countenance of the church of Rome, has been widely interpreted in the circles of those addicted to warm and fuzzy. This week he authorized a statement of "clarification" of Vatican II, and to the consternation of some Roman Catholics here, the secular press interpreted the message to Protestants as no more Mr. Nice Guy.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The validity.
OK, no point arguing from scripture, then.
Proof of sin and man’s depraved nature is as close as your nearest newspaper - you don’t need scripture to see that there is evil in the world. But you appear to have posited that there are sin -free men: “God created us, individually...some good”. Do you have any evidence to prove that point? Can you point to one man created without sin?
I agree that what we perceive of as evil, is all around us...but I happen to believe that it is all part of God’s plan, mainly because He is the creator of all.
We would have to believe in the same thing to define sin, wouldn’t we? I don’t believe that man can offend God, as man is a creation of God, acting in accordance to God’s plan.
Even the most primitive tribes in the most remote parts of the globe know the difference between right and wrong. It's the 'civilized' western hedonists who try to call evil good in order to justify their actions.
Well, that's true enough. I think a lot of it has to do with people letting pride and self-glorification (i.e. "I'M going to win an argument and prove what a big shot I am") trump a legitimate zeal for the truths of God's Word. People need to remember to speak the truth in love.
No, it's not just my opinion. Your statement is quite incorrect for a number of reasons. To say that there has been "1600 years of careful review and study by many scholars much more capable than you or I" suggests that there has been some sort of systematic, objective investigation of what Augustine meant - the sort of investigation that has only realy existed in the literary and textual realm for the past 200-300 years. Later medieval Catholic theologians uncritically citing him and using him as an authority to a priori prove their own beliefs doesn't really fit the criteria for "careful review and study."
In more modern times, there have been quite a number of scholars (not even all of them Protestants!) who believe that Augustine's view was closer to the spiritual view held by Reformed theology, and that he did NOT view the communion of the body and blood of Christ as being any sort of "real presence".
I, in turn, would caution against "reading back" modern Catholic usages of terminology onto the thoughts and writings of a man whose patterns of thought were still essentially Greco-Roman in nature and training. Just because Augustine used the term "sign", and the Catholic religion uses the term "sign", doesn't mean the two have the same sense or meaning of the term in view. In light of the more direct statements I cite in my article from Augustine, I'd wager that he didn't have the Catholic sense in mind (though, mind you, I am NOT arguing that he had in mind the completely symbolic meaning that Baptists or conservative Evangelicals would use, either....)
Maybe transubstantiation is not apparent to you in many of the quotes (Augustine's included). But do we find anything so strongly against it as this?
Well, I would think that Theodoret's statement,
"....for not even after the consecration do the mystical symbols depart from their own nature! They continue in their former essence, both in shape and appearance, and are visible, and palpable, as they were beforehand"
And Gelasius' statement,
"Yet the substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease. And assuredly the image and the similitude of the body and blood of Christ are celebrated in the performance of the mysteries."
Would come close, at least in their rather direct affirmation that the bread and wine remain only bread and wine.
I think there is a difference between what many call sin and what we conceive of as evil, isn’t there? Sin, defined as I have always heard, is an offense against God. I think this is different than evil. You say that all men have sinned, but does that mean all men are evil? If you could give me your definition of sin, it would help a lot.
I'm not sure that it would, since that would get back to the Bible, which you don't accept. That's why I switched from discussion of sin and fallen man to discussion of right and wrong, good and evil.
But since you asked, I'll answer. Sin is a violation of the moral laws of God. And man is incapable of not sinning, because he is fallen.
But, as I noted, I don't expect that to further the discussion, as in presupposes things you don't believe.
You don't, however, have to understand, or even know, the scriptures to know that cold blooded murder is wrong. You don't have to call it a sin to know that it is evil.
So start with what you know is right and what you know is wrong. Now have you ever done something that you have to admit to yourself is wrong? Unless you are a sociopath, the answer is probably yes. And that is true of everyone.
Yes, I believe that many are what we call evil, I just don’t believe God sees good and evil the same as we do. After all, I believe He created us with a plan for each of us to follow, so whatever we do, must be part of His plan.
Pick your despot of choice Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Were their individual crimes 'good'?
Even when Christians understand from the Scripture 'all things work together for good for those who love the Lord', it doesn't mean that the acts leading to that end are intrinsically good.
Since the local church, as the body of Christ, is ultimately responsible for what it does with the Lord's Supper, for a church to allow someone that it does not know to be saved and in fellowship with God would seem to be placing that church in danger of abusing the body and blood of Christ. Hence, it is actually well within the interests of a local church to close communion in that local church to members of that particular body.
Remember, Matthew 7:1-4 applies to hypocritical judgment stemming from condemning another while being guilty of the same yourself. That verse is NOT meant to be taken out of context as a blanket condemnation of all "judgment". If it were, then why did Jesus also instruct His disciples to "judge righteous judgment"?
Of course their individual crimes were not good. You are assuming that God’s plans for each of us will end in what we humans consider to be good. I do not make that assumption, I believe that what we think of as good or evil, is irrelevant to God...I believe He is above/beyond anything we can assume.
The judgment I was referring to is what was talked about in 1 Cor 11. There we are told to judge ourself rightly it’s not about judging others. Paul did address the church but concluded by tell all to examine themselves. He could have told the church to refuse the Lord’s Supper to those in error but he caution all to examine themselves.
Matt 7 talks about judging others and I agree with you that it should be a righteous judgment.
Suppose I walked into your congregation, How would you know to refuse me to take the Lord’s supper or not?
Not being argumentative just never heard of church denying other the Lord’s Supper
Should a local church extend the Lord's Supper to a member who is living in some gross and open sin that everyone knows about, a member who may even be undergoing church discipline because of that sin, if that member has said that they examined his or herself and wants to take the Supper? I would say no. This is because the pastor(s) and deacon(s) of the local church also have a responsibility to protect the local church body as the Body of Christ (I Corinthians 3:16-17 - the "ye" is plural, referring here to the church body as a whole). If they do something to harm or dishonour that body of Christ, they would then be guilty of defiling and destroying that body of Christ - perhaps by negligently contributing even to the sickness and death of some members!
I Cor. 11 does deal with the responsibility of each member to make sure that they, personally, are right with God when they take the Supper. But I'd see from the Scripture also the responsibility borne by the church's leadership to protect the body and each member. Extending the Supper to someone is, as the Greek terms indicate, a fellowship of that local body of believers, with and among all who partake. II John 10-11 warns us against providing religious fellowship to, in this example, false teachers because doing so makes us partakers with their error. This is the extension of fellowship - a fellowship that most naturally exists anomg a local body who all know each other, and who are likeminded in the things of the Lord, in a church which is hopefully resting on and in sound doctrine.
Should a church refuse the Lord's Supper to everyone not in the body of that local church? I'd tend to lean against that. There ARE churches who do so - keep closed communion. I tend towards the "close communion" view - the Lord's Supper in a church can be open to those who are known to the church body, even if not members, if such are known to be true brethren in the Lord and don't have some gross and open sin that it is known they are living in. At the same time, given the contemporaneous responsibility on the part of the church leadership to protect the church body, I'd lean against offering the Supper to just anyone and everyone who happened to come into a service when it was being given - not because I want to be exclusionary or hard-hearted, but so as to potentially protect the body of the church and the pastors/deacons (since some may not even know what it means to "examine themselves").
This isn't an area where I'm very dogmatic, however. I know what I believe from the Scriptures, but won't go so far as to say that I know fully what the Scripture says on this issue or what the practice *must* be. I'll just through out my thoughts on it, and let others respond.
Hmmm...Theodoret’s and Gelasius’s statements don’t sit right with me....tell you what, I will do a little research on those and get back to you. I’m betting they are either a bad translation or in some way out of context. :)
I do think that this is a little bomb thrown in the general direction of what the media would call "right wing religious" folks. We're pro-life, and on that issue we are pretty much united, and the Catholic church has been more vocal re: the communion issue in regards to politicians who are pro-abort. If the media can divide those of us who are pro-life, Catholics and us Protestants, then they are just carrying water for the dems.
Point well made. I will have to study more which is always a good thing.
I personal would not refuse anyone, as long as the Church is partaking for the right reason, I don’t think we have the authority to refuse one to take. Same would have to hold for singing and all other aspects of worship. You would have to examine every visitor, Then refuse them to partake in any aspect of worship according to the verses you gave. If a person comes and the Church is doing everything in spirit and truth it’s then up to the hearts of all to be right with God.
You do bring up a good point about church discipline.
SuziQ,
I asked Is the Roman Catholic teaching on baptism that it forgives only original sin? You replied, I believe that is true.
My question to you is this: Has this always been the position of the Roman Catholic Church, that baptism only forgives original sin?
The Lutheran position has always been that baptism forgives all sin, past, present, future, original, etc. This is what baptism saves us from, as St. Peter writes.
Do you see the difference? Does baptism impute the righteousness of Christ to us or does it infuse us with Christ’s righteousness?
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.