Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Officially, never. The earliest document known to mention the "Catholic Church" is the letter St. Ignatius (who was appointed bishop of Antioch by St. Peter) read in 107 AD before he was martyred in a Roman arena in Smyrna (today's Turkey).
St. Polycarp, who was born around 65 AD (he was a disciple of St. John), and also martyred in Smyrna, also mentions the Catholic Church in 155 AD.
The name was apparently used to distinguish the Church established by Christ from various heretical groups who also called their gatherings as "churches."
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (circa 335 AD) writes to that effect:
Orthodox Church also refered to itself as a Catholic Church, all the way up to the Vatican I. The proclamation of papal infallibility dogma, however, brought further distancing and the need to distinguish the true or orthodox Catholic Church from the the particular (Latin) Church which strayed into error on this issue.
The term Roman Catholic refers specifically to the Roman Catholic Diocese, somuchso that the Cardinals are officially known as the Roman Catholic Cardinals, as each has a diocese inside the city of Rome. In the English speaking world, the term Roman Catholic became commonly used at one point, probably under Anglican influence which subscribed to the "three branch" theory of the Church (Anglican, Roman and Orthodox).
But, the Church is only one, both Apostolic and Catholic. All other Christian congregations to some extent touch, or share part of that Church, or are fully included in it.
Now, is Harley prepared to argue that man has the knowledge but cannot act on the knowledge?
I would argue that Adam and Eve did not have complete knowledge. They acted upon only that limited knowledge and understanding that they had. Given that God is the author of wisdom, knowledge and understanding and since what Adam and Eve did was obviously NOT wise, one has to conclude that God did not give them the wisdom to make the right choice.
Incidentally, Cain is cursed, which also would make no sense unless the entire mankind, fathered by Seth, is not.
I'm flipping through this stuff rather fast tonight. It's been a long weekend. I notice a correction to one of my statements about God not cursing man. I believe you are correct. I don't have time to go back through the posts but if memory serves me correctly I believe I said God cursed man in the fall. This, of course is wrong.
That being said please note the following statement:
Gen 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."
Those who are the true descendants of Abraham are not cursed. Those who are not descendants of Abraham are cursed. As Paul notes those who live by faith are Abraham's descendants.
Time is not a factor in a timless Church. :-)
Yes, and here's why:
Yes, and God was chasing after him, telling him, "Obey me". God could have simply controlled Jonah's mind -- which is the case of pre-destination you believe in.
That way, we can focus on the upcoming battle vs. our own society, the real enemy, in my opinion.
I hear you, brother and Amen! Well put.
Paul constantly was battling Judaizers who wanted to include all of the dietary rituals and circumcision as part of what was necessary to obtain salvation. Clearly, Christians heard them, as well as orthodox teachings. Elsewhere, such as Colossians, Paul seems to have been battling Greek philosophy. John and Jude also seem to be battling some form of Gnosticism, a corruption of the Gospel. Even in the very beginning, I believe we see that orthodoxy became very concerned about the TRUE message and that its contents would remain pure.
I suppose I never thought of gnostics as beings Chrisitans because I thought they were older (and how wrong they were). I thought similarly of the Judaizers, but when I just looked them up, it appears they may be considered "Christians". I had no idea about any issues with orthodoxy at the beginning. Thanks for the history and verses.
... and furthermore, it [the idea that Christianity fundamentally changed within one generation] doesn’t take into account Christ’s OWN words – that the Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth!
Well, the Spirit certainly isn't going to make any mistakes, but since humans are involved we will. The Spirit guides, but humans will definitely blow it. I think we would both admit that it has happened for each of our sides. By no means do I claim that every aspect of my faith (doctrinally) is necessarily perfect just because I believe it. I would expect to be found ultimately wrong on some things. I'm just betting they won't be huge things. :) Since God never promises us that we will always follow Him faithfully, it can be difficult to know what is correct when error is inevitable.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree about men forgiving sins. :) Your references to Mark 2 appear to say only that if Jesus, as God-MAN, can forgive sins, that fully human men should be able to also, if given the ability by God. I don't believe it was the human authority in Jesus that was forgiving sins, it was the God authority, which He fully held. This was the point and revelation of the story.
You did not address my point about how a person can forgive sin if he has not been wronged? If I hurt my neighbor, I hurt him and God, how can you (or a priest) forgive me? Both my neighbor and God can forgive me, but not another man. In addition, following Mark 2:7, why does Jesus rely on the truth of the "error" to show He is claiming to be God?
You quoted: “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)
Plainly, Jesus gave human beings the authority to heal physical ailments and forgive sins – in His name.
I suppose I would have to disagree that on men (who are not God) forgiving sins, the meaning is plain. I assume you are keying in on "unto men" (plural). Since the crowd had never recognized the authority of any man to forgive sin before, they must have been only been thinking of this one man. I don't see anything in this companion passage that even hints that other (non-God) men would ever be given such authority. How could the crowd have concluded that other people would be given this authority? They were starting from nothing and were witnessing miracles from one man, and only one man. Nothing in their background had ever suggested that "a man" could forgive sin. Thus, they were amazed.
Another Scripture that might help here is the following: “Is anyone among you afflicted? let them pray. Is anyone happy? let them sing. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall cause the one who is sick to be saved, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them.” James 5:13-15
In my NIV, the word "saved" is "well", as in being physically well. Are you saying that a prayer from a clergy can save another man? I don't think I've heard you say that before, but that is the only interpretation that goes along with the final clause being read as that the praying clergy (elders) can forgive sin. Also, there is absolutely no mention or implied requirement of confession here. This verse simply says that the prayer of faith on behalf of the sick man will cause his sins to be forgiven. NO CONFESSION. If so, then why does the clergy not simply pray for all who are physically or spiritually sick to be forgiven sin?
NO sacrament is ABSOLUTELY required to enter heaven. We are judged based on our love. We are judged on whether we abide in Christ or not at the time of our death.
OK, this is brand new to me, and I'll just take your word for it, and it's all good. I KNOW that I've been told by others that salvation is partly achieved through the fulfillment of the sacraments. I'm sure this has much to do with the whole "salvation by works" business.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, final salvation is ultimately determined by initial salvation, the (Godly) love of a person throughout life, and whether the person abided in God during life. (You see me licking my chops, right? LOL!)
It would appear, then, that we agree that a man must be first saved (we disagree on the means, but agree that it must happen). This is no big deal. Every Protestant I know has been baptized, and I don't know why every Catholic wouldn't have asked Jesus into his/her heart, etc. Second and third, we must have Godly love in our hearts and abide in Christ. We completely agree. My side says the ability to do this comes only from God, and yours says it is a cooperation between man and God (free-will). Is this a huge deal? We both agree that this is the portrait of an ultimately saved man before God. Isn't that the most important thing?
God bless.
I think I can rest on the intent part of my Baptizers, but I'm not sure of the formula part. I'm just trying to see where I stand here. :)
That leads me to this question: since I was baptized as both an infant (Methodist) and a believer (SB), how would the Catholic Church view this? Is it the infant one that "counts" as initial salvation (assuming formula and intent are met)? And, would the second one, as a believer, have any effect?
Well, I asked for a quote and you gave me a quote, so thank you. I admit I'm not learned enough in this area to even try to explain it, (although I do note the breaks in text and the fact that the source is unfriendly to Luther's views.) However, it is what it is and I don't know the answer. The idea is just so strange to me that he would so openly refute something so plain in the Bible. I don't understand, I need to learn more about this.
God DID control Jonah's mind via his circumstances. He made him obedient didn't He? If Jonah had free will God would have let him do what he wanted. Isn't, after all, the definition of "free will".
This is nonsense that is perpetrated from not understanding what Luther is saying. Catholics believe that man is not all that bad. Consequently they can "work" themselves into better and better situation through communion, pentence, indulgence, etc. Luther is saying that man is rotten and nothing he does is going to satisfy God. However, although we cannot help but sin we have a redeemer who has taken care of these sins.
Catholics can't understand Luther's comment simply because they don't believe in original sin.
FYI Forest Keeper, the Church always believed in the need for one (valid) Baptism (in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost). The 4th century Nicene-Constantinopolean Creed (The Symbol of Faith) specifically says that (in response to heresies): "we believe in one Baptism..."
Lutherans (not Catholics) exterminated a group known as Anabaptists who preached and practiced two baptisms.
And you are so darn ignorant, it's not even funny! Please check your facts.
Are you serious, or are you insulting everyone on this forum?
Free will is the ability to make free choices; to make a decision not based on necessity, as animals do; to decide based on intellect. Forced decisions are not free, HD.
If you want to go one way and I put a gun to your head and say "no, the other way," and you change your mind, is that a free decision of a forced decision?
OK, this is a new idea for me. First, I am never one to throw cold water on being "moved to do" something, it happens to all of us, all the time. Whenever I think of "moved to do", I think of moved by God. If I was only moved by my free will personal choice, independent of God, then it certainly would be subject to being sin, yes? Does God move people to pray to not Him, but rather to a dead person for intercession between the one who is praying and God? I can't get passed this. Why would God reroute a prayer He deserves? We both know He can handle the volume. :)
At any rate, intercessory prayer is just another form of worshiping God, by Whose sovereign grace the saints were elected, and for Whose sovereign grace we plea.
A good example of intercessory prayer is the miracle at Cana where the servant addresses Mary and she intercedes for him with Christ.
I see these two ideas as potentially conflicting with one another. When I think of a "prayer", I generally think of two kinds. One is a worship-type prayer, with worship, praise, confession, supplication, etc. The other is a type of prayer one might hear in a courtroom: "I pray the court will take judicial notice of such and such". The latter is simply a fancy way of making a request.
Your first example is identified as being an intercessory worshiping prayer. However, the second does not appear to be so both because it is not even clear that Mary fully knew the divinity of Jesus at that time because of her language, and also that it may not have been an intercession by Mary at all.
The only knowledge I have of the miracle at Cana is found in John 2. Here it is:
John 2:1-9a : "1 On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, 2 and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine." 4 "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come." 5 His mother said to the servants, "Do whatever he tells you." 6 Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to the servants, "Fill the jars with water"; so they filled them to the brim. 8 Then he told them, "Now draw some out and take it to the master of the banquet." They did so, 9 and the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew...."
From my NIV, we see no evidence that anyone approached Mary about the wine problem and that she interceded. Further, Mary only says: "They have no more wine.". Nothing else to Jesus. Is this an intercessory prayer?
Back to Mary's state of mind, since this was the first miracle of Jesus, did Mary really think Jesus was going to snap His fingers and magically produce more wine? Or, did Mary perhaps believe that in all His wisdom, Jesus could procure more wine through conventional means? As far as we know for sure, Mary had never seen Jesus perform a miracle along the lines of altering matter. It seems an odd place to expect to see it for the first time.
Maybe I could understand better if I knew what a typical intercessory prayer looked like. Of keen interest to me is how it ends. My prayers always end along the lines of "...and in Jesus' name I pray, Amen". Is there a Church-decreed structural difference along this line in how you pray to a saint and how you pray to God directly?
Are you familiar with the parable of an unmerciful debtor? His debts are forgiven because of his plea for mercy and he is released from slavery. That is salvation by faith granted by Christ. Next, through his own lack of mercy he is condemned again. But the second time he is condemned till his debt is paid in full. ... Thus, the second condemnation is temporary and does not negate the absolute pardon received initially. The second condemnation is to prison, which suggests lack of will, i.e. death. This parable described the intermediate state of payment of debt, or purification, which the Catholics (but not the Orthodox) call purgatory.
I am familiar with it, but until you brought it up I never would have thought this was a basis for the idea of purgatory. (All that means is that I don't know much about purgatory :) Sorry for the length, but here is the passage:
Matt. 18:23-35 : 23 "Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt. 26 "The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' 27 The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
28 "But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. 29 "His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.' 30 "But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
32 "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34 In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35 "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
I read this as God imposing upon us the importance of our forgiving the sins of others against us. Everything in the Lord's prayer is actually very important, etc. The whole thing was Jesus' answer to Peter's question of how often should he forgive. I don't see how a purgatory extension is reasonably drawn here.
To address your analysis, how do you get salvation from a guy begging for the lives of himself and his family to avoid all of them being sold into (further?) slavery? All he said was "please, give me a break." He didn't show any sort of faith, how is this salvation?
The other thing is, why do you think the second condemnation was only temporary? He was thrown in prison to be tortured until his debts were paid, right? How many debts is he going to be able to pay while being tortured in prison? It seems to me like this was more of a permanent condemnation, and that this guy was never getting out. Jesus says this is the fate of anyone who does not forgive his brother. All the better to make the point to us, etc.
Well, that was a poor way to state it. That's what I get for posting before coffee.
Catholics and Orthodox believe in original sin but not that man is corrupted; just that he is seperated from God's grace. Man is in "neutral" position. God has to show man the "good" position whereby man cooperates with God.
Luther and Protestants believe man is not in a neutral position but is dead to sin; constantly doing the wrong thing. Men can't help themselves because they will always choose wrong. This is what is know as bondage of the will.
This condition makes man "evil" in the sight of God. God must spiritually change man's corrupted spiritual nature with a "new heart and spirit" that desires to follow God.
While I indeed misspoke, I never saw from you an explanation of the many times our Lord Jesus specifically call men "evil". This, of course, is incomprehensible in the soteriology of "free will" and God loves mankind nonsense. Instead the Orthodox and Catholics have invented a "man is neutral" before God which is a completely false doctrine. But that's where many are heading these days including Protestants.
Yep. That's the situation isn't it? Jonah had the "free will" to do what God wanted or sit in the belly of the fish. He thought about it for three days and he used his "free will" to finally decide that he'd go to Nineveh. If you want to say Jonah wasn't "force" I think that would be a bit of a stretch.
LOL! Now come on, Kosta. You know I wasn't accusing you of making anything up. I just said that what you said didn't match what I thought I knew about Luther, so I asked for a source. Even after Annalex gave it to me, I admitted that I couldn't explain it. Such a statement (that we should "sin boldly"), unexplained and by itself, is certainly not something I would stand behind.
Luther figured that since we are slaves to sin, we shouldn't even try to not sin. He excused our sin! By denying the free will, he did exactly what Adam did -- arrogantly transferred the responsibility for our disobedience and ingratitude to God on God! So, he said, since God made me a sinner, I will boldly continue to sin, but as long as I give all the credit to God for my sin, He will save me. Truly grotesque!
I would agree that in our natural born state we are slaves to sin. I would add that in such a state, our natural choice will be to sin, and so we will in abundance. Thus, we are not free to do good in God's eyes, because we do not possess the ability or nature to do so. Only through regeneration are we able to do what is pleasing to God.
I do not think I am breaking any new Protestant ground here. However, your account of Luther is nothing like this. If your account of his core theology is fair, then I would suggest that he does not have many followers today. I do not know anyone now, nor have I ever heard of anyone in my "church world" who believes that God is to blame for our sin and that we can sin all we want after salvation because we are forgiven. "We" simply do not believe this at all.
The Ever-Virgin Mary, Mother of God, lived without sin. She was not some God-made robot, but a mortal human being who chose not to sin. Which is why the Protestants consider her just another woman in the Bible! ...
I know, you will come out with another quote, such as "none is righteous, not one..." but when we accept God we are, and what we do with the faith with our talents makes us less than equal when it comes to achieving the likeness of Christ.
We don't think Mary was just another woman, we say she was very favored by God. Our view of Mary has nothing to do with what she chose, it has to do with that she was, in fact, human. You are right about my quote: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". :) Since Jesus can't fall short of Himself, a pass is implied. But Mary does not receive such a pass according to scripture. Now, it sounds like you may be hinting that Mary chose to not sin after she was saved (when we are saved we are righteous). Now while there is absolutely no evidence of it in the Bible, I might be able to hang with you for a little bit, at least in the theory of possibility. Is this your position? Therefore, did Mary sin before she was saved?
I agree that God gives man the ability to repent. But it doesn't follow that man WILL repent - if God "forces" a man to repent, then the man is not repenting. Yet, God tells us "{You} Repent and believe the Gospel". I can't fully explain it, either, but I see an interaction that totally depends on God. To say that man comes to God without God is Pelagianism.
I have no problem in reconciling "free will" verses simply because I can say that man does have that commandment of God but is unable to exercise the will to do the commandment until God gives him the power.
You statement is quite in line with Catholic teaching and what we have been saying here for weeks now.
Regards
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.