THE AMAZING GIFT OF THE PRIESTHOOD

Catholic Dossier ^ | 1998 | Father Kenneth Baker, S.J.

[William Terrell]

I don't have red letters in my Bible.

Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple? The point is that one prays to God and not to any other entity, not to them or through them. Jesus was clear.

[William Terrell]

I'm sure it would seem so to those who get their doctrine from priests and preachers instead of the Bible.

[Patriotic1]

I pray to God the Father, as Jesus directly instructed us to. I pray in His name though.

[newgeezer]

I don't have red letters in my Bible.

The point was, following your "original" vs. "second and third hand" logic, you would logically hold the quotes attributed to Jesus by Matthew and John are more accurate and authoritative than those recorded by Mark and Luke because chances are, Mark and Luke weren't there to hear Him with their own ears. And besides, who's to say any of their four human memories are good enough to quote Him accurately?

Do you hold with the original teaching of the Gospel from the source, or the disciple?

I hold to the original teaching of the Gospel from THE source, the complete and perfect revelation of God in His Word, the Holy Bible. Whether a word came from Christ's mouth or Paul's pen makes absolutely NO difference. ALL of the written Word came by the Holy Spirit.

If someone doesn't believe that, what possible basis does such a person have for believing the words attributed to Christ were actually His? That person might as well view the Bible as a book of good stories and general guidelines for good living. "Truth" it isn't, because it was ALL written by imperfect men. And that's not just wrong, it's truly sad to think any professing believer could think that way.

[William Terrell]

Don't you think that among the multitude that heard the sermon on the mount, there would have been a number of them that actually remembered what He said?

Jesus also taught His disciples to pray in the same manner as He taught the people.

Think about it. If God is, and knows each sparrow that falls, He will already know what the needs and desires of your heart are. The Lord's Prayer glorifies, exalts and praises God, with your faith that He knows these things.

I think the words of Jesus are more authoritative than those of Paul.

The communications of Gospel is really few, very simple and straightforward. The New Testament renders those few simple concepts through the mouths of many, the rest being heroic stories giving the concepts background and impetus to be taught, and the results of faith and belief in them and their Author.

[newgeezer]

I think the words of Jesus are more authoritative than those of Paul.

Given that you don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, I couldn't care less about anything else you might say on the subject.

[William Terrell]

Given that you don't consider the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, I couldn't care less about anything else you might say on the subject.

Then why even respond?

I think the Bible is the word of God; I don't think superfluous details are holy one way or another.

[newgeezer]

Then why even respond?

Curiosity.

I think the Bible is the word of God

Apparently only those parts you deem worthy on any given day.

[William Terrell]

I don't think superfluous details are holy one way or another.

[DragoonEnNoir]

But can you not see that, within the context you cite, that the 'nugget' of truth that the lamb had been sacrificed from the foundation of the world?

I love finding nuggets of truth in the midst of scripture. There are many nuggets for eyes that are open to see. Agreed that that this is a choice nugget, but I think you build far too great an edifice on so isolated a nugget.

To say that "if we look at Rev 13:8, we, in fact, can see that the ongoing sacrifice from the foundation of the world is brought, by the power of the Holy Spirit, down from Heaven onto the altar... the priest, acting in persona Christi, offers the body of Christ, made present in the appearance of bread and wine, to the Father.", cannot be supported merely by Rev 13:8. The passage says nothing of the Holy Spirit empowering priests, nothing justifying persona Christi, and so on down the list.

It is clear that Christ's sacrifice shakes all creation throughout time, but especially in the face of repeated passages in Hebrews, I think it is clear that the Crucifixion was a one time event that was/is both all sufficient and not repeatable, either by another Christ or persona Christi.

Nor did he (Christ) enter heaven to offer himself again and again , the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the age to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:25-26).

Note that it says to 'do away' with sin. Not to weaken it, to partially remove it or any half measure. Christ completed the victory there.

It is finished (John 19:30).

In regards to Col 1:24; I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regards to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. First of all, what a beautiful passage. I cannot fathom those who criticize Paul for being arrogant or self serving. In his writing I find humility, self sacrifice, and a love that seeks to honor Christ.

For some people, even the news of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient. For some people, they demand 'proof' beyond even that act of love. In nations throughout the world, the self sacrifice and afflictions suffered by our Brothers and Sisters in Christ (here in the sense of all who call upon His name), provide continuing witness to who Jesus was and is.

This can be seen in the context of Paul's paragraph, which closes with I labor, struggling with all his energy, which so powerfully works within me (Col 1:29).

In nation after nation, the body of Christ grows in the rich soil fertilized by the blood of those who have suffered and died with Christ upon their lips.

[newgeezer]

I don't think superfluous details are holy one way or another.

That's just it. You presume to declare not only the existence of what you call superfluous details in Scripture, but also the ability to discern which details qualify as such. In fact, anyone who regularly and repeatedly reads the Bible will tell you it often happens some parts which previously seemed "superfluous" became quite meaningful in their subsequent readings.

ALL of Scripture was written by fallible men through the direct and perfect inspiration of one Holy Spirit. His active role ensures the perfection of the written word of God. Your previously stated belief that the words attributed to Jesus are more authoritative than the rest is not only ridiculously arbitrary, it's flatly unbiblical. One must conclude you deny the role of the Holy Spirit in the authorship of Scripture.

The bottom line is you deny the inerrancy of the Bible. That's an awfully slippery slope.

[William Terrell]

Superfluous details are those elements that are neither here nor there in spreading the doctrines of the Gospel and the elemental principles of those doctrines. They are all throughout the acts and the letters. They are those descriptions and parts that can be removed or changed that make no difference to the teaching of the Gospel at all.

[newgeezer]

God must be so very happy to see the vaunted William Terrell has pronounced final judgment on the absolute triviality of certain parts of His Holy (or, in Mr. Terrell’s judgment, not so holy) Word.

/sarc

[William Terrell]

The Gospel as taught by Jesus is clear. Your response to God and your relationship with Him defined by the Gospels is clear. All the stories are to reinforce your belief in them and faith in their application to your life.

What you're talking about is literal legalism. Jesus had negative opinions of that approach by the Sanhedrin. I think it wise to not repeat those mistakes.

The Gospel is about beliefs and things to do in your personal life to seek and find the kingdom of God, how you must think, how you must act and how you must feel in your heart.

That is the God inspired nature of the New Testament. Who, for instance, was named as a replacement for Judas has only historical meaning and does not advance the Gospel. If you think it does, I'd be interested in why your think it does.

God gave us all a brain. I would assume He thinks we ought to use it.

[newgeezer]

What you're talking about is literal legalism.

I fail to see how my staunch belief in the inerrancy and the living nature of the word of God could be termed, "legalistic."

Who, for instance, was named as a replacement for Judas has only historical meaning and does not advance the Gospel. If you think it does, I'd be interested in why your think it does.

First of all, it sounds as if you believe "advancing the Gospel" is the believer's sole purpose in life. It's not. Regardless, the mere suggestion that one could have any sort of a litmus test to determine that a passage of Scripture is "superfluous" is absolutely disgusting.

Secondly, your personal pronouncement that anything found in God's word "does not advance the Gospel"—much worse, that it has "only historical meaning"—is terribly presumptuous. In doing so, you deny the divine authorship of the Bible, making it out to be nothing more than another simple, shallow, dead book written by just another bunch of simple human authors. If God the Holy Spirit wishes to use the account of choosing Matthias to advance His gospel, He can and will do it.

God gave us all a brain. I would assume He thinks we ought to use it.

Yes, but not to the extent of denying God His rightful place. The Bible contains a number of examples of people using their brains to do just that.

But, again, given how you previously denied the inerrancy of the Bible, there's really no point in my discussing its finer points with you. It seems we might as well be talking about the usefulness of the Koran.

[William Terrell]

I fail to see how my staunch belief in the inerrancy and the living nature of the word of God could be termed, "legalistic."

I cal it legalistic when there is the demand to follow details unnecessary to spread the Gospel and it principles to humankind.

Regardless, the mere suggestion that one could have any sort of a litmus test to determine that a passage of Scripture is "superfluous" is absolutely disgusting.

Then what value is the passages that tell of who would succeed Judas have to teaching mankind the principles of thought, belief and behavior necessary to seek and find the kingdom of God and its salvation?

If God the Holy Spirit wishes to use the account of choosing Matthias to advance His gospel, He can and will do it.

OK, then how does it? Don't put all this on God. There is and has always been human agency.

Yes, but not to the extent of denying God His rightful place.

Who is denying God His rightful place? His kingdom is within as Jesus said. The Gospels contains, not consists of the way to seek and find that kingdom. The New Testament contains stories of man's efforts to spread the Gospel, and the principles of the Gospel, and the results in the lives of those people as they seek the kingdom and teach others.

The teachings related to the seeking and finding of God and his law are divinely inspired, not every "if", "and" and "the" used to tell the story of that of that seeking.

[Salvation]

in persona Christus

[Salvation]

Thanks.