Posted on 06/06/2009 8:01:57 PM PDT by Salvation
[I Corinthians 15:20-23] 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by "man" came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's "at his coming". i.e. the resurrection!
[John 1:14-18] 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. This was who He was prior to His crucifixion and resurrection.
Now, if you are a Oneness Pentecostal or Jehova’s Witness, then what you are saying is diametrically opposed to orthodox Christian doctrine and in fact, is objectively not even Christianity.
Well.....I'm none of those things....needless to say I'm neither a Catholic. What I'm doing is simply reading from God's word. What is it that you would consider in error?
Diego1618:
I understand you are reading God’s word, I have the same NT and read the same things. THe question is what does it mean. THe Scriptures don’t say anything, in that the Bible is not a person that can speak. It is the inerrant word of God, but needs to be interpreted within proper hermaneutical principles and in light of what is the faith.
As a Catholic, I firmly believe in the passion of Christ [shed blood], his death, and resurrection. However, Christ being the “firstborn among many brethren” is a statement about what Christ’s passion death and resurrection does for fallen humanity, rather than saying that Christ was born again, which you stated earlier.
For example, St. Paul in 2 Cor 4:4 speaks of the risen Christ as being “the image of God” and just before that, he states that believers in Christ will be “transformed into that same image” (c.f. 2 Cor 3:18). In another passage, St. Paul states that “he [Christ] will change our lowly body to conform with his glorified body” (c.f. Phil 3:21).
These passages allow us to accurately understand what Pope Benedict states in “Introduction to CHristianity” (p.234) that Christ is the “Last Man”, that is the exemplary man that is being taught by St. Paul in (1 Cor 15:45), that CHrist, as risen and Lord, is the “Last Adam” which is the example of a new humanity perfected by God’s Grace, which was part of God’s original plan in creation when God created man in the “Divine image” (c.f. Genesis 1:26-28).
So, as Pope Benedict notes in “Jesus of Nazareth, p. 334), Christ comes from God and he is God, but that is precisely what makes him, having assumed human nature, the bringer of a true humanity.
So again, I would encourage you to see Christ as a Divine person, who took on a human nature, but always had a Divine nature, and thus a person was born of Mary in Bethlem, a person died on the cross, and a person rose from the Dead. This person is a Divine Person, Christ Jesus, with two distinct natures, Divine and Human, yet still One person, who is Christ.
So it was Christ who rose from the dead, his entire person, and at those those who die with Christ will be raised with him, and which points to the resurrection of the body [affirmed in both the Apostles and Nicene Creeds], a belief which rejects the Gnostic concept that matter [body], is evil, and spirit [soul] is good.
Christ via his incarnation, passion, death and resurrection, came to save human persons, which means the entire person, body and spirit, which is why all of the post resurrection accounts speak of Christ, not a spirit and why St. Paul in Phil 3:21 spoke of CHrist conforming us to his glorified body and why St. John stated that in heaven we shall be “like him” (c.f. 1 John 3:2). All of this speaks to Christ in his glorified state, which points to us being conformed into the image of the Resurrected and glorified Christ, who is and always is Christ, a Divine Person with a Divine Nature and human nature.
**The original Reformers affirmed the Trinity without qualification. Thus Luther and Calvin, and the sixteenth century confessions of Protestant faith uniformly attested to the Trinity of Persons in God. But the subjectivism of the Protestant principles paved the way to a gradual attrition of the faith, so that rationalism has made deep inroads into the denominations.**
The “subjectivism” by the most radical fringes of Protestants too, also led to a rejection of the holy Trinity.
Hence, in New England, the great grandkids of the stern very orthodox Calvinist Puritans—formed the Unitarians and Universalists in the 18th & 19th Century. It was Englightenment rationalism gone mad—saying since we cannot COMPLETELY understand God as Trinity, therefore He/it (since they objectified a diestic type God) cannot be that way...
Simularly Thomas Jefferson reached the same conclusion—and rejected the Trinity.
Also at the edge today, certain Pentecostal churches (called “Oneness” Pentecostals, with a real ignorance of history—and a rejection of all but their own personal authority (reading the bible, by themselves))—are monarchical modalists (see the definition above).
Many mainline Protestants today, (Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, etc.) while maybe officially mouthing belief in the Trinity, according to the orthodoxy of their tradition—are functionally Diests however (a bit like Jefferson) who simply cannot accept the idea of God the Son, being involved with His creation—and becoming human in Jesus.
Of course this is a problem among all Christians today—the idea of the creator God being separated (and implicitly NOT a trinity) from the World...which of course is exactly the opposite of what the Church, tradition, and the holy scriptures teach.
I agree with much of your concerns—go it alone individualism—or a “me and my bible” mentality is NOT what the Church is about.
However, Luther Calvin and the rest of the early Protestant reformers thought so too—this is why these groups developed extensive creeds/catechisms (which agree on about 98% of doctrines, btw).
Submission to one man in the papacy—interpreting a whole boatload of historical beliefs (tradition) in addition to the bible though, logically, is no barrier to the subjectivism you rightly want to avoid. It does guarantee a certain amount of uniformity of belief, for sure, but, all under the direction of one man....who is certainly influenced by the times, like any other man.
This is why the Roman Church DOES actually change (albiet slowly...like a large ship) through time, bringing itself into very different conclusions than it past had...
100 or even 75 years ago, for example, I know of no doctrine against the just administration of the death penalty. Nowadays, according to devout Roman Catholics—following the teachings of the current Church (especially since John Paul—and after WWII) we are told that all capitol punishment morally is wrong...and one must oppose it, like we oppose abortion, to be truly pro life.
This just HAPPENS to be, on capitol punishment that is, the position of post WWII secular Europe.
This when, if normal intelligent people—IN COMMUNITY—read the bible, we find no prohibition on the just use of the death penalty by government—just as tradition has taught us also, down through the centuries.
So, even a large group as the Roman Catholic Church can have subjectivism—coming from the papacy—on certain issues.
"Every Catholic is "born again" at their Holy Baptism." (Statement made in post #24)
Scripture disagrees with that statement and unless you live in "Rio Linda".....translation is very simple. Here it is:
[I John 5:18] Douay-Rheims [18 We know that "whosoever is born of God", sinneth not: but the generation of God preserveth him, and the wicked one toucheth him not.]
I then asked, "How do you square your statement with this scripture? Are all baptized Catholics non-sinners?"
That was the statement that brought me to the thread. It's incorrect....according to scripture. John, very explicitly says that anyone born of God cannot sin.....but yet a poster (of your faith) blatantly says "All Catholics" are "Born Again" at their baptism.
Scripture tells us that the process (at baptism) is a begettal of the Holy Spirit.....and yes, we will be born again at the resurrection. Flesh is flesh and spirit is spirit [John 3:6]. Our Lord, Himself was proclaimed by God as his only begotten son [John 3:16]. He was not yet born again.....but at His resurrection was made spirit.....and was indeed "Born again".
So again, I would encourage you to see Christ as a Divine person, who took on a human nature, but always had a Divine nature.
So....basically, you're saying, "He had a leg up"....an advantage which helped him get through humanity (life) without sinning. If that's the case, then his sacrifice really doesn't mean that much........according to your interpretation.
To say one is "born again" is like saying a caterpillar claims to be a butterfly. Eventually, a caterpillar will become a butterfly....but they are not butterflies.
Diego1618:
No scripture does not disagree with my statement. My statement disagrees with your “personal interpretation”. As a Catholic, I recognize that that my “personal interpretation” of scripture needs to be consistent with the Ancient Creeds of the Church and the way the faith has been understood by the Church Fathers, and understood by the Church down through the centuries.
Now as for Scripture interpretation, I think I already responded to your statement about 1 John 5:18 and from the Catholic perspective, your interpretation can not be reconciled to who the person of Christ is and it does not in anyway reject the notion that it is through Baptism that God gives us Grace.
And I interpret the scriptures in line with Catholic hermaneutic principles, not my own. For example, in the CCC, we read as follows:
CCC 124 “The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament” which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.
Note above, the central object of the Scriptures is the person of Christ and thus everything in the OT points to Christ and all the NT epistles should be interpreted with Christ as the reference point. The Catechism continues,
CCC 125 The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.
CCC 126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:
1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, “whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up.”
2. The oral tradition. “For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed.”
3. The written Gospels. “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus.”
Paragraph 129 describes the principle of Typology, which is what the Church Fathers (e.g., St. Augustine) used when interpreting Sacred Scripture. The Catechism states:
CCC 129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself. Besides, the New Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made constant use of the Old Testament. As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.
The CCC reiterates the point made earlier about Christ being the reference point for the entire Sacred Scripture [OT and NT] as the Catechism states
CCC 134 All sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, “because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ” (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2, 8: PL 176, 642: cf. ibid. 2, 9: PL 176, 642-643).
CCC 139 The four Gospels occupies a central place because Christ Jesus is their center. So, the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition must be interpreted in light of the person of Christ, who by his incarnation, revealed God because of the incarnation, experienced the human condition, but was perfect and without sin.
Still, the Catholic Church uses the ancient Tradition of the Fathers relating to the Senses of Scripture [CCC 115-117], which are 1) Literal Sense, which all are based 2) Spiritual Sense, which includes the allegorical sense [Tree of good and evil], the moral sense and the anagogical sense. Typology is the key Biblical tool to come to the orthodox interpretation and allows us to see the Truths that God wants to teach with respect to Faith and Morals, which are what the Bible is about. As the CCC states {para 107}, the Scriptures teach Truth and quoting Dei Verbum from Vatican 2, “since therefore all the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures”
Again, the Catholic Church’s use of Typology makes sure we don’t make the Scriptures say something it not trying to say [i.e. things about physics, or mathematics, or economics, or modern science, or even geography] and that we interpret the scriptures with CHrist as the reference point. Typology thus is reading the Bible as a unified whole, with Christ as the Center. Thus the OT is pointing to Christ and Christ fulfills the old, and the NT epistles of St. Paul, James, Peter, have to be interpreted with Christ as the reference, and not the other way around as some Protestant doctrines seem to me at least, to start with St. Paul, and then try and reconcile Christ’s teachings in the context of what St. Paul wrote, which is incorrect from the Catholic perspective.
Regards
Believe me when I tell you.....It's not my personal interpretation. It's simply what the Apostle told us in Holy scripture. Let me show you the verse in translations other that Douay-Rheims:
Vulgate: [ John 5:18] 18 Scimus quia omnis qui natus est ex Deo, non peccat (does not sin) : sed generatio Dei conservat eum, et malignus non tangit eum.
King James: 18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
NASB: We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
Well....the Vulgate, The KJ, The NASB as well as The Douay-Rheims all say..........."People who are born of God (born again) do not sin".
Your Church evidently....from what I understand, believes that all folks who have been baptized into your faith (post #22)..... are "Born again"! Now.....I don't know of any personally, but I'll bet that there are some folks on death row in some prisons in these United States that are baptized Catholics. I'll bet they're there because they sinned.
Now.....you folks can dance around this issue all you want, attempting to justify your interpretation by any means available.....but when John makes the statement That "Anyone born of God does not sin" it should be clear to you that he is not referring to baptism......but the resurrection. In fact the actual Greek in [John 3:3] says this: "Young's Literal Translation" Jesus answered and said to him, 'Verily, verily, I say to thee, If any one may not be born from above, he is not able to see the reign of God'.
Now.....kick me if I'm wrong, but this sure looks to me like [I Thessalonians 4:16-18] 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words. and......[1 Corinthians 15:50-54] 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed (born again), 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality (cannot sin), then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
Diego1618:
Ok, I think we are on to something here. Yes, baptism does give one grace, but as St. Augustine talked about, extrapolating on St. Paul’s letter to the Romans in Chapter 7, even after one has come to Christ, one still struggles with temptation. If you read St. Paul’s leter to the Romans in the context that Taylor Marshall [a former Anglican clergyman who came into full communion with the Catholic Church] puts it, I think you see the Catholic position as in Chapter 5 of Romans, Paul talks about original sin [i.e. Mans fallen nature], in Chapter 6 St. Paul talks about Baptism as the solution to original sin and in Chapter 7, St. Paul describes “Concupiscence/Flesh”, i.e. the inclination to struggle with sin even after we have come to faith. The understanding of struggling with sin, even after Baptism, was the understanding of both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine and it is obvious that St.Paul is noting that he still struggles with sin “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but do what I hate” (c.f. Romans 7:16). St. Paul makes similar statements in Romans 7:20.
I think I see where you and I may differ. This all goes back to how Catholics view justification vs. how you as a Protestant view justification, which I think is the doctrine of Once Saved always saved.
Regards
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/06/romans-6-vs-romans-7-part-ii-original.html
Actually, I'm not a Protestant either. I fashion my beliefs according to the First Century Church of the Apostles. This means that I observe the Sabbath as well as the seven Holy Feast days as expressed in [Leviticus 23].
The understanding of struggling with sin, even after Baptism, was the understanding of both St. Ambrose and St. Augustine and it is obvious that St.Paul is noting that he still struggles with sin “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but do what I hate” (c.f. Romans 7:16). St. Paul makes similar statements in Romans 7:20.
We all struggle with sin and will continue to struggle with sin as long as we are flesh and blood.....and until we are born again of the spirit. I liken the begetting process (baptism) as a sperm fertilizing the egg. Then the process of gestation begins....the growing in the word and the commitment and service to Our Lord. After the gestation is over the birth occurs and at that point the "born again" individual will be like Our Lord.....immortal and composed of spirit. And as the Apostle John mentions.....unable to sin.
The Catholic Church affirms the teaching in the Sacred Scriptures which clearly teach the doctrine that Baptism is the normative means through which God gives humanity Grace, which saves us. Numerous passages support this doctrinal point (e.g., see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). These passages all point to a being baptized into Christ’s passion, death and resurrection, and thus a communion with God.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 628, summarizes this point nicely:
“Baptism, the original and full sign of which is immersion, efficaciously signifies the descent into the tomb by the Christian who dies to sin with Christ in order to live a new life. “We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life (c.f. Rom 6:4).”
Here is a fuller explanation on the Catholic understanding of Baptism
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1
In addition, the constant witness of the early Church Fathers stressed Baptism [quotes taken from Jurgens Faith of our Fathers]
St. Ignatius of Antioch writes:
“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply” (Letter to Polycarp 6 [A.D. 110]).
St. Justin Martyr writes
“Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’” (First Apology 61:14–17 [A.D. 151]).
St. Cyril of Jerusalem writes:
“If any man does not receive baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who, even without water, will receive baptism, for the Savior calls martyrdom a baptism [Mark 10:38]. . . . Bearing your sins, you go down into the water; but the calling down of grace seals your soul and does not permit that you afterwards be swallowed up by the fearsome dragon. You go down dead in your sins, and you come up made alive in righteousness” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, 12 [A.D. 350]).
St. Ambrose of Milan writes:
“The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins” (Commentary on Luke 2:83 [A.D. 389]).
St. Augustine writes:
“It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call baptism salvation and the sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34 [A.D. 412]).
“The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration.....by the Sacrament of Baptism, conformed to the death of Christ, they are also freed from the serpent’s venomous bite” (Also from Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin and the Baptism of Infants, 2:27:43).
“We say that Baptism grants forgiveness of all sins” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians [A.D. 420]).
“This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421]).
So it is the Apostolic Tradition and thus orthodox Christian doctrine that Baptism is the “normative means” by which God gives us grace as affirmed by both the Scriptures and Tradition (i.e. Teachings of the Patristic Fathers).
Regards
Thanks for the reply. I think your post is a good example of a common misconception among many Protestants (and other non-Catholic Christians) about what is commonly referred to as the “RCC”.
The Church proper has not been “subjective” over the centuries, not as far as “dogma” goes. There are no dogmas that have changed over time.
To that end, the teaching about the “just administration of the death penalty” must be viewed in such a light. First of all, the teaching against liberal use of the death penalty is not a “dogma”. It’s still a topic of debate, much like evolution. That is, Catholics are free to support or be against the death penalty just as they are free to be “for” or “against” evolution.
Secondly, the teaching of the “just administration” of the death penalty is just that, a teaching to clarify the position of the Church on the most ideal way to handle such punishment. Indeed, I’m positive (but don’t feel like searching for it now) in the Catechism it is stated that it is up to each sovereign government to decide when (or even if) the death penalty should be instituted. What is taught is that it should only be instituted if there is a “grave, immediate reason” to do so; that is, if there exist no other options, and also, other options would cause further harm to society. I believe this is a good paraphrase of the teaching in the Catechism.
The point is that the language used in the Catechism, and elsewhere where ever this is discussed is (I believe) intentionally ambiguous. It is intentionally so because again, this is not a dogma.
The larger point I’m making is that the only way it can be ever said that the Church has “changed over time” would be to point to a dogma infallibly defined at one point in history, and show that it contradicts another dogma. For clarity, there are very few dogmas infallibly defined through history. Most were in the early Councils (the Trinity for example), but a few occurred later, like the Assumption of Mary.
To further clarify (no pun intended), the teachings on the death penalty, and other controversial topics are not dogmas. They are clarifications, refinements of understanding of the original deposit of Faith. However, until a dogmatic decision is made, Catholics are free to debate such issues. This is perhaps the most important point to remember: Even if the Church were to dogmatically define the use of the death penalty as a “grave sin”, then that still wouldn’t be a “change”, since no dogmatic decision has been reached on that issue in the first place, in 2,000 years of Church history.
One final point as a side note, you may run into criticism for calling the Catholic Church the “Roman Catholic Church”. It is not technically correct to call it that, although most Catholics know what you mean when you do. The “Roman” (or Latin) Rite *within* the Catholic Church is the largest, which is why, combined with its derogatory use in Britain in the early 17th and 18th centuries, the name “sticks” even today. But it’s not correct.
The Catholic Church is just that, the Catholic Church with no “Roman” before “Catholic”. The Catholic Church has about 22 Rites in it, with the Latin being the largest. Just some helpful advice.
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.