Posted on 11/28/2011 8:12:49 AM PST by Salvation
Teach me, LORD, your way that I may walk in your truth. (Ps 86:11)
Sounds simple, doesnt it? I cant imagine any Christian looking at the above verse and disagreeing with its content. Essentially, it is a summary of our mission as followers of Christ. But exactly how does the Lord teach us His way so that we can walk in His truth? Even though we acknowledge Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, we still need a set of guidelines for making moral decisions.
The Bible tells us that the church is the guardian of the truth, but why is it that various Christian churches hold such radically different beliefs? While pledging loyalty to the Bible, many denominations have conflicting teachings on important moral issues such as abortion, birth control, divorce and homosexuality. Didnt Psalm 86 state that there is one way which allows us to walk in Gods truth? Can there actually be multiple conflicting truths?
In reality, the Bible illustrates that there is indeed ONE truth and that there is ONE Church which was established to help us learn and live that truth. Lets look at 10 Scripture passages that take us from point A (there is one absolute truth) to point B (there is one Church that contains the fullness of truth). Once we arrive at our destination, finding that one, true Church is relatively easy!
1. This is good and pleasing to God our savior, who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth (1 Tm 2:3-4).
According to St. Paul, God wants everyone to be saved and to know THE truth. It sounds good to me, but how can I discover THE truth?
2. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tm 3:15).
A clue! We are to look to the Church to discover the truth but which one? There are tens of thousands of Christian churches!
3. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming (Jn 16:13).
Theres that truth thing again! This could be another clue. If (as Jesus promised) the Holy Spirit really guides us to all truth, then conflicting doctrinal beliefs would not be possible. Doesnt that make a strong case for a single, authoritative interpreter of the truth? Could this interpreter possibly be the Church referred to as the pillar and foundation of truth in 1 Tm 3:15?
4. If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mt 18:15-18).
Jesus gives us a clue about the Church. He points to the Church as the ultimate authority for settling moral issues and He gives this Church authority to make binding decisions on earth. That narrows my search down a bit; I need to find a church who can teach authoritatively
5. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt 16:18-19).
Not churches, but CHURCH (singular)! This Church, founded by Christ, is built on the leadership of St. Peter (the first pope), to whom Jesus gives the power to make authoritative decisions on earth. This could be that Church that Im searching for, but I still need to look for more clues
6. Then Jesus approached and said to them, All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Mt 28:18-20).
Lets see Just before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He instructed the Apostles to carry on His mission by baptizing and teaching ALL that He has commanded. This is an unexpected development. Now Im looking for a church that presents the teaching of Jesus Christ and also utilizes baptism as a means to become a disciple. I thought I was getting somewhere, but now Im not so sure. Lots of churches baptize their members. I need to look for more clues
7. Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. He came to Jesus at night and said to him, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you are doing unless God is with him. Jesus answered and said to him, Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. Nicodemus said to him, How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mothers womb and be born again, can he? Jesus answered, Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit (Jn 3:1-5).
Wait a minute! Jesus told Nicodemus that no one can achieve salvation without being born of water and Spirit. It sounds like Hes referring to baptism and deeming it to be necessary for our salvation! Now Im looking for a church with a common set of beliefs (the truth), that is visible, can make authoritative decisions AND teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. Our list of potential churches has gotten a lot smaller!
8. I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died; this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat? Jesus said to them, Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum. Then many of his disciples who were listening said, This saying is hard; who can accept it? Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe. Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father. As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him (Jn 6:48-66).
Huh? Did Jesus just say that eating His flesh and drinking His blood is necessary for achieving salvation? This sounds like cannibalism! He must be speaking figuratively and probably means spiritual bread. Although, if Jesus was speaking figuratively why would this saying be hard and why would He let many of His disciples walk away? Wouldnt it make sense that He would call them back, explaining that He wasnt speaking literally? In fact, He did just that when the Apostles misunderstood His reference to the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees (How do you not comprehend that I was not speaking to you about bread?) in Mt 16:11. Therefore, we must assume that Jesus meant exactly what He said. If thats true, how is it possible to actually eat His Body? There must be a missing piece to this puzzle and its definitely worth pursuing, since it sure sounds like Jesus is telling us that its necessary for salvation! Stay tuned
9. Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me. And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you (Lk 22:19-20).
Aha! Now the words about eating His Body make sense and thankfully it has nothing to do with cannibalism! Our Lord didnt say that this REPRESENTS my Body or this SYMBOLIZES my Body. He said, This IS my Body. Is there a church that believes that Our Lords Body can actually exist under the appearance of bread and that follows His command to do this in memory of me? This sounds like the Catholic Mass and, come to think of it, the Catholic Church fits all of the other scriptural requirements, but it cant really be the Church, can it? After all, Catholics believe that they can only be saved by faith AND works. All Christians know that we are saved by faith alone
10. See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone (James 2:24).
It doesnt get much clearer than that. Could it be that the teaching of the Catholic Church is actually supported by the Bible? If thats the case does anything prevent me from recognizing that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ?
While there are hundreds of Bible passages that support Catholic doctrine, these 10 are among the best. If you are Catholic, you can take comfort in the fact that our beliefs are totally in harmony with these verses. If you are not Catholic, I invite you to compare the teachings of your church to Gods Word contained in these Scripture passages. I urge you to read them over, meditate upon them and ask the Holy Spirit to guide you to the truth. A careful and honest study of Scripture has brought many people into the Catholic Church.
“I guess you dont understand the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and all the prayer done there.”
You don’t think that prayer and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit went into the making of the Bible???
So how is the Magesterium less likely to be misinterpreted than the Scripture?
“Serious answer: Jesus said of and to Peter, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. “
So this statement is the basis of the Catholic Church’s claim to authority?
“Only you can answer the question about being bound for eternal life or eternal damnation.”
Again I am telling you Jesus Christ is my Savior and Lord, and I am indwelt by His Spirit. I know without a doubt that my future is life in the glorious presence of Christ for all eternity - not because of what I have done but because of what He has done. If I am not, and never will be Catholic, what does YOUR theology teach about my salvation?
“If you die with a mortal sin on your soul without having gone to the Sacrament of Penance/Confession and repented of it then it is your choice.
FYI, once you have confessed your sins and been forgiven by GOD in the Sacrament of Penance, God forgets that sin.
Do you know the actual words of absolution?”
So, are you saying that I need the “Sacrament of Penance/Confession” - presumably only in a Catholic church - and specific words of absolution - in order to be saved?
What if I have truly confessed my sinfulness and and received God’s forgiveness through the substitionary atonement of Jesus Christ - yet not in a Catholic church?
And Luther did not produce the KJV which had more than the vulgate as source material
"The Roman Catholic tradtion that Peter was the first Pope is fiction pure and simple. There is no New Testament hint that Peter was at any time Bishop of Rome. Nor did he ever claim for himself such authority as the Popes have claimed for themselves. It seems that Peter had a divine foreboding that his 'successors' would be mainly concerned with 'Lording over God's flock,' 1 Pet. 5:3."
So you could then show us the scripture to prove the bodily assumption of Mary right? Or was that a YOPIOS of some Catholic years ago that the rest latched on to?
Lutherans use the same enumeration as Roman Catholics.
But Eastern Catholics don’t use the Roman Catholic enumeration.
I think it's arrogant of you to believe that a God who is so wise wouldn't allow us to clearly understand his word that was written so long ago. You'll notice that Jesus didn't choose the sages of the day as his disciples....He chose ordinary men to spread his message - just as he does today.
It is not written in the catechism. So what are you talking about? It is people who turn evil that do it in any organization.
I'm not at all sure that sarcasm contributes to advancing a discussion and mutual understanding between Christians. I don't suppose for a moment that I'm wise, but I'm trying to reach out to fellow Christians to explain my faith.
...should I listen to a practicing homosexual, pedophile priest and trust in his word because someone claims that he is a "brilliant theologian" or "philosopher" or should I read the Bible and trust that God will give me the wisdom to be able to understand His word?
I would never listen to a homosexual, pedophile priest and I hope you wouldn't, either! But I don't think anybody has ever suggested that Augustine, Aquinas, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Council at Ephesus, the Council at Nicaea, and the other fathers of the church were practicing homosexuals and pederasts either. Remember that Luther himself was a Catholic and did not intend to destroy the Catholic Church or to set up a new faith, only to correct errors.
Of course God gives us some discernment and judgement. But do you not see that there is a fundamental problem if there are tens of thousands of separate churches and they all say, "We read the Scripture, we interpreted it for ourselves, and our teachings are right. Yours are wrong." They can't all be right, as they all believe different things. Yet they have all been relying on private discernment for their conflicting views. So clearly private wisdom isn't enough. If it were, most God-loving people would be on the same page about God.
Can I just share this one thing with you? Sometimes Protestants dislike the Catholic Church because of misconceptions about what Catholics believe, and why. Some Protestants actually think that it's the Official Catholic Doctrine that molesting kids is okay, or homosexuality is okay, or praying to statues is okay. And that's nowhere near the truth. If Catholicism said those things were okay I wouldn't have had anything to do with the Church either. So maybe it would be helpful to talk about what specific points of doctrine you don't agree with the Church about. We might find that we have more in common than you think. I'm not an expert, but perhaps we could break down some of the barriers of misunderstanding. Whaddaya say? I think it's arrogant of you to believe that a God who is so wise wouldn't allow us to clearly understand his word that was written so long ago. You'll notice that Jesus didn't choose the sages of the day as his disciples....He chose ordinary men to spread his message - just as he does today.
Protestantism is founded on William of Ockham’s philosophy and its application to the Bible and Christian faith in general.
Ockham’s razor simply says the simplest proposition is the true one hence the “Me and my Bible phenomenon.”
Sola Ockham.
The following is a Lutheran treatise, but it is almost identical to what Catholics/Orthodox believe.
I think this shows that being Biblical is in the eyes of the beholder.
The Theology of the Keys
I am considering joining a Lutheran church and have read extensivly on their theology. I find that it closely corresponds with my own but I have a question about the above passage. The Lutherans say that the “power of the Keys” gives the catholic (little c) church certain rights and responcibilities (such as pronouncing that sins have been forgivin) but I don’t see it.
Although you have correctly identified that interpretation as “Lutheran,” one can be a Lutheran and reserve judgment on that interpretation or reject it. It is not an area of essential doctrine (such as the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.).
The passage [Matthew 16:19] is certainly cryptic and assumes some familiarity with first century and Old Testament religious practices that most readers today don’t have. People tend to take inegmatic statements in scripture and build explanations around them that go beyond the bare bones of the text. Evangelicals point to this passage to support the idea that “church” is wherever “two or three” are gathered in Christ’s name. Mormons point to this passage to support the idea that salvation (exaltation) is only available through the Mormon church. Roman Catholics use this to support the teaching that the priest “mediates” between humans and God regarding the forgiveness of sin. Other groups use it, too.
However, I think the plain meaning of the text is more simple than that. First, since this was written before the establishment of what we commonly refer to as “the church” (subsequent to Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2), we can assume that the “church” Jesus referred to was the local synagogue congregation, which usually had one or more rabbis (teachers), a minimum of 12 Jewish adult males, and a maximum of about 200 members. These synagogue “churches” served their local neighborhoods (in a metropolitan setting such as Jerusalem) or local community (in smaller towns, villages, and rural areas). They were places of worship, teaching of the scriptures (the Old Testament at that time), fellowship among believing members, regulation of Jewish religious life, and as courts of arbitration in local civil disputes. As a matter of fact, this basic structure was carried over into the Jewish Christian congregations and Jewish/Gentile Christian congregations in the first and second century. We still see remnants of it in the order of service in liturgical churches such as the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod).
So — the issue Jesus addresses is apparently a civil or personal dispute between two members of the same synagogue “church.” As such, the synagogue church represented the people of God in much the same way Israel did among nations before God. We can take this as good advice for the Christian church as well.
Second, according to the law given by God through Moses, both criminal and civil disputes were settled using the principle that a party can prevail only if there are “two or three witnesses” to the offense (Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Jesus himself commended this practice, noting in John 5:31 that “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true,” not because the Son of God is a liar, but because no one should believe someone who claims he is the Son of God merely based on his claim, but on multiple unequivocal “witnesses” or evidences. He continues, saying, “There is another who bears witness of Me, and I know that the witness which He witnesses of Me is true” (v. 32), further noting that John the Baptist (v. 33), Jesus’ miracles (v. 36), the Father’s voice (v. 37), and the scriptures (v. 39). He returns to this them in John 8:14, paradoxically announcing that “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true” [since he has proven by other witnesses that he is the Son of God]. Immediately following, he refers to the rules of witnesses (8:16-18).
Later in Christianity, the apostle Paul commended the Bereans for testing his teachings (Acts 17:11), and warned the Galatians not to believe false witnesses, even if the witness is an angel or Paul himself (Gal. 1:6-10).
So — what does this have to do with Matt. 18?
In the context of correcting the sinning brother, the person sinned against has an obligation to go to that person privately to try to resolve it. If he unable, then he is to take “one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established’” (Matt. 18:16). If the brother still refuses to repent, then it is the obligation of the congregation (the “church”) to act as Christ’s representative is holding the sinning brother accountable, and then expelling him from the church if he remains unrepentant (vv. 17-19).
The Lutheran teaching flows from this understanding and places great responsibility on the local congregation for ensuring that its members are treated fairly and that unrepentant sin is inexcusable. When the church (more than merely the “two or three” witnesses required) judges someone guilty or restored, it is acting as Christ instructed it to act, and as God commanded both in the Old Testament synagogue churches and in the New Testament and historical Christians churches after Christ’s coming.
Lutherans are careful to distinguish that the “keys” — the power to “forgive” and “retain” sins is a derivative or reflective power of announcing forgiveness or judgment according to God’s standards.
Now, there are other aspects of the “keys of the kingdom” mentioned here and in Is. 22:22, Matt. 16:19, and Rev. 1:18. (There is additionally ananalogous passage about the “key of knowledge” in Luke 11:52).
The passage in Is. 22:22 makes a Messianic reference to a general custom in Israel and surrounding nations during the first millennium B.C. The custom was that the king, governor, prince, master, or head of household could give someone the power to act in his place in his absence or for certain duties. This “prime minister” or “right hand man” was given a ceremonial robe, belt, and key to signify his authority under the leader. When the individual with the “key” (and other items) made a judgment over his master’s property and/or people, it communicated and represented the master’s will.
The apostle John’s reference to Christ with the keys in Rev. 1:18 would have been immediately understood by his first century A.D. readers as a reference to Is. 22:22.
Likewise, when Jesus used the term in Matt. 16 and 18, his disciples understood that they were to act in his behalf and communicate his will through their own actions and words. In this sense, all Christians have the responsibility to communicate God’s will and God’s plan of salvation to those who don’t know it. We are God’s representatives, and individual congregations are represented by their pastors.
The passage in Matt. 16 refers specifically to Peter, and by inference to all Christians. We see from the book of Acts that Peter, representing both Christ and the church, “used” the keys of the kingdom in first proclaiming the gospel to the Jews (Acts 2), then confirming that the gospel was meant also for the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-25), and finally confirming the universal nature of the gospel, including the Gentiles (Acts 10). This is the pattern Jesus commanded in Matt. 28:19.
Of course, any _mis_representation that churches or Christians make are invalid since they contradict the will of the Master (Jesus Christ). We are told to represent Jesus, but not that we can act with authority outside his will. We are commissioned to announce God’s forgiveness and judgment, not to determine God’s forgiveness and judgment.
I really think it’s presumptuous of Catholics to believe that just by belonging to a particular church that they are the only ones who will get to spend eternity in salvation with the Lord. It’s presumptuous to believe that all non-Catholics will be banished to Hell. Nowhere does that rationale appear in the Bible. If you believe it does, kindly quote to me the exact chapter and verse.
Ooops, I'm sorry that I included the last sentences you wrote with my own words, I was not trying to be sarcastic. It was a typing error.
I do have to note, however, that Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles weren't exactly ordinary men! Oh, they were doing ordinary jobs, but Jesus looked into their hearts and minds and saw that they had what it would take to be His greatest servants and preach the Gospel to the world.
I agree with you. And so does the Catholic Church. That's not what's in the cathechism of the Catholic Church.
“I would never listen to a homosexual, pedophile priest and I hope you wouldn’t, either!”
Understatement of the year.
The problem wasn’t just with a couple of priests. It’s with an entire organization leading a flock, and that same organization at best was negligent and at worst were co-conspiritors in major crimes against children. I wouldn’t listen to anyone that would tell me what is right and wrong when those very people were fostering and enabling such hatred to go on in their own houses. It wasn’t a few people. It was. The. Entire. Catholic. Leadership. I’ll take my chances on trusting in God. The church came out at one point and said they were going to create “code’s of conduct” in relation to alter boys. Um... thought that was the Bible. Evidently they needed some priests to write it down and make it plain to them though. Don’t touch the alter boys.
The veil has been torn. I no longer need corrupt men telling me what is right and wrong doctrinally when I can see with my God given eyes and use my God given brain to know, without any shadow of a doubt, know that that church put children directly in harms way. Not a couple of priests. The entire organization. I don’t need their discernment on any matter.
I don’t have a problem with what Catholics believe scripturally as much as I have a problem with the way the entire thing was handled. Makes neverland ranch look like a safe and viable option. It’s remniscient of the hollywood actor saying don’t do drugs, then going back stage and doing a huge line off a hooker. I don’t care what the Catholic church has to say after that. They lost all credibility. Amazing how a reputation can take a lifetime to create and not very long to destroy. The solution wasn’t to move guilty priests and pay off the family(s). That is enabling and makes them just as guilty as the felons.
To me the leadership of that Church is no different than Congress. They ALL need to go yet they are all so hungry to hang on to their power.
Excellent article, Salvation! Thank you for posting it to the forum.
Hint ... the "church" did not cover up the abuse; individual clergy did.
Reminder ... The Church is Christ's bride (Ephesians 5:29) and has "no spot, wrinkle or blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Christ also stated that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church (Matthew 16:18) so how can the Church commit error? Individual clergy may commit sins, even popes commit sins because in the Church there are both "weeds and wheat" (Matthew 13:30).
Reality check ... Non-Catholic Clergy Abuse & Crimes
OK, ‘fess up.
Who added the extra keywords?
I only put in four. bible catholic, prayer , theology
KEYWORDS: bible; catholic; catholicism; christianity; prayer; theology; Click to Add Keyword
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.