Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Well, then who are "saints" to Catholics? We say any saved person. You said that saints can be in purgatory, which leads me to think that Catholic saints are more than "the famous ones". Also, do you disagree that the passage in Romans 8 refers only to living people on earth? The context seems clear to me.
Rom. 8:26-27 : "26 In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will."
Amen.
See Gail Riplinger's latest work on the language of the King James Bible.
Amen.
Likewise to you and your loved ones.
Actually several of my closes relatives when I was growing up were Roman Catholics. I never heard any anti-Rome propaganda and actually admired their strict adherence to Catholic teaching. It really wasn't until I got out on this board that I discovered the wacky ideas Catholics have. ;O)
Well, in your case and FK's, I don't see that level of "let's be against it BECAUSE the Papacy supports it!", that's why I pinged you!
Ah, I think our terms are getting confused again. "Being saved" has different meanings to us, correct? To you, it is that first turning to Christ, during Baptism/sinner's prayer. To me, that is secondary - being saved is a life-long process that doesn't end until we achieve heaven. Thus, when I see the Sermon, from my vantage, it DOES talk about salvation.
Note Matt 5:20 again, looking at it from my point of view on salvation: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Throughout the Sermon, Jesus tells us what sort of loving actions should proceed from us (while abiding in Christ) for us to see eternal life. Again, we don't see salvation as a done deed because of our Baptism. Scripture clearly tells us we can fall away into our former lifestyles. Peter says "return to the vomit"...
I actually like the idea of Christ's righteousness being thrown over me like a coat.
I understand it is an interesting commentary, but I disagree with it being anywhere in Scriptures. I often wonder "what would be the point of sanctification?" IF this was true? WHY bother trying to become holy, if we are already 'saved' and Christ throws His blanket of righteousness over us? It doesn't matter, in that sense, how I act, then, since I can't lose my salvation, and heaven is guaranteed. I think Paul is misunderstood when he tries to explain how men cannot earn salvation but still must continue to do good deeds. Peter said that Paul can be difficult to understand...
I believe God knows "who" we are in our sin, and He is not ashamed of what He made.
As you know, God didn't make us this way. Thus, we must fully become a new creation. Yes, our "initial salvation" has begun the process, but we still battle the flesh. We are not completed creation products yet. Until that time, how can we co-exist with Holiness itself?
Christ fixes this problem for us, we did not have the means.
True. We are born without sanctifying grace, necessary to enter heaven. Thus, we absolutely need Him.
It is as if God ignores our "smell".
Again, I have a hard time with that. That is like saying God ignores sin. I think what Christ did opens the gates of heaven to us. We now have the chance to enter eternal life. But God doesn't save us without us. We, too, must make some sort of effort to cooperate with His grace and not refuse them. God continues to give us grace, and we find ourselves slowly becoming more like Him. I don't see why He would stop this process at different stages for people before they enter into heaven. It would make the whole idea of sanctification a joke. Again, if Christ covers my sins, then why worry about sin? Does it matter whether I avoid sin or not? I don't get that from Christ in the Gospels.
Of course, the other way to look at it is that we really don't "smell" so bad at all, since we have a new nature in righteousness. Yes, there are remnants that stink, but the core of our new being is holy. Christ's work caused this to happen. In either case, the result is the same. We are unworthy, Christ loved us and did what we could never do. Here we would disagree on the cooperation issue. I know you have said that cooperation is enabled by God, but the whole freewill idea means the decision comes from us. Is man glorified in his cooperation?
Well, this makes more sense. Of course, we are unworthy, in whatever scenario you look at it! However, God, LOVE, WANTS to share of Himself with us. He knows us, inside and out. He knows HOW we will be happiest. And this will happen when we are REALLY free from sin, not just "imputed" free. Being imputed with righteousness doesn't MAKE me righteous. I STILL have unhealthy desires, they are just not CALLED sin. But there they are, just the same. Sin is sin. It is unhealthy for us not because of its legal status that it leaves us in, but because it REALLY IS unhealthy for us. Take lust. If I have lust, my actual relationship with my wife will suffer. Just because I don't call it lust, or because God says it is no longer sin, does that take away that inner wound within me that effects my relationship? No. Sin is more than a legal accounting. It is something that hurts us, whether we admit it or whether it is called sin or righteousness, or whatever. That is why I disagree with the idea of imputed righteousness.
Regards
In everyday life and liturgical worship, we refer to those in heaven as saints. Those who have finished the race and won the crown of everlasting glory. This is our context for the term "saint", which is why we don't usually refer to each others as "saints". We aren't there yet! However, broadly speaking, saints also refers to the saved here on earth. But again, it goes along with the term "saved" which, to Catholics, is different then your definition.
Also, do you disagree that the passage in Romans 8 refers only to living people on earth? The context seems clear to me.
Yes, technically, you are correct. It is just in normal use, we don't call each other saints. I don't have a problem with someone using the more broad term, knowing that it is how Paul used the word. The term has developed to mean something else, as words often do over time, such as the word "pray" or "worship" has different meanings today then they did 500 years ago.
Regards
I accept the authority of the teachings of Moses and the Apostles. However, I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law, generally (Daniel is an exception), but that is totally separate from our faith. I suppose we just disagree on who any of those "other" men are.
The reason why Church authority is even more highly regarded is because they ARE infallible ONLY because of the Holy Spirit, not their own abilities.
This is a main point of our disagreement. Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.
WE both base our trust that the Bible is the WORD of God BECAUSE we trust in those who gave it to us were trustworthy. St. Augustine says "I would not believe in the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church". Anyone can say that there writings are inspired by God (see the Mormons). We don't believe them - but the Bible, we do, because it came from the Church.
Actually, I don't trust anything in those who gave it to us, on their own authority, I trust in He who authored all of it. I pray that I am misinterpreting your reference to St. Augustine. Are you saying that the Church authenticates the scriptures? Not God?
Me: "Even in the Pope's recent pronouncement on homosexuality, he allows latent existing homosexual priests to remain in good standing."
Again, that is not an official statement made from the "chair of Peter". However, frankly, how does that differ from a "latent existing" alcoholic priest who remains in good standing? We ALL have tendencies towards sin that we must fight against. Of course, priests with homosexual tendencies should remove themselves from the possibility of sinning. Perhaps a ministry to the sick, and keep away from kids. But are we to eliminate all priests who are not perfect?
I do not understand the distinction of 'an official statement made from the "chair of Peter".' I thought it was a Vatican statement, which implied to me the Pope's blessing.
I appreciate the comparison to an alcoholic priest (a guy with a problem), but I was keying in on someone who is unrepentant. I haven't heard of many homosexuals who think it is wrong that they chose this lifestyle. I think alcoholics might be a little different. In either case, if one of my church ministers was a "proud" homosexual or lush, then I would want him removed. If the person wanted to seek help and get better (much more often for alcoholics than homosexuals) then I would say fine, give the guy a break.
What you continue to ignore on this issue is for people to "change" from a "symbol" to a "reality" in one generation (it is clear what people from 110 AD believed) would require EVERYONE EVERYWHERE to change to the same "error" of the real presence, without a MURMUR of protest. Quite impossible, FK. We are talking about people who willingly went to lions to defend their faith. Are you saying that the Church became so confused, wimpy and inept on such a key belief in one generation?
I don't claim to state for a fact what the original practices were. (I also do not claim that any non-Biblical practice was right simply because it was first.) I do not say that all of the earliest Christians were really Protestants, and then "switched" to Catholicism in one generation. I don't know what they did, or why. You have cited many extra-biblical sources on these practices, and I don't blame any Catholic for following them. I just haven't accepted them as authority.
There are a large number of Catholic practices/rituals with which I have no problem at all. It's just that when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
THIS is something I REALLY wanted a 'yea' or 'nay' on. Thank you for the clarification.
[On the subject of "core" Christian principles] As being subject to private opinion, you are free to ignore another's opinion. You are not bound to it. Thus, a person could state "I don't think Jesus rose bodily" and still consider themselves Christian. We might not consider them Christians, but who cares what we think (to them). That is why a hierarchy is important - to TELL US what is necessary for salvation.
I do feel free to both ignore another's opinion or to adopt it, based on its adherence to scripture. I'm the only one I can think of on this thread who has changed his mind on a position. I began by arguing "once saved, always saved", but then it was pointed out to me that "perseverance of the saints" was superior from a scriptural viewpoint. It was a no-brainer to me so I quickly adopted the doctrine. I will always do that. God knows the very limited extent of my intellect, He knows which of my buttons to press to get His results, He knows what I need to understand, and He provides it to me. I am fully capable of blowing the message sometimes, but overall, it's been so far so good. If He wants me to follow a different path, He knows where to find me.
As to any person who said that Jesus did not rise bodily, I would ask for the source of their opinion, dismiss it, and know that the person had a serious problem in core theology under beliefs of Protestants and Catholics. I don't see how this translates to a need for a hierarchy. We totally disagree on that idea, but we completely agree that the person in this example is seriously misguided. However, I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.
You submit to your OWN selves, don't you? You are presuming to know what God means by particular Scripture passages, over and above men from 1800 years removed from today.
Of course not. I have every bit as much faith that the Holy Spirit leads me as you do that the Holy Spirit leads others to lead you. In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side. Your salvation depends upon the inner goodness of yourself, separately, and in cooperation with God, right?We think no such thing. It is you who submit to your own selves to cooperate in salvation.
So am I to disagree with so many generations of Christians? Why?
I would say that either of us is to disagree with any error the Spirit reveals to us, regardless of how long it has been taught, by whom, or where it came from. This includes the theology of Protestant "founders". I am not wed to all of Luther's or Calvin's beliefs. The test is always the Bible and how the Spirit leads me.
If God said He was 6 persons in one, we would believe Him. The Scriptures DO NOT EXPLICITLY SAY that He is a Trinity. From the Scriptures, tell me who the Holy Spirit is? A force? An angel? A creation? God? It is not quite so clear as you'd make it out to be. That is why we shouldn't ignore the Apostolic Tradition - HOW to read the Bible. Through them, we KNOW that Jesus is of the SAME essence of God, that the Holy Spirit is ALSO of the same essence of God.
Well, with all due respect, I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? I'm going to presume that you believe that the Father is God and that Jesus is God. :) So, if the question is about the Spirit, one of many verses would be:
1 Corinthians 2:11 : "11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God."
Does this not define the omniscience of the Spirit? Who besides God could be omniscient? No one I know of. We are even told that satan is not. So, this Spirit guy is no angel, or "force". He must be God. We do not need the Apostolic tradition to learn this lesson at all. God gives it to us clearly here, but also gives us clues in many other passages in scripture. They are all consistent independent of any teachings in tradition.
The claim you make, that the Spirit guides you, is true to a degree. But it cannot be entirely true, because I believe the Spirit guides me...But yet, we disagree on the Eucharist!!! How COULD the Spirit lead two Christians to believe something entirely different, on a core issue? Thus, the Spirit DOES NOT lead us in THAT fashion.
Yes, my claim can be entirely true! :) I appreciate and accept that the Spirit guides you too. So, either one or both of us is wrong on the Eucharist. I believe all men are capable of blowing things on matters of interpretation, including me. (Of course it's not the Spirit's fault.)
By what you said, how could the Spirit lead us on anything? We'll agree on many things, but then disagree etc., but then we'll bring in another good Christian and there will be even more disagreement. The whole point of this rambling is that maybe the Eucharist is not a core issue. I know it is very important to you, but you told me that no sacrament is absolutely required for salvation. I think we might substantially agree on "bigger" issues
Every word within the Bible came to us through men. The Judeo-Christian heritage understands that God's Word is brought to us through the instrument of men who the community deems as inspired by God. THE COMMUNITY deems they were inspired.
"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. Of course I would say that while the scribes of the NT showed their personalities, intended audiences, etc., that nevertheless, God was the final editor of every jot and tittle. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.
I also thank you for this discussion, and I appreciate your patience with me. I have learned a tremendous amount from you, which helps me toward my goal of being able to discuss Catholic beliefs with others and be accurate and fair. I almost think I now know more about Catholic theology than some Catholics! :) It has been wonderful to learn more about your beliefs.
I hear what you're saying. BUT, as an extremely close student of this thread, I really haven't noticed major differences among Protestants who know what they are talking about. Sure, there are some differences between us Reformers and other Protestants, but there are also differences between Catholics and the Orthodox. In either comparison, when the rubber meets the road, relative unity is still there. At least, that is my interpretation of reading every post on this thread.
"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. Of course I would say that while the scribes of the NT showed their personalities, intended audiences, etc., that nevertheless, God was the final editor of every jot and tittle. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book."
FK, isn't this essentially a Mohammaden way of looking at scripture? By that I mean the "faithful scribes" part?
I must say that your comment leads me a bit, in my simple Balkan way, to understand the "sola scriptura" idea.
I differentiate between following a secular leader in law vs. his religious doctrine, or lack thereof. We are to obey the secular law…but that is totally separate from our faith.
God takes priority over the two if they disagree, but I don’t see obeying secular law as separate from our faith. That is called “secularism”. That is the battle-cry of those WE face in society, those who want to contain Christianity to a private practice – “keep it in your house…” I think if you begin to have that attitude, you are on a slippery slope to not exercising your faith and evangelizing to the world.
Authoritative succession throughout the ages is only true based on the say so of interested men, and their say so that God said so. When Jesus said He would be with the Apostles even until the end of the age, I took that to mean with all believers, not only the RCC.
You are correct – apostolic succession is based upon whether we believe the witness of the men who make the claim. But, just the same, we ALSO look to those SAME men who tell us WHAT the Scriptures are! It is interesting that you take their word on what is Scripture, but not on Apostolic Succession, which we see even in the Scriptures themselves. To me, to discredit these first bishops is to discredit the claim that the NT letters are Scriptures. As to Mat 28, it can be taken to mean that Jesus will be with the Church – all believers – but He is addressing the Apostles, the future leaders of the Church. In Matthew, Jesus gives the Apostles special authority to bind and loosen. In John’s Gospel, He does this – and promises the Spirit of Truth to THEM. Throughout the NT, the Apostles and their successors are given special authority over their communities. Yes, the call to proclaim the Gospel is for all men, but primarily, it is given to the Apostles, since THEY have witnessed to Christ’s acts. Check the requirements of the replacement of Judas Iscariot in Acts.
Actually, I don't trust anything in those who gave it to us, on their own authority, I trust in He who authored all of it. I pray that I am misinterpreting your reference to St. Augustine. Are you saying that the Church authenticates the scriptures? Not God?
Again, I ask you to continue this line of thought…How do you KNOW the Scriptures are from God Himself, that they are inspired by God, but not the Koran, or other so-called “Scriptures”? Ask yourself “how do I know the Bible is from God”. Your answer will be “because someone told me, and I believed them.” We trust the witness of the men who saw the Christ and His Apostles in action, who passed down the Gospel. Yes, the Church authenticates the Scriptures. God does not do so directly. The individual books of the NT are not self-authenticating as being God-breathed. We only know that because the men who walked with Jesus (whom THEY believed was God) tell us – and we believe them and their witness, their miracles and their way of life. Today, we continue to see God’s Word validated by the Church. I am sure that you know of many people who will vouch for the power of the Scriptures. So God operates through the Church, the people of God. We are told that, and we believe it. Such is the nature of faith! It is not absolutely “provable”.
It's when Biblical teaching appears to be threatened (or fails to substantiate) that I question it. It seems too peculiar to me that if God had included another 15 measly pages in the Bible, we would have no need for this discussion. For 15 extra pages, we might agree on everything. Definitionally I suppose, tradition is what didn't make it into the Bible. Much tradition is perfectly consistent with the Bible, but much of it appears to be with a very strained interpretation (IMO) of God's word.
I suppose we must look at the Scripture through a set of lenses, a paradigm. No one approaches the Bible without some idea about it or what it is based on. Thus, the Scriptures are read through a paradigm. Catholics call this “Apostolic Tradition”. A book CANNOT interpret itself. The earliest Church Fathers made this very complaint of Gnostics and others who utilized Scriptures to back their OWN teachings (which I will show soon)! They constantly refer to Apostolic Tradition during the earliest stages of Christianity so that doctrine would not become corrupt. I find it quite amazing that Catholic doctrine, while delving deeply into Scriptures to learn more about Revelation, does not change. This is a tribute to the idea that Christ put into action by forming an authoritative body to teach and preach.
I don’t think 15 more pages would have made a difference. First of all, consider the Scriptures themselves. They are not a systematic catechism or theology book. There is no organization, topics are scattered to the four winds, and often times, key elements of the faith appear, on the surface, to contradict other parts of the Scriptures. The fact remains that the Scriptures were collated hundreds of years after the diverse letters and narratives were written. People had an idea of the faith through Apostolic Teaching, THEN searched out ALL of the available Christian writings. They weeded out those that did not fit the PARADIGM, not the other way around! In other words, the Bible didn’t determine their beliefs, the already-held beliefs determined whether a letter would be called “Scripture! That is absolutely critical to understanding how the Scripture came into being. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas. Out. The Shephard of Hermes. Out. Dozens of letters written about the first hundred years of Christianity. Out. And why is Philemon in there? What makes you think it is from God, unless someone told you? Who wrote Hebrews? And so forth. The Church leaders took what they had and compiled what THEY thought was from God – what was taught them – and put it together into 27 letters and called it “the New Testament”. God inspired this body to collate specific titles, and there we have it, Scriptures.
Thus, it is important not to cast out Apostolic Tradition just because something is not explicitly found in Scripture (like prayers to saints in heaven to intercede for us). The same men who practiced the above, calling it orthodox and from the Apostles, are the same men who gave us the current NT. Otherwise, brother, we’d be considering the Gnostic version of the Bible, those who pass along the Da Vinci Code, as Scripture. You HAVE to have a paradigm, a standard, FIRST before you can say, “Ok, this letter is NOT what we believe”. The other option is Islam – “an Angel gave me this book directly from God”. But you still have the problem of trusting that man…Did God really give Mohemmed that book? (NO!)
"THROUGH" men - 'YES'. "BY" men - 'NO'. .. I would say that there was no cooperation from any of the authors of the scriptures. They were faithful scribes, but they were not writing of themselves. That all the authors of the Bible could be so completely consistent in message and so great in wisdom across hundreds of years appears impossible to me if their human weaknesses were subject to being included in the final text. To me, God gets the only copyright on this book.
I agree that God inspired the authors, but each author used his own style to write the Word. God inspired the Scriptures, God ensured that what He wanted presented was placed in it. The fact of its consistency is more of a testament to the TRADITION that was given to the editors and compilers of the Scriptures! Again, God inspired the editors and compilers to write what they wrote or edited. But again, what came first? The oral teachings in nearly every case proceeded the written. These teachings were part of the communities’ life and beliefs. Thus, when someone claimed to have written “God’s Word”, the community already KNEW whether the writing really WAS from God. THEY, guided by the Spirit, knew. If it disagreed with what they had been taught by God through the prophets or apostles, it couldn’t be Scriptures.
I don't think we need any tradition to know that Jesus is of the same essence of God. Would you agree that Jesus plainly said so Himself in scripture? ,/i>
You are taking for granted what has already become part of your paradigm. To us, yes, but not to Arius. He was a Catholic priest from the early 300’s who began to wonder, using his own intellect and the “promptings of the Spirit” that Jesus was NOT of the same essence of God. He used various SCRIPTURES to “prove” his point: “Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice because I said, I go unto the Father; for my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28)
“And he said unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to those] for whom it is prepared of my Father.” (Mat 20:23)
And he withdrew from them about a stone's cast and kneeled down and prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22:42) {note – Arius asked, “why should God pray to Himself”?
The temptations of Jesus in Mat 4 – “If Jesus is God, how could He be tempted”
His primary “proof” follows: “The LORD made me as the beginning of His way, the first of His works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth;” (Proverbs 8:22-25)
Christianity had always seen the Jewish idea of the Wisdom of God and Jesus Christ as the same person, Christ being the incarnation of that Wisdom, thus, this passage was understood by all to refer to Christ.
If you ever confront a Jehovah Witness, FK, be prepared to face these arguments. Of course, you will quote them John 1:1, 18; John 10:30; Col 2:9; and so forth. But then it comes down to your interpretation vs. his. WHO IS CORRECT? Thus, there IS a need for hierarchy to say “Arius, that is not what we have been taught. That is not what has been handed down by the most ancient of Apostolic Tradition. Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong” – and St. Athanasius, among others, would then explain Arius’ errors. To do away with an authoritative interpreter of Scripture leaves man in error. He will NEVER know what God has taught, unless God comes to each and every person individually. If God’s truth is important, you will appreciate the need for an hierarchy that can make authoritative decisions, guided by God Himself.
Brother in Christ
I do not understand the distinction of 'an official statement made from the "chair of Peter".' I thought it was a Vatican statement, which implied to me the Pope's blessing.
Ah, sorry. Thanks for your patience. Every word from the Pope is not infallible. Again, the Pope is only infallible when he makes official, solemnly declared statements from the Chair of Peter. His opinions as a private theologian are not infallibly protected, only those when operating as the official promulgator and definer of Catholic faith or morals. As I mentioned before, this is an extraordinary charism from the Spirit. It has been exercised only TWICE in 150 years, the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary. The rest are considered ordinary teachings that we follow as a matter of obedience to higher authority – but in of itself not necessarily infallible.
I appreciate the comparison to an alcoholic priest (a guy with a problem), but I was keying in on someone who is unrepentant. I haven't heard of many homosexuals who think it is wrong that they chose this lifestyle. I think alcoholics might be a little different.
I agree. But the Pope has to be careful. The Church is not a business, but is more a family (of God). To give an example, would you remove a father from a family because they didn’t discipline their children very well or taught them some disgusting habit, perhaps? It is much the same thing. The Church must be careful, because priests are the communities’ spiritual father. The Bishop doesn’t want to cause Schism, that’s for sure. There are a number of issues that doesn’t make this such a slam-dunk affair. I think the Pope has done his homework on the issue.
Protestant communities are NOT part of the Church of Christ.
I hope you understand that to mean “the First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” is not part of the Church of Christ, BUT some of the PEOPLE who attend the “First Southern Baptist Church on Main Street” ARE of the Church of Christ…There can only be one visible organization that we refer to as the Church of Christ. The Scriptures clearly tell us that there is “one faith, one baptism” and “one loaf”…Not many different ones.
I do feel free to both ignore another's opinion or to adopt it, based on its adherence to scripture. I'm the only one I can think of on this thread who has changed his mind on a position. I began by arguing "once saved, always saved", but then it was pointed out to me that "perseverance of the saints" was superior from a scriptural viewpoint. It was a no-brainer to me so I quickly adopted the doctrine.
You are correct, and I give you a lot of credit. You truly are a rare person in these forums.
I am fully capable of blowing the message sometimes, but overall, it's been so far so good. If He wants me to follow a different path, He knows where to find me
I agree. Perhaps it was you that I wrote that I cannot convert anyone, only God can. I merely present the Catholic side. If God wills, the seed planted will grow into faith, either now, or a later time. My “job” is to present the truth of the Catholic Faith, which unfortunately, not many Catholics are aware of, either…
As to any person who said that Jesus did not rise bodily, I would ask for the source of their opinion, dismiss it, and know that the person had a serious problem in core theology under beliefs of Protestants and Catholics. I don't see how this translates to a need for a hierarchy.
Because there can only be ONE truth! I believe you are succumbing to the idea in society that is way over-used and misunderstood: Tolerance. By making truth subjective, by saying “your truth is as good as mine”, you are saying that truth is not really important; it is a matter of opinion. In the name of “tolerance”, we live and let live. However, if we are to love, it is our JOB to bring the TRUTH to others, to bring people out of ignorance. Jesus is the way, the TRUTH, and the life. He came to bring us truth, and it will set us free! Certainly, we don’t bring truth by hammering them. We challenge them. We present the truth to them, logically discussing how they have incorrect ideas. The person above can listen to you, and walk away thinking you are crazy. “What authority does he have”? Perhaps, you will be able to present a case that will convince him otherwise. But as you have noted of your own experience, this doesn’t happen often. Thus, if we have a visible authority that is accepted as coming from Christ, we don’t have these issues of “what should I believe as TRUTH?” We don’t rely on our own interpretations, either.
I suppose that you put us in the same boat with this other misguided "Christian". Oh well.
I would say that you haven’t been exposed to the truth yet!
In fact, you would have to admit that our side puts far less faith in ourselves than your side.
By making yourself the final arbitrator of what is the truth?
Your salvation depends upon the inner goodness of yourself, separately, and in cooperation with God, right?We think no such thing. It is you who submit to your own selves to cooperate in salvation.
Well, I thought I explained that “our” inner goodness comes from God and God alone. We cooperate in salvation merely because God ALLOWS us to. He, being LOVE, operates that way. He desires a free union of love between two beings, Him and us. Thus, we must not willingly reject Him. But we realize that all that God gives us is gift. We cannot truly begin to understand God until we understand that EVERYTHING we have is a gift from Him. So knowing this, cooperation is merely saying “yes” to God’s gifts. Isn’t that what the Scripture demands from us? To choose good or to choose evil?
I would say that either of us is to disagree with any error the Spirit reveals to us, regardless of how long it has been taught, by whom, or where it came from.
What errors does the Catholic Church teach? I am not aware of anything that is taught that is explicitly denied of us in Scriptures. Everything I am aware of that is taught is not in contradistinction to Scripture.
Yes, my claim can be entirely true! :) I appreciate and accept that the Spirit guides you too. So, either one or both of us is wrong on the Eucharist. I believe all men are capable of blowing things on matters of interpretation, including me. (Of course it's not the Spirit's fault.)
You can never be sure your claim is actually true because we are not infallible. You yourself believe that man sins, that man sometimes chooses sin, even after our “salvation”. How do you know you are not choosing something that suits your current fancy? How do you know the devil is not leading you to believe something? How do you know you are accurately interpreting what the Spirit says? How do you know the “promptings” within you are actually the Spirit? Too many variables destroy the idea that an individual can KNOW he is correct regarding doctrine of the faith (without an authoritative interpreter to say “yes, this means that”, or “no, that does not mean that”)
By what you said, how could the Spirit lead us on anything? We'll agree on many things, but then disagree etc., but then we'll bring in another good Christian and there will be even more disagreement. The whole point of this rambling is that maybe the Eucharist is not a core issue. I know it is very important to you, but you told me that no sacrament is absolutely required for salvation.
The Spirit leads us to love. We understand from Scripture that the Spirit is leading His Church but not APART from it! Christ said a Kingdom set up against itself will surely fall. Did Christ establish a Church so the Holy Spirit could lead it into diffuse and diverse paths? Saying that the Eucharist is not important because it is not absolutely essential is like saying I can live without food. Or I can get around with no legs…Christ IS the Eucharist. Wouldn’t you say that Christ coming to us to feed us spiritually is critical towards our salvation?
I also thank you for this discussion, and I appreciate your patience with me. I have learned a tremendous amount from you, which helps me toward my goal of being able to discuss Catholic beliefs with others and be accurate and fair. I almost think I now know more about Catholic theology than some Catholics! :) It has been wonderful to learn more about your beliefs.
I admit you are a rare breed, and I appreciate your questions. Sadly, you are probably correct in that you know more than many Catholics on their faith. If there is one thing I admire regarding Protestants is there desire to learn more about God through the Scriptures. They do it often on their own time (outside the Sunday “obligation”). We need more people like that within our Church. But I trust God knows what He is doing!
Brother in Christ
HD Rom 6:17-18 But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness
"the Truth shall make you free" [John 8:32]
Knowing that He is a merciful God and we underserving sinners, we can only ask for mercy, which He gives in abundance.
Okay, HD, I guess we do seem a little wacky to you and your Protestant kin. But You seem alien to us, and I don't mean it as an insult, personal or collective, nor as a disparaging remark about your faith.
I meant it as a collective understanding of something that has been with the Church since it was established by Christ on the Pentecost. If you think the Protestants are the first to behave like Protestants you are sadly mistaken. And if you think the first "protests" came from Luther and first Church reactions to such protests at Trent, you are way off the scale... again.
To bring you into the reality of what the Church did from the beginning almost, here are some quotes from St. Irenaeus (of Lyons, 2nd c. AD, I would say thta's quite close to the earliest Christinaity and how they undersood the faith) in his Against Heresies:
For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters.
For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another.
Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."
Sounds familiar? Well, heresies and human arrogance, assuming it can, on nothing but the merit of our limited intellect, understand the depth of Scriptures individually have been around even in very beginning of the 2nd century.
Fascinating revelation that nothing has changed! Yet Protestants think they invented the wheel by insisting on personal interpretation of the Scripture and questioning the authority of the Church!
One of the favorite arguments of the protesters of all kinds is that famous line — "tradition became corrupt," or "the Church was in error." What are we to do? Break up with the Tradition as the Protestants did?
Here is what St. Irenaeus says:
Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."
He reiterates that the Church gets its authority from none other than our Lord's Apostles:
Thus, the apostolitcity and catholicity guarantees that the faith once delivered remains unaltered.
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth." [Against All Heresies, Book III, 2:2, 3:1, 3:3]
You do not believe that God sets you free so that you can become His servant. You beieve that God has preordained each and every move of yours, each and every thought, that you are jjst a tool in God's hands whether you do good or evil.
Not only are we depraved; we are depraved by God's design! Yet, the Scripture tells us differently. It tells us that man was God's crown-jewel, created in His image and likeness, free and capable of making decisions.
Would you not agree that God wants man to be with HBim in Paradise? Well, he was! Are you now suggesting that God intentionally corrupted His own crown-jewel? If man is nothing but a slave to God, then none of what transpired in Paradise was man's own doing, but only God's. God must have choregraphed the Fall in the Garden of Eden and is ultimately responsible for the evil that followed.
Its called the ekklesiastikon fronema, (ecclesiastikon phronema) sometimes called the "catholic conscience" but it really means the ecclesiological essence or mindset of Christianity. The works of +Athansius the Great demonstrate this concept forcefully as do those of the 19th cent. convert from Anglicanism to the Latin Church, Cardinal Newman. At base it is the appropriation of this ekklesiastikon fronema on an individual basis which is the ultimate historical solution to heresy and schism. Both Cardinal Newman and +Athanasius saw that true schisms are impersonal and as such they destroy the personal relationship of individuals with The Church and the personal/divine communion of the Church. Heresy is the inevitable result.
Very much appreciated, thanks.
The important thing is that the Old Testament Canon included seven books that at the time were not in the Hebrew Canon: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; some passages from Esther and Daniel were not in the Hebrew Canon either. They were retained by the Christian Canon because they were part of the Septuagint, ...
I admit that I know basically nothing about this part of the history, so thanks for the whole intro. I am confused by the term "Hebrew Canon". Is this what became the modern Torah, or is this something the Judaisers were doing, or was it something else? Since you distinguish it from the Old Testament Canon, I don't know how "Hebrew" and "Canon" fit together.
Let me reiterate, at the time when the Church was formed the "scripture" meant Septuagint. It is therefore logical that Septuagint be the Old Testament part of the deposit of faith left by Christ, despite what later became of the Jewish canon.
So, then concerning the seven books (and anything else), what are the differences between the Septuagint, what is "my" OT (NIV), and "your" OT? Is it right that your OT has the seven books and mine does not, and this was a unilateral decision made by Luther? Are "our" NTs the same?
Thank you also for the links. When I get a chance I will take a look at them. If they answer my questions, please don't feel obligated to "repeat". :)
The use of the word "slave" in English translations of Romans is quite unfortunate because it can be used to imply something which isn't there. The word in question is douloV which really means a bondsman or a type of bound house servant not a field or quarry slave. The KJV translates it as "bondsman" and that's pretty close. In the first instance Harley cited we are servants in the house of the Evil One, in the second, in the House of the Lord.
The Hebrew Canon is, I believe, the Jewish Torah, and it roughly corresponds to the Old Testament canon, with the differences that I outlined: the seven books, some passages, and differences of translation.
The differences between the Protestant Old Testament and the canon defined by Carthage and affirmed by Trent are likewise differences of the seven books, a few passages and translation. I don't think the differences between the Protestant canon and the Hebrew canon are substantial, but I am no expert. Here is one: Isaiah 7:14 is traditionally translated as "behold a virgin shall give bith" but the Hebrew word used only means young woman, "almah". To specifically designate a virgin, the Hebrew author is more likely to use "beulah". But Septuagint has it "parthenos", which is clearly "virgin". So, one translating or teaching from Septuagint, like the early Church did, does not even see a difficulty, and arrives at the accepted Christian meaning. One translating from post-Jamnia, so called Masoretic Hebrew (which would be within the Protestant tradition) would have to extrapolate the Christian meaning if he is to translate it "virgin" at all. And a Jew would have no reason to reach for anything coming out of the Christian tradition and render it "maiden" or "young girl", as the primary meaning of "almah".
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.