That way, we can focus on the upcoming battle vs. our own society, the real enemy, in my opinion.
I hear you, brother and Amen! Well put.
Paul constantly was battling Judaizers who wanted to include all of the dietary rituals and circumcision as part of what was necessary to obtain salvation. Clearly, Christians heard them, as well as orthodox teachings. Elsewhere, such as Colossians, Paul seems to have been battling Greek philosophy. John and Jude also seem to be battling some form of Gnosticism, a corruption of the Gospel. Even in the very beginning, I believe we see that orthodoxy became very concerned about the TRUE message and that its contents would remain pure.
I suppose I never thought of gnostics as beings Chrisitans because I thought they were older (and how wrong they were). I thought similarly of the Judaizers, but when I just looked them up, it appears they may be considered "Christians". I had no idea about any issues with orthodoxy at the beginning. Thanks for the history and verses.
... and furthermore, it [the idea that Christianity fundamentally changed within one generation] doesn’t take into account Christ’s OWN words – that the Spirit would guide the Church into all Truth!
Well, the Spirit certainly isn't going to make any mistakes, but since humans are involved we will. The Spirit guides, but humans will definitely blow it. I think we would both admit that it has happened for each of our sides. By no means do I claim that every aspect of my faith (doctrinally) is necessarily perfect just because I believe it. I would expect to be found ultimately wrong on some things. I'm just betting they won't be huge things. :) Since God never promises us that we will always follow Him faithfully, it can be difficult to know what is correct when error is inevitable.
I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree about men forgiving sins. :) Your references to Mark 2 appear to say only that if Jesus, as God-MAN, can forgive sins, that fully human men should be able to also, if given the ability by God. I don't believe it was the human authority in Jesus that was forgiving sins, it was the God authority, which He fully held. This was the point and revelation of the story.
You did not address my point about how a person can forgive sin if he has not been wronged? If I hurt my neighbor, I hurt him and God, how can you (or a priest) forgive me? Both my neighbor and God can forgive me, but not another man. In addition, following Mark 2:7, why does Jesus rely on the truth of the "error" to show He is claiming to be God?
You quoted: “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)
Plainly, Jesus gave human beings the authority to heal physical ailments and forgive sins – in His name.
I suppose I would have to disagree that on men (who are not God) forgiving sins, the meaning is plain. I assume you are keying in on "unto men" (plural). Since the crowd had never recognized the authority of any man to forgive sin before, they must have been only been thinking of this one man. I don't see anything in this companion passage that even hints that other (non-God) men would ever be given such authority. How could the crowd have concluded that other people would be given this authority? They were starting from nothing and were witnessing miracles from one man, and only one man. Nothing in their background had ever suggested that "a man" could forgive sin. Thus, they were amazed.
Another Scripture that might help here is the following: “Is anyone among you afflicted? let them pray. Is anyone happy? let them sing. Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray for him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall cause the one who is sick to be saved, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them.” James 5:13-15
In my NIV, the word "saved" is "well", as in being physically well. Are you saying that a prayer from a clergy can save another man? I don't think I've heard you say that before, but that is the only interpretation that goes along with the final clause being read as that the praying clergy (elders) can forgive sin. Also, there is absolutely no mention or implied requirement of confession here. This verse simply says that the prayer of faith on behalf of the sick man will cause his sins to be forgiven. NO CONFESSION. If so, then why does the clergy not simply pray for all who are physically or spiritually sick to be forgiven sin?
NO sacrament is ABSOLUTELY required to enter heaven. We are judged based on our love. We are judged on whether we abide in Christ or not at the time of our death.
OK, this is brand new to me, and I'll just take your word for it, and it's all good. I KNOW that I've been told by others that salvation is partly achieved through the fulfillment of the sacraments. I'm sure this has much to do with the whole "salvation by works" business.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, final salvation is ultimately determined by initial salvation, the (Godly) love of a person throughout life, and whether the person abided in God during life. (You see me licking my chops, right? LOL!)
It would appear, then, that we agree that a man must be first saved (we disagree on the means, but agree that it must happen). This is no big deal. Every Protestant I know has been baptized, and I don't know why every Catholic wouldn't have asked Jesus into his/her heart, etc. Second and third, we must have Godly love in our hearts and abide in Christ. We completely agree. My side says the ability to do this comes only from God, and yours says it is a cooperation between man and God (free-will). Is this a huge deal? We both agree that this is the portrait of an ultimately saved man before God. Isn't that the most important thing?
God bless.
The Church clearly limits WHAT the Spirit will protect infallibly. ONLY dogmatic declarations made on faith and morals by the entire Church in unity with the Pope are considered infallible, ordinarily. The Pope by himself CAN also make official declarations, but this is extraordinary. And finally, an unanimous teaching of the Church that reaches back to the distant past is also considered ordinarily infallible. Political decisions, utterances made by one bishop, football decisions, statements not made in an official capacity are not considered protected by the Spirit. This way, we are sure that when the Church DOES speak authoritatively, it is infallibly giving God's Word on the matter. In this capacity, we know that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
Your references to Mark 2 appear to say only that if Jesus, as God-MAN, can forgive sins, that fully human men should be able to also, if given the ability by God. I don't believe it was the human authority in Jesus that was forgiving sins, it was the God authority, which He fully held. This was the point and revelation of the story.
Ah, but then you are ignoring the full implication of the incarnation! By becoming MAN, what JESUS did on earth was done by God AND man. When God forgave sins, the "man" part didn't recede into the background while His divinity took over. Jesus' divinity and manhood are within His person. What the person does applies to both natures. Thus, Christianity believes that the dignity of man has been raised and God has humbled Himself through the incarnation.
{Regarding "But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.” (Mat 9:8)} I suppose I would have to disagree that on men (who are not God) forgiving sins, the meaning is plain. I assume you are keying in on "unto men" (plural). Since the crowd had never recognized the authority of any man to forgive sin before, they must have been only been thinking of this one man. I don't see anything in this companion passage that even hints that other (non-God) men would ever be given such authority. How could the crowd have concluded that other people would be given this authority?
The people did NOT KNOW Jesus was God. Recall that ONLY PETER knew as a result of the Father's divine intervention in Mat 16 that Jesus was God! Thus, in Mat 8, when the people connect physical healing with spiritual healing - and see a man - Jesus - FORGIVING SINS, the crowds would naturally say "men have been given the power to forgive sin"! They saw a man in Jesus, not God. They considered Him a great prophet, but they had no concept of God incarnate while He was performing these works. Thus, a man, perhaps a prophet, was forgiving sins. They proclaimed that it was wonderful that men (note, plural) had been given power and authority to forgive sins. And of course, I again point to John 20:23. Did the Apostles say "no, Lord, we are merely men, we do not or cannot have the power to forgive sins"?
The final proof to look at would be "what did the Early Christians who read the first Epistles and Gospels believe"? They, too, believed that God had given certain men the authority to forgive sin in God's name - Baptism is for the remission of sins, is it not? Through men, Baptism is administered to other men. Thus, through Baptism, we already begin to see that men CAN forgive sins. THEY are the visible sign of God's forgiveness working in a repentant heart.
You did not address my point about how a person can forgive sin if he has not been wronged? If I hurt my neighbor, I hurt him and God, how can you (or a priest) forgive me? Both my neighbor and God can forgive me, but not another man. In addition, following Mark 2:7, why does Jesus rely on the truth of the "error" to show He is claiming to be God?
Sorry if I skipped that. The priest not only represents or is the sign of God forgiving our sins in a visible manner, but he also represents the Church, the community. So while we do not sin against the priest directly, the priest, representing the community, offers forgiveness to the person, not only from God, but from the community. I am not sure what you are asking regarding the truth of the error of Mark 2:7. Could you please explain?
In my NIV, the word "saved" is "well", as in being physically well. Are you saying that a prayer from a clergy can save another man? I don't think I've heard you say that before, but that is the only interpretation that goes along with the final clause being read as that the praying clergy (elders) can forgive sin.
That is probably due to the NIV bias. The word "saved" has more than just physical healing as an intent, especially when you consider the final words of the verse "if he has committed sins, he shall be forgiven them". IF sin is spiritually debilitating (which it is, even more so then physical pain is debilitating), then forgiving sins is part of the healing (saving) process, correct? There are numerous examples of God working physical healing through the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. While it ALWAYS heals spritually through forgiveness of sins, it sometimes also heals physically. Does not James give this impression?
Also, there is absolutely no mention or implied requirement of confession here. This verse simply says that the prayer of faith on behalf of the sick man will cause his sins to be forgiven. NO CONFESSION.
If men have the power to bind and loose, to forgive sins - doesn't it follow that they must know the sins that they are forgiving? "Confession is good for the soul". Apparently, this was well known by the ancient Christians. I point to the practice of the Church. Recall the Scriptures were written to the first Christians and were well aware of what the Apostles taught, whether orally or in letter. If they confessed their sins, who did they learn this from? Who taught them to do this?
If so, then why does the clergy not simply pray for all who are physically or spiritually sick to be forgiven sin?
If a person cannot admit their faults to another person, how repentant are they of their sins? Is this pride what Christ is looking for among His disciples? Christ desires we truly are repentant. Such a confession helps to begin the healing caused when one is guilty and is sorry for the pain they caused another. That's the way God made us. Saying sorry in your mind for hurting your spouse doesn't do much good, does it? While the priest is not directly sinned against, he represents the community AND God forgives sins against Himself through the visible signs and words of the priest.
I KNOW that I've been told by others that salvation is partly achieved through the fulfillment of the sacraments
This is true only because we become more virtuous as a result of the sacramental participation. God graces us through these sacraments, which enables us to love more. If salvation is based upon abiding in God and loving others, than the sacraments are "necessary", as they are ordinary means of God's graces, something absolutely essential for a person to love.
So, if I'm reading you correctly, final salvation is ultimately determined by initial salvation, the (Godly) love of a person throughout life, and whether the person abided in God during life. (You see me licking my chops, right? LOL!)
I believe salvation will be determined by whether we abide in Christ at the time of our death. "Initial salvation" is only the first step of justification. If we are found righteous in God's eyes (as a result of God's graces and our cooperation to do His will) at the time of our death, than God is abiding within us. BUT. Does a person abide in Christ who willingly refuses to fully enter into His visible Body? What I said earlier about not entering the visible Church does not apply to people who are knowledgeable about the fact that Christ's Church DOES subsist in the Catholic Church. Only God will judge our "ignorance" on the matter. "He who rejects you (Apostles and their successors) rejects Me".
My side says the ability to do this comes only from God, and yours says it is a cooperation between man and God (free-will). Is this a huge deal? We both agree that this is the portrait of an ultimately saved man before God. Isn't that the most important thing?
So what are you protesting, then?! Why haven't you returned home yet?! I cannot answer for what happens to the individual Protestant. I know that following error in teaching does NOT bring a person closer to God. In that respect, one's salvation is jeopardized. While being a Catholic doesn't guarantee salvation, it is the means that God set up to come to Him in the most sure way. For example, Jesus talks about that one must eat His Body in the Eucharist to have life (to abide in Him). Can you be sure that you are doing this? You are basing your salvation on what humans of the 1500's have rationalized, opposed to what the first Christians believed and taught. God will judge us based on the contents of our hearts, and whether we follow HIS teachings, rather than our own. People who are "invincibly ignorant" will be held to different standards then a person who was born and raised Catholic, then fell away. In the end, we believe that no one can have the Father without the Church as their Mother. (normally!)
Regards