Posted on 10/21/2006 4:52:03 AM PDT by NYer
So, how do we determine who has the Holy Spirit, and who doesn't? The Mormon says he has the Spirit. You say *you* have the Spirit. So how do we determine who is right? Your answer to this question, if I understand you correctly, is to conduct a subjective test: We should pray and seek God, and determine for ourselves who has the Spirit and who doesn't. Like I said earlier, that's a recipe for the fragmentation of the Church, for if you have 20,000 people, you will get 20,000 different notions of what the Spirit is saying.
This subjective and gnostic notion is completely alien to the first 1500 years of Christian orthodoxy. For the early and medieval Church, if you wanted to know who has the Spirit, you would see who had valid orders in succession from the Apostles.
-A8
The problem with this proposal is that it assumes that we already know what counts as "remaining obedient to the Father". The question on the table is: Which is more obedient to the Father: following the Protestants' interpretation(s) of Scripture or following the Catholic intepretation of Scripture?
It seems to me that the best way to attempt to resolve our disagreement is first to understand each other's positions. We can't compare the two positions if we don't have a good understanding of both of them. Second, we have to determine what point or points are fundamental to all the points of disagreement. In other words, we need to determine if all the points of disagreement depend on some one or more fundamental points of disagreement. And third, we need to evaluate the evidence for and against the fundamental points of disagreement. That's my proposal.
-A8
I don't think restoring unity to Christ's Church will be accomplished merely by commanding or inviting all Christians to become Reformed Protestants. I think it will take a patient but determined commitment to dialogue (in a manner similar to what I just laid out above) between Christians of the various traditions.
-A8
Even if that were true, it would be an argument from silence, and that would beg the question by assuming the truth of 'sola scriptura'.
The Church you attend may be able to trace its roots to the Apostles, namely Paul, but Rome being the center of Christianity with a supreme Pontiff simply did not occur until the council of Nicea.
The church at Rome always had primacy, as the Church fathers even in the first two centuries attested.
-A8
Salvation came to you through the Church, whether you realize it or not. That is why Augustine says, "He cannot have God for his father who does not have the Church for his mother." That does not mean that salvation did not come to you through Christ. But Christ is not greedy; He lets others participate in His saving work. Just as doing it unto the least of these is doing it unto Him, so he who listens to the Apostles (and bishops) listens to Christ, but who who rejects the Apostles (and bishops) rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ (Luke 10:16). Christ uses the Church (His body) to bring salvation to sinners. The visible Church is the body of the incarnate Christ now on Earth; we are His hands and feet. We continue His work with our hands and feet. To be saved one must be incorporated into Christ's body, to be made a part of His bride, the Church. That is why the Church is essential to our salvation.
-A8
Subjective testing of spirits = "telling yourself that the Holy Spirit just led you to believe or do what you just decided was the right thing to believe or do."
As proud_2_B_texasgal said in #1011, "Any human person is ... going to interpret differently from the next."
And the same is true of testing spirits. If you tell 20,000 people that they have the Spirit and the authority to determine subjectively what the Spirit is saying, then you will get 20,000 opinions.
-A8
With all due respect to Augustine, there is simply NO scriptural basis for that statement. I respect his love for & loyalty to his church, but nowhere in scripture is it said we need a "mother" of any sort or that God alone is not sufficient. This is fundamentally conflicting, to say the least, with scripture. The comment implies one is not exclusive of the other and that is simply not true.
Salvation does not come through a church, whether with a big "C" or a little "c". Salvation comes from the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus is ALL that is necessary for one's salvation. In His FINISHED work on the cross there IS sufficient for all of mankind's salvation. We have no need for a "mother" be it a church or other person. Our Father, in all of His righteousness and Glory, is more than enough for us. He shares His Glory with NO ONE. I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another... - ISAIAH 42:8
To be saved one must be incorporated into Christ's body, to be made a part of His bride, the Church.
That is just not true:
The jailer] "brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31)
Truth completes us. Oh, how I wish their spirits were calm enough to hear, if they only knew... How blessed we are to be Catholic!!!
Other than Eusebius and Jerome, and they were late, in the 4th century, I have found no other early church patriarchs that give credence to Peter's Bishopric.
I checked Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Justin Martur, all of whom were early enough and connected enough to Rome to know the facts. If anyone would attest to his Bishopric, they would, but there is nothing in their writings. Surely Peter's Bishopric in Rome would show up in their writings if he had been there, right?
The earliest attestation that Peter was even in Rome was Irenaeus whose only attestation is of the "Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul". That's all. There is no mention of a 25 year bishopric, Nero, dates, crucifixion, or death of Peter in Rome.
Where did Irenaeus get his information that Peter had been in Rome with Paul establishing the Church there if it is not in Scripture or in any of the patriarchal writings before him? Did he just make it up or did he read about in the Gnostic Clementine literature that was going around which was hardly credible?
What credible patriarchs of the early Church am I missing?
The "church" has no role in salvation.
Salvation is a gift from God, we can do nothing to gain it.
"Nowhere in scripture is it said that we need a 'mother' of any sort".
It's quite apparent that Jesus Christ Himself chose to come to us in his body through a mother.
If "we are the body of Christ, member for member" (St. Paul), then we are incorporated in Him through a mother.
It is the way He has chosen to "become flesh and dwell among us."
Jesus did nothing out of the ordinary in coming to us through a mother. He is a God of order and He chose to follow the order He set "in the beginning". It is perfectly natural and amazingly awseome at the same time that he was born of a woman. In fact, He clearly CHOSE to be identified with us (scriptural) in that we all come into this world through a mother. Being birthed from a woman's womb is the natural means for a person to come into this world. Could He have identified Himself with us has He come in some grandiose fashion other than being born of a woman?
That He chose to be birthed of a woman, according the laws of nature that He preordained, says nothing to indicate we must have the church as a "mother".
We are the body made up of many members with Him as the head, yes. That we are such is in no way indicative of our need for a "mother church". It is Paul's analogy of the church as a body and Christ as the head that gives us insight as to our oneness with Christ and each other.
Nowhere is it in scripture that the church is to be our "mother". God is mentioned numerous times as being our Father, but nowhere does He indicate we have need of more than Himself.
Please clarify, with scripture, if you will, what you believe to be the church's role in salvation. Just to better understand what you are saying.
I believe we have a role in ministering the message of salvation to the lost, but salvation in itself is offered only through Christ. No one else was nailed to the cross. No one else shed their blood. No one else died and rose again defeating the works of the devil. No one else but Christ has that power. There had to be a sacrifice for sin and Christ became that sacrifice. In doing all of this, Christ, and Christ alone, provided all that was necessary for salvation. No one else had a role in this act. Salvation is a completed work. Jesus said Himself, "It is finished." All that was necessary for salvation was fulfilled upon the cross. That we are to witness of this gift to others is a given, but we are nothing more than witnesses to the act and we can do nothing more to perfect the gift He so freely provided.
Why must there be a "Scriptural basis" for it? There is no "Scriptural basis" for 'sola scriptura'. Nobody thought in terms of sola scriptura for 1500 years. 'Sola scriptura' is an historical novelty, a modern contrivance completely foreign to the Church which Christ founded. That is why Cardinal Newman said that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant. As soon as one comes to understand that for 1500 years the Church recognized the *authority* of bishops, one sees that any group that does not recognize the authority of bishops and which espouses 'sola scriptura' is not the Church that Christ founded and the Apostles spread. A good book about this is Sungenis's Not By Scripture Alone.
-A8
How can we be assured of our own salvation if St. Paul wasn't (1 Corinthians 9:27)?
"Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: 'Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.' [1 Tim 1:18-19 .] To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; [Cf. Mk 9:24 ; Lk 17:5 ; Lk 22:32.] it must be 'working through charity,' abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church. [Gal 5:6 ; Rom 15:13 ; cf. Jam 2:14-26.]" CCC 162
Apologies for not pinging you to my response.
Salvation is not a "one time" event, but an ongoing process until "the end" (Matthew 10:22; 24:13; Mark 13:13). Through the Church, we receive the Sacraments which help us grow in grace.
You seem to forget that Irenaeus was a pupil of Polycarp, who was an auditor of the Apostle John. You live in a society and culture in which something must be written down for it to have credibility. You are seemingly imposing that notion on a time and culture in which many things were passed down orally.
Irenaeus is a very trustworthy source, both in his character and given the fact that he spent considerable time in Rome as an envoy (if I remember correctly). Dionysius, bishop of Corinth (c. 166-174 AD), also writes that both Peter and Paul planted both in Rome and in Corinth, and suffered martyrdom at the same time. And there is no competing traditional account of Peter's life. Peter himself gives evidence of his being in Rome in 1 Peter 5:13. And Papias (bishop of Hieropolis) and Clement of Alexandria both testify that Mark wrote his Gospel at Rome, which Gospel is understood to have been written under the direction and authority of Peter. (See, for example, 1 Pet 5:13) This Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 - 215 AD) also tells us that Peter preached at Rome. Tertullian also refers to "those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber", and tells us that Clement (of Rome) was ordained by Peter at Rome. Remember too that unlike in the case of Paul, there is no evidence of Peter being brought to Rome to stand trial. Nor would Peter, not being a Roman citizen have needed to be brought to Rome to face Nero or to be executed. But there is much evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome. The best explanation of those three facts is that Peter was already in Rome, on his own accord. And there is long-standing and undisputed tradition that Peter went there early, in part to deal with the false teaching of Simon Magus (who apparently had gone to Rome and through his sorcery become so revered that had a statue of himself as a god set up in Rome). St. Cyril (bishop of Jerusalem) testifies to that, and there are other sources for that as well.
-A8
You are quite right as usual.
Allowed physical fatigue to influence the other. Sorry.
I'm routinely called a lot worse, even hereon, as you know! LOL.
Some of the folks I have known might, say, be prone to calling a dead black cat a flying pink elephant with green stripes.
I tend to disagree with their label.
Sounds like the author mentioned has an axe to grind and so trumped up something in favor of his axe and tradition etc. Doesn't fly with me in the least.
I have a fair amount of patience for a lot of repetition.
But at some point redundant redundant again again btoken broken records records of the gnostic labeling sort are extremely unatractive and will be ignored.
Impartation of the awareness that Christ is Lord and all the other spiritual truths by Holy Spirit--whether involving the Bible, or not, IS NOT GNOSTIC regardless of what some yea-hoo author decides to label them.
The logical result would be that Holy Spirit is gnnostic, which is absurd.
Amen, of course! LUB
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.