And then the gun is no longer needed...
Posted on 12/27/2013 8:33:08 PM PST by Colofornian
...For eight years, I had been a professor at Brigham Young University...
I looked down on Christians...They had part of the gospel, but I had the fullness of it. I kept the laws and ordinances of Mormonism.
Three weeks before the end of his two-year mission, Micah called to tell us he was being sent home early—a horrific disgrace in Mormon culture. He had been reading the New Testament. There he encountered a different Jesus than the one I was taught about in Mormonism—a God of grace, not of works, so that no one can boast...
To a roomful of missionaries at his parting testimony, Micah had professed faith in Jesus alone and not the Mormon Church. He told them he had found a deep and genuine faith—one that didn't include Mormonism. It did not go over well. Church leaders told us that Micah had the spirit of the Devil in him, sent him home, and subsequently, back in Utah, invited us to bring him before the high council...
Micah pleaded, "Mom and Dad, please read the New Testament." We commenced. As I read, I became increasingly consumed by reading about the God of grace. I barely ate or slept. It's all I wanted to do.
...In John's gospel, I read, "These are the very scriptures that testify of me yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Salvation did not require the Mormon Church, only Jesus...
...on a chilly October evening in 2006, Michael and I settled in with Katie in our basement to watch the movie Luther. My heart pounded as I learned of the reformer's struggle against the Catholic Church. I seemed to be facing a similar struggle: Did I believe the Mormon system of obedience to laws and ordinances would secure my forgiveness?
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
I know a dude who thinks he is the second coming of Jesus Christ, based upon the fact that he has a birthmark on his hand which he fancies came from the crucifixtion. He also bases it on his general ugliness. He haunts the internet under the name “Spirit of Truth,” and you can see him posting in a bunch of random places, especially Zerohedge or other places you might expect a conspiracy-minded person to frequent. I sometimes see his posts randomly on common news links, since he probably frequents Drudge too. I used to post with him on a particular forum before he mysteriously disappeared (he confided to the forum owner that he was Christ).
Recall that his argument is based on the birthmark on the middle of the back of his hand. I talked to him once about it, and told him that my claim to being Christ would be better, because, comparing pictures, the birthmark on MY hand on the same spot is much bigger. LOL
There’s another fellow like this living up in Canada who thinks he’s the second coming. Think he started a commune. Don’t know how he’s doing though.
If you want to take this verse to mean that someone can “jump out” of the hand of God - after he said he would lose no one, would not cast anyone out or let anyone be plucked out of his hand - then you will also have to accept that the verse means there is NO possibility for repentance, confession and restoration. In other words, once you backslide, you can’t ever be saved. It will be impossible. What does that say for Catholicism’s doctrine of confession, penance and reconciliation? Kinda stuck, huh?
hogwash..today’s church is largely apostate....the holy spirit has been ever present since Jesus was here.
Put two and two together... Do some critical thinking.
You don’t know me very well, do you?
You honestly have NO clue about the teachings of the church Fathers! But I’ll help you find out, if you give me opportunity.
But as to your arguments against Paul. They are silly, since Paul and the Apostles all believed themselves to be writing scripture:
My arguments are not against St Paul... they are against your abuse of St Paul. Yes, he (and the others) knew they wrote authoritatively and that their writing were Scripture. HOWEVER (again, I repeat myself), when St Paul exhorts his readers to appeal to Scripture for the truth of what he shared, he meant the Old Testament. Yes, the Gospels were known (at least later in his ministry). Yes, there were some other letters. They were not, however, in all Churches in all places and held in the same ways. It is a logical fallacy that St Paul would tell his listeners to search his own letters for the truth of his testimony. He was sending them to see the Christ St Paul preached in the Scripture they already knew... but didn't see Christ in them until now.
So when you claim that Paul was only speaking of the Old Testament, you reveal your ignorance. Paul is speaking of the 4 Gospels, all the epistles of his fellow Apostles, and his own writings!
Let's take a logical walk here... I come to you and tell you that the answer you've been seeking your whole life is in the very same book you have been reading your whole life. For proof... do I send you to read other books that also tell you that? Do I send you to find one of my letters that will also tell you that? Rather, do I tell you to open up that book and I will show you where the answer is!? That is what St Paul is doing. Like Christ on the Road to Emmaus, he is opening their eyes to the truth of the Old Testament that is Christ.
Furthermore, the end of John does not actually claim that scripture is “incomplete”.
Good. I didn't say that either.
It only says that there were so many other deeds and wonders that could be written, that to attempt to write them all down would fill up all the books of the world.
That's a little paraphrasing by you... but I'll accept it.
Does that mean that there are an infinite number of doctrines?
Ok... that one hit me out of left field. Where did I make such a ridiculous argument? I'll save you from looking... I didn't. My argument was simply that the Bible doesn't contain everything. For example... it didn't contain the answer for the Council of Jerusalem on whether or not gentiles must be circumcised to be part of God's original covenant with Abraham in order to receive salvation through his lineage. St Peter spoke authoritatively and without the backup of Scripture because Scripture didn't have the answer... the Church did. The Church can't go against Scripture... it is the Word of God... but it must administer the Kingdom in Exile. This means it will define Doctrine where necessary. Acts 15 was a necessary moment. There have been others.
If Cyril of Jerusalem teaches that nothing can be taught except it is shown out of the Holy scriptures, and that even he should not be believed, unless it is shown from the scriptures, how do you legitimately explain his meaning?
I'll simply remind you that we do point to Scripture where we can... but you don't accept our explanation. Where we can't point directly to Scripture, we're dealing with an Acts 15 moment for the Church. To deny the Church has such authority is itself unscriptural.
You haven’t actually explained his meaning, but are hoping that we forget he said anything, and you’re even claiming him as a ‘Doctor of the church” as if that changes anything.
It means a great deal. It means that someone who has helped develop the Doctrines of the Church is being used as a sledgehammer (clumsily) against those doctrines. And yet you doggedly continue to pursue this unreasonable course that he contradicts Catholic Doctrine! You have chosen the wrong champion to use against the Church. He is one of our pillars of strength.
It was a legitimate question. The only mention of "Catholic" was in the OP in reference to watching a movie about Martin Luther. Hardly a hijacking tactic! It only took to post #4 for the actual hijack to start:
Mormons correctly recognize that salvation is through a hierarchical church. This is plainly scriptural. The problem is that they are in the wrong church. Salvation is through the Catholic Church.
4 posted on Saturday, December 28, 2013 12:10:25 AM by impimp
It continued from there. Is there a reason why Catholics here shy away from actually discussing the topic of a thread and seem to like making EVERY RF thread about Catholicism? Looks like that high road is crowded. ;o)
Finally! Someone who will elevate the conversation has been sorely needed...
It was a QUESTION, Sal. Don’t get yer knickers in a knot!
Well thank you.
Why would we have to accept your assertion as the only outcome? The Bible gives another when one has been "cast out"...
Matt 18:15 And if thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established. 17 And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican.What does that say for Catholicism’s doctrine of confession, penance and reconciliation? Kinda stuck, huh?1 Cor 5:5 to deliver such a one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
It sounds just like it to me. I have to confess... I'm not really stuck.
Yes... it continued from there. Give me a break. The thread mentions Catholicism. Someone rejoinders. Discussion ensues... and this is a thread highjacking? The bar has been set pretty low these days.
Looks like that high road is crowded.
How would you know? ;)
You must be bored tonight seeing as you insert yourself into all the side arguments going on. If you look back at the path my conversation took with AppyPappy it was having to do with his assertion that we can lose our salvation because of what we do or don't do and that we have the power to "pluck ourselves" out of God's hand. This is against the backdrop of Jesus' message in John 10:27-29 where he says:
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
AppyPappy says WE can pluck ourselves out. He then quoted Hebrews 6:4-6. Which says:
For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
My comment was about his use of this passage to assert we can somehow pluck ourselves out of God's hand. Are you still with me? Going by this verse, on face value, with the idea that someone CAN be lost, cast out or plucked out of God's hand once he comes to faith in Christ and is born again, must mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew him again to repentance. That IS what that verse says, does it not? So, rather than it being "my" assertion of what that verse means, I am questioning AppyPappy's assertion of what it means. It's late, maybe he's already in bed and perhaps will respond tomorrow, I can wait.
“I’m growing annoyed with your arrogance.”
Says the guy who is trying to talk us into believing that his religion is the true church of God on Earth.
“when St Paul exhorts his readers to appeal to Scripture for the truth of what he shared, he meant the Old Testament. Yes, the Gospels were known (at least later in his ministry). Yes, there were some other letters. They were not, however, in all Churches in all places and held in the same ways. It is a logical fallacy that St Paul would tell his listeners to search his own letters for the truth of his testimony.”
It’s worth pointing out at this point that Paul never actually said “search the scriptures to confirm my testimony.” You’re quoting Christ in the Gospel of John:
Joh_5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
You might also be thinking about his debate with the Jews, but he still doesn’t quite say it as you do, and he is only arguing for Christ being the Messiah:
Act_24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
In either case, he’s not saying to “look through the scriptures” to confirm his own testimony of meeting Christ on the road to Damascus, or anything like that. Though he does make uses of both the Old and New Testament to substantiate his teachings:
From the Old Testament:
Rom_4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
And then, to the New:
1Co 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
1Co 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
” To deny the Church has such authority is itself unscriptural.”
The only way you can make this claim is if you can demonstrate that the successors of the Apostles possessed their same authority to produce scripture. The Apostles could teach authoritatively because it was a power given to them directly, and so they had the right to teach, and to expound, and to judge, and all of this substantiated by their own miracles and by Christ Himself.
No church has any such authority to create scripture. And there is no evidence that the Apostles passed on any such “scripture” creating authority to any one else, or any of their other gifts.
“They [the scripture] were not, however, in all Churches in all places and held in the same ways.”
Which means absolutely nothing, since, even if a person does not have the scripture, it does not change the fact that no doctrine can go unsubstantiated but by divine sources.
In which case you must prove that your sources are actually divine, which, really, you can’t, unless it is determined to be Holy scripture, since the Apostles are long dead.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Hence why Cyril specifically says that doctrines must not be confirmed by mere “plausibility,’ but substantiated from the holy scriptures. That’s the only dependable source for all teachings.
But as to the alleged unavailability of the scripture: this, apparently, did not stop Ignatius, Polycarp or Irenaeus, ranging from the 1st century to the second (Ignatius died between 95AD-115AD) from making great use of the New Testament. Together they quote from almost the entirety of the New Testament, except perhaps for 2 Peter and maybe Jude. They, together, quote from all the Gospels, all the Paulie Epistles, all the Catholic epistles, including Revelation. Irenaeus does so, for the latter, 29 times.
The fact that scripture ought to be made available, and as widely as possible, was one of the values of the early Christian church:
“Having thus brought out the benefit of the divinely-inspired Scripture, he bids him make it available to everyone, and instills dead by his adjuration. I adjure you, therefore, in the presence of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, who is due to judge living and dead: in view of his coming and his kingdom, preach the word (vv.1-2). Fearful of rendering an account, the divine apostle never ceases to impress this on the disciple with his adjuration.” (Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on 2 Timothy, Chapter 4, in Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Volume 2, p. 246 (2001), Robert C. Hill translator.)
The only time we actually find the RCC teaching differently is about a thousand years later.
“Ok... that one hit me out of left field. Where did I make such a ridiculous argument? I’ll save you from looking... I didn’t. My argument was simply that the Bible doesn’t contain everything.”
If you are going to claim that John teaches the “scripture is incomplete,” then you have to believe the passage that says that “all the things Jesus DID” refers to teachings, and that these teachings are infinite, since the world cannot contain all the books that would need to be filled.
As a matter of consistency, you must believe that doctrines are infinite, or, at least, so vast, that it is bigger than the world can hold.
” For example... it didn’t contain the answer for the Council of Jerusalem on whether or not gentiles must be circumcised to be part of God’s original covenant with Abraham in order to receive salvation through his lineage”
Do you even know what you’re saying though? This statement of yours sounds so awkward that I think it’s worth explaining and emphasizing for you what the Council of Jerusalem was deciding about. The issue at stake there was between believing Pharisees and their claim that it is necessary to be circumcized AND follow the law in order to be saved:
Act 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
They were of the sect of Pharisees “which believed,” and so they required the full compliance of both faith in Christ and obedience to the law in order to be saved. Peter replies to point them back to grace:
“And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.”
(Act 15:7-11)
This is not a council that is friendly to Roman Catholicism which, honestly, knows nothing about the doctrines of grace of which these men are speaking. When James declared his sentence at the end of the council, the decision was based on the doctrine of salvation expressed by Christ Himself from day one.
Is this really an obscure issue being dealt with in that Council? You speak of it as if it was.
“The Church can’t go against Scripture... it is the Word of God...”
It’s not about “going against the scripture,” it’s whether or not the church is allowed to teach things that aren’t in the scripture. If Cyril is correct, then ALL doctrines must have substantiation in the scripture. They can’t simply not ‘disagree’ with it. They have to be present within the scripture, and not by mere “plausible” arguments, as Cyril puts it, and all teachings that the church proposes to give must conform to scriptural standards.
“I’ll simply remind you that we do point to Scripture where we can..”
Note the words “where we can,” compare that, again, to what Cyril wrote, or to what Paul wrote.
“It means a great deal. It means that someone who has helped develop the Doctrines of the Church is being used as a sledgehammer (clumsily) against those doctrines. And yet you doggedly continue to pursue this unreasonable course that he contradicts Catholic Doctrine! You have chosen the wrong champion to use against the Church. He is one of our pillars of strength.”
I wonder though if you’ve ever bothered to actually read the church Fathers. When you say things like this, it basically tells me that you are utterly unfamiliar with them. The basis of Roman authority is on the “unanimous” agreement of the Fathers. But this doesn’t actually exist.
For example, do you agree with any of this?:
Augustine on irresistible grace, final perseverance, limited atonement, and whatever else I missed which he touches on here:
“But of such as these [the Elect] none perishes, because of all that the Father has given Him, He will lose none. John 6:39 Whoever, therefore, is of these does not perish at all; nor was any who perishes ever of these. For which reason it is said, They went out from among us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us. John 2:19”. (Augustine, Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints)
“I assert, therefore, that the perseverance by which we persevere in Christ even to the end is the gift of God; and I call that the end by which is finished that life wherein alone there is peril of falling.” (Augustine, On the Perseverance of the Saints)
“And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens.” And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, who “being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calls, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.” And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, not of works, but, of future works, and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, God forbid; that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” “ (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
“But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.”” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 15:17-19)
John Chrysostom on Sola Fide
“By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” (Homily 7 on Romans III)
“For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.” (John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Second Corinthians, 2 Cor 5:21)
Theodoret, Bishop of Syria, on the same:
“The salvation of man depends upon the divine philanthropy alone. For we do not gather it as the wages of our righteousness, but it is the gift of the divine goodness.” (On the 3rd chap, of Zephaniah.)
Clemens Romanus, on the same:
“Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” (Letter to the Corinthians)
Ignatius on predestination and final perseverence:
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God: Abundant happiness through Jesus Christ, and His undefiled grace.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 0)
“Seeing, then, all things have an end, these two things are simultaneously set before us— death and life; and every one shall go unto his own place. For as there are two kinds of coins, the one of God, the other of the world, and each of these has its special character stamped upon it, [so is it also here.] The unbelieving are of this world; but the believing have, in love, the character of God the Father by Jesus Christ, by whom, if we are not in readiness to die into His passion, His life is not in us.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, Ch. 5)
“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans. Ch. 0)
“I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult. Yet Jesus Christ, who is our true life, has the power of [effecting] this.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ch. 4)
“Flee, therefore, those evil offshoots [of Satan], which produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies. For these men are not the planting of the Father. For if they were, they would appear as branches of the cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible.” (Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Trallians, Ch. 11)
Are these the the Doctors of the Church you believe in?
(Well, there was also a "Galatians 2 moment" -- where a reformer ... Paul...had to set Peter (Cephas) straight):
"For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along. 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
And then the gun is no longer needed...
Birds of a feather???
“Ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs...”
Hey RUSH!!!
Here's another Low Info person!!!
You expect the poster to prove a negative?
Being the expert on all things Mormon why not inform us.
Here??
My heart pounded as I learned of the reformer's struggle against the Catholic Church. I seemed to be facing a similar struggle: Did I believe the Mormon system of obedience to laws and ordinances would secure my forgiveness?
Oh???
|
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.