This Catholic Journey
I don't mean to cause a fuss or a wrinkle, but consider whether Scripture has been necessarily guarded from error in its copying and transcribing.
Case in point, 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5 talk about a battle fought against the Philistines during the reign of David. The passage from 2 Samuel 21 says "Elhanan ... slew Goliath the Gittite". The passage from 1 Chronicles 20 says "Elhanan ... slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite". (Those quotes are from the RSV; the NAB and the DR are essentially the same.) The KJV fixes this by including a gloss in 2 Samuel 21, inserting "the brother of" (where it does not exist in the Hebrew nor the Greek of the Septuagint.
Another such disparity can be found in 2 Kings 8:26 vs. 2 Chronicles 22:2. In the first, Ahaziah is said to be 22 when he begins his reign; in the second, he is said to be forty-two, thirty-two, or twenty-two, depending on the manuscript used. The NAB renders it as "twenty-two".
What must be understood is that the copyists and scribes who passed the Scripture on through the ages made errors, but the original manuscripts (autographs as they're called) were entirely preserved from such error when they were written, by the hands men, under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
This doesn't excuse your DRE's position on the matter, but I hope it clears some confusion.
Japhy,
I'm aware of this but this is not the issue at hand. This is why I included the quote:
St. Augustine to St. Jerome said, On my own part I confess...that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error. And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.
I'm not referring to possible errors or discrepancies in translations but rather the claim that Scripture, in and of itself, is only inerrant on matters of faith and morals: a position which contradicts the teaching of the Church.
These discrepancies in copying and transcribing do not mean that Scripture itself contains error or that the writers of Scripture erred.
I think this is an important difference... and these translation/copy errors are not what the DRE was referring to. If she were, I'd be inclined to agree with her. Instead, she was claiming that the writers themselves wrote error, yet agreed that the Scriptures were inspired. It doesn't even make sense to believe this because God cannot make mistakes and would not permit the authors to err.
Thank you for sharing your comments...
Amber,
Your scholarship is commendable. I find it difficult to see how anyone would fail to be persuaded by your evidence. I read your post carefully, not to be persuaded, but to find a response to seeming inconsistancies such as those pointed out above. I was touched by the same quote that you used in your reply:
"And if in these books I meet anything which seems contrary to truth I shall not hesitate to conclude either that the text is faulty or that the translator has not expressed the meaning of the passage, or that I myself do not understand.
It makes such perfect sense to me. It accounts both for the possibility of errors in translation and the more likely senario that I just don't understand. God's word says what it needs to say when it needs to say it and to whom it needs to be said. I won't presume that I know the full depth of His words and their intentions.
Ah, thanks Amber. I've read that quote by Augustine enough times that it didn't register with me this time!
God bless, and keep fighting the good fight.
JLF,
Thank you... I only seek to bring light to the truth because stating the Bible contains error reduces God to being the author of error. This cannot be tolerated.
Great work Amber. Its our duty even as laypeople to confront error. Unfortunately this evil is widespread in the Church and is going to take a long time to purge. Im beginning to think we may just have to wait for the generation of hippies to die off. What the @*!# was in the water in the 60s?!
You are right. Here is also a quote I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is from an Encyclical by Leo XIII calle Providentissimus Deus:
It will never be lawful to restrict inspiration merely to certain parts of the Holy Scripture, or to grant that the sacred writer could have made a mistake. Nor may the opinion of those be tolerated, who, in order to get out of these difficulties, do not hesitate to suppose that Divine inspiration extends only to what touches faith and morals, on the false plea that the true meaning is sought for less in what God has said than in the motive for which He has said it. (Denz., 1950)
But that does not mean we know what the bible means. For example, we do not have to believe that there is water behind the sky (Gen 1:7). Being inerrant is not the same as being a historical fact book.
Sacred scripture requires interpretation. Here is what the CCC says:
(109) In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words.
(110) In order to discover the sacred author's intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression"
Exactly... saying the Bible "contains errors" because it doesn't meet the standard of a history or science book is like denouncing the square block because it doesn't fit in the circular hole.
The Bible is something which points beyond itself towards God and His truth. In this regard, it is Sacred, Holy, and inerrant. It was never intended to be scientific journal, which serves a completely different purpose.
Is it worth pursuing up the chain of command? Particularly since you want your children to be raised in the admonition of the Lord, correctly.
What does your Pastor say?
Interesting. I must say I have always thought the Bible inspired, and inerrant, but not factual. For me, to limit God to facts is a bad idea, and in many respects is putting him to the test. God is too vast, truth is too monumental and complex to be understood in simple terms.
I personally relish the inconsistencies of facts in the bible, because I know that even though it says two conflicting thing, I also know they are both true, by some great and unknowable mystery.
It's like the parables Jesus tells, we know they aren't factual, they aren't historical or "truthful" in the non-fiction way, however they are the truth itself and they have infinitely more worth than any fact I've ever learned.
Since the enlightenment the philosophic worldview is far to concerned with facts, with what is measurable and identifiable and provable and sure. This is, perhaps, one of the greatest tragedies of mankind.
Great scholarship Amber and I completely agree with you.
The bible is inerrant and that includes the science part of it. Why do I say this? Because think about it. Moses, the author of the first five books of the bible, received information from God through, for lack of a better word, visions. In his description of the creation in Genesis, he is "seeing" what God is showing him. That doesn't mean that he entirely understands what he is seeing, and so he is describing it as best as he can. For example, as one of your readers found a great example, which ought to strengthen, not weaken, faith:
For example, we do not have to believe that there is water behind the sky (Gen 1:7).
Actually, the newspapers are full of publicity about astronomers detecting water "in space." So when Moses observed the separation, he saw water here on earth, but he also correctly sees water in space, although he does not scientifically understand that is what he is seeing.
The same is true for the seven days of creation debate. Non-Catholic fundamentalists think this is a literally 24 hour solar day being described. Catholics keep an open mind that they have no way of understanding what a "day" is in God's mind. Quite likely Moses was seeing a light and darkness cycle in order to give him context of a "day" but that could be a galactic day in God's point of reference. So while yes, the bible cannot be used as a science textbook, it should not be dismissed in it's science facts so easily, just because the focus is not on God saying, "OK Moses, here's the deal. You are on a planet, and it's a round body in the void and you don't fall off of it because of gravity. And the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago, and so each "day" that you see is the Cliff Notes for about 2 billion years of activity. And by the way, E=mcsquared!
That's where the doubt creeps in with people like the DRE person you mention. They think that in light of our oh so great knowledge in modern times that those primitive writers got some things wrong. Instead, people should assume they are right, as the Church teaches steadily, and open their minds as to what the prophets and Biblical authors were actually seeing and experiencing, that might challenge their capacity to articulate in modern terms, but that does not render them untrue.
Just wanted to thank everyone for their comments on this post. There are a lot of really great thoughts here. I'm so thankful to know people who are with me in fighting to keep our parishes orthodox.
God Bless!
Just a thought. A statement can only be false if it asserts something false or denies something true. Now, in the case of the Bible, it could be argued that when it appears to state something false on the factual level, what is being asserted is a spiritual truth other than the apparent factual meaning. Thus it is not asserting something false. The intended meaning is a truth for the sake of our salvation. The fact which appears to be stated erroneously is not being either asserted or denied and therefore the statement cannot be in error. Does this make sense?
The question for interpreters is then: what is the writer intending to affirm/deny?
This is also why many orthodox Catholics have chosen to home educate their children...even many of our Catholic schools are still far from teaching the fullness of the Truth. I pray that you will be involved as a Catechist where your children receive their religious instruction. My husband and I both have chosen to be Catechists of the Faith, even though I homeschool so that we can help teach the Catholic Faith...our Catholic children are starving for it and their parents seem to know so little. It is a very sad situation. You would be great! God bless!
hello Amber.... we meet again except on a diffrent topic.I read most of your comment on the perfectness of scripture and I agree 100 percent. One would wonder why would you need any authority other than perfect scripture? Does not the Catholic Church teach that tradition and non-apostolic leaders (what they teach) have equal value? They even say the church is based 50% on the bible and 50% tradition,papal decrees etc. ? It is like scripture is not yet canonized that it is still "open", being added to for all intensive purposes. Indeed we both dislike cafeteria style approach to scripture where you pick this and that but leave other stuff out. But isn't it just as bad to yes, take the whole menu but then add to it what is not there? Lord help us.
"One would wonder why would you need any authority other than perfect scripture?"
Easy. Because although Scripture itself is perfect, it is NOT self-interpreting. A book, no matter how divinely inspired, cannot be self-interpreting. It requires a source outside itself to determine what it means. Pastors of every church in every denomination take this authority upon themselves every time they give a sermon. For Catholics, the 2000-year old Catholic Church IS that authority, given to the Church by Christ himself (Matt 16:18-20).
"Does not the Catholic Church teach that tradition and non-apostolic leaders (what they teach) have equal value? They even say the church is based 50% on the bible and 50% tradition,papal decrees etc. ? It is like scripture is not yet canonized that it is still "open", being added to for all intensive purposes."
The Tradition of the Church is that which was passed down by the apostles to the church throughout the ages. Scripture is clear that early Christians were to hold fast to the traditions taught to them by word of mouth AND by letter (2 Thess 2:15). We were without a completed canon for nearly 4 centuries... The early Christians, many of whom were illiterate, used oral traditional to spread the faith. The Tradition of the Catholic Church today consists of oral traditions which are now mostly in writing that have been carried down through the centuries.
The canon of Scripture is closed as is new revelation. However, the Church is a growing, living thing... Doctrines have not been "made up" over the years but they have been further defined and explained as questions have come up. The Catholic Church doesn't "add" things. They have taught nothing new in the areas of doctrine or morals in the last 2000 years.
By the way, there is no set formula such as 50% from the Bible and 50% from tradition, etc. If you find a document that says otherwise from the Catholic Church, please be sure to cite it.
hello Amber --you speak frankly and thus show yourself. Did you not read the quotes of Augustine in the Mary forum ? Most of scripture was written before the turn of the 1st century (100a.d.).and it was "easy for everyone to read...... and accesible to all men". The oral tradition was only a 25 to 30 year period at most,then it was written down by the same apostles .It has been understood by most scholars and early fathers that what was written covers everything for the christian walk. They did not leave anything important out. No, tradition is NOT what the apostles said but didn't write down ,but interpetations there of and what non-apostolic leaders said thereafter. Furthermore, scripture and Augustine both acknowledge the role of teachers, but never above scripture and never to private interpetation, but more succintly it is Jesus who teaches us ,the holy spirit,who guides us both teacher and "student". Augustine writes," Thefore,O Lord,I hear your voice speaking to me ,since he who teaches us speaks to us. But a man who does not teach us, even though he speaks, does not speak to us. Who teaches us now, unless it be stable Truth ? Even when we are admonished by a changeable creature, we are led to stable Truth,where we truly learn and hear Him,...the bridegrooms' voice." Also,"When we return from error...we know this, He teaches us, He is the beginning and He speaks to us", "Do you who granted to him (Moses) your servant to speak these true words,grant to me that I may understand them". Remember divinely inspired (written),divinely revealed? Who first taught Peter that Jesus was the Messiah ? Furthermore, Augustine acknowledges there is an inspired teacher and a non-inspired teacher. The gates of hell can not prevail against an inspired church-teacher AND an inspired hearer. Satan CAN prevail against a non inspired church or a non inspired hearer and any combination thereof. Jesus clearly teaches in Matt 16 that it is all dependent upon divine revelation, without it the keys will not work. You will be a wandering jew, being swayed this way and that. Just read what popes have written thru the centuries, much of it contradicting one another. Augustine also writes that he loved Catholic teaching. Most historians would say it was not Roman at that time, nor loaded with many of the "traditions' that came to be centuries later. So again a church can be wrong and is not above written scripture. You state the church is a "growing living thing" ,the same thing liberals use to stray from original intent of our constitution and our faith. What happened to the "same yesterday ,today and forever"? Furthermore ,what I would give to be something close to that first church in Jerusalem that we find at the beginning of Acts. Please, most historians would have a field day on things added or changed in Roman Catholicism. Just one: in 1850 it was declared if i did not believe in the immaculate conception I was doomed. Most Catholic apologe
hello ..let me finish please .Most catholic apologeticists state that scripture and traditions are on par with each other .It is on the Catholic radio where i have heard them say the 50%. I suppose if you take catholic practices half are biblically traced and half are tradition traced. You have not said it dirctly but very strongly indirectly. I think there is something wrong when the church must interpet scripture for you .Augustine wrote the above after he was born again. Does not the new birth give us the mind of Christ? Are we not then made priests? Augustines prayer would have been that we find Him, in truth and in spirit,that making us a part of His body ,the Church. Allleluia
"I think there is something wrong when the church must interpet scripture for you."
And I think there is something wrong with each man being his own authority, interpreting Scripture as HE sees fit and telling me I'm wrong along with a 2000 year old church that actually does NOT contradict itself when one reads Scripture, the ECFs and documents of the church in context. Too much is floating around out there, out of context and in attack of the Catholic Church. Some of these attacks are downright disgusting - Whore of Babylon, the Beast, etc. Interesting considering persecution is a huge part of being a Christian and, it seems these days, few are more grotesquely persecuted than those of the Catholic Church (even more-so, ironically, by fellow believers).
The bottom line, David, is that all kinds of Christians today can twist Scripture to make it say almost anything they want it to say to fit their OWN personal belief system and then claim that the Holy Spirit told them so. Don't YOU see what's wrong with that? Why would God put us down here and just have us all sittin' around trying to figure it out? How cruel! Indeed, many have gone astray and turned the faith into religions of men... but, really, is it more likely that a 2000 year old church has it right or a church started 10 (or even 200) years ago by a man who calls himself a pastor and who has no formal degree in theology or scriptural study?
I followed God himself INTO the Catholic Church much to my original dismay since I once thought very much like you, David. But the bottom line here is that I don't follow man, I follow God and THIS is where He has led me and this is where I'm staying unless GOD says otherwise. My study has me utterly convinced that the Catholic Church did NOT slip into apostasy, it does NOT teach error on matters of faith and moral, does NOT contradict Scripture, and that it IS in fact the original Church started by Christ. The doctrines within have NOT changed over time but have been defined whenever a need is created due to heresy. Sometimes the church is silent on matters until it can discern the truth. But it doesn't just throw out random doctrines that contradict formerly defined doctrines and you'd be hard-pressed to find an authentic example since there is none. (By the way, the Immaculate Conception wasn't actually "officially" declared until 1854.) Additionally, it is the only church that has remained true to Scripture and to the moral laws given us by God (i.e. contraception, abortion and other life issues).
With all due respect, I find your arguments lacking, out of context and ripped from major themes of misconception held by the most common anti-Catholics of our day.
Augustine was a Catholic BISHOP. He was no less Catholic than I am today and what you've quoted to try to back up your viewpoint, which isn't even cited by the way, when read properly, in no way diminishes the authority or role that the Catholic Church plays in the growing faith in Jesus Christ that Christians have been experiencing for the last 2000 years under the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit's work in the Catholic Church.
You may continue posting if you wish but this is my faith and no man will take away what God has so graciously given to me. I live by His grace and His love. You can doubt that all you want - say I've been misled, tricked, deceived, whatever... But I know the truth about my own heart and my own relationship with God. I HAVE found HIM in truth and spirit and I AM a member of the body of Christ, his Church. No measure of your doubt changes that fact and you simply have no authority to judge my heart anyway.
The question is, why are you so hell-bent on trying to undo what God has done for me? Why do you question a faith held so passionately by myself and other converts who have studied and prayed in anguishing discernment why God has led them to the Catholic Church?
Converts do not come the the Catholic faith on a whim. They come for a reason... for depth, passion, love, grace, beauty, and holiness.
I am Catholic now and I will never cease loving my Creator through His beautiful and sacred Catholic Church.
Hold firmly that our faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny this, and you dissolve the unity of the Church. ~Saint Thomas Aquinas
Hello Amber, on a quick break lunch here. Wow,what a response ,thank you . All I can say here is St. Augustines" quotes were from his book, "Confessions" (I did state that on the same quotes under your Mary blog a week or so ago. sorry ). I will ask you where do you see where I state that I am the interpeter of scripture ("each man his OWN authority") ? I know that is what you feel I am saying but where did I actually say that ? I do feel the Spirit is moving here in these blogs.
Well, if not the Catholic Church, how do YOU know what Scripture teaches? Who interprets Scripture for you? And saying the Holy Spirit doesn't work because there are thousands of people who say the Holy Spirit who have contradicting viewpoints of what Scripture teaches...
Hello Amber --- Could I not also say, "and don't tell me Catholics can interpet scripture because thay have many contradicting viewpoints" ? Maybe not thousands or even hundreds but certainly many and what one pope has said contradicts what another pope said etc.,etc. Did you not read the comment on " Did Jesus have brothers" dated 7-23 ,listing all the "different "denominations" within Catholicism" ? Amber ,what about all the millions of people, all around the world ,every tongue and race, who are all unified in one faith that says :one- I am a sinner, two- God is good and holy, 3- there is a personal judgement, 4- He died for my sins and freely by grace grants me faith,and a new life and vision to see and appropriate HIS ,HIS salvation. Is not this the work of the Holy Spirit ?(working with scripture,and many denominations including Catholic). Again ,by your rationale ,a buddhust or muslim etc. could not choose a church to be interpreter because of all the differing ones (of which Catholicism is just one). How do you interpet St.Augustine when he says, "He speaks to us...He teaches us" ? The context is quite plain as noted above on 7-27,that a teacher is NOT enough. Further more he pleads for understanding, he does not plead for being sent a good teacher or a good church ,he pleads for personal understanding ,amidst teachers and churches. But alas ,only by His grace is my "box" broken, away from catholicism vs protestantism and peace flows in,setting me free to see His simpler stronger ,invisible "Box"(plan). Finally ,I am sorry if you feel I am judging you, or asking you to leave your faith or your church, but I do not see that in my comments. Where have I ever said you should become a baptist or a lutheran or episcopal etc. in all the pages and pages of dialogue ? But indeed I can only tetsify of what He has shown and done for me ,the rest of my dialogue could be vain . If you feel any "pull" it is not from me but perhaps for some Truth that has graced our dialogue. I am in awe of some of our dialogue ,and I'll read it over and over again and say where did that come from-thru us ? wow! Lord, help us.Thank-you
"Could I not also say, "and don't tell me Catholics can interpet scripture because thay have many contradicting viewpoints"?"
Sure you could say it... and individual Catholics may try to apply their own interpretation to Scripture. But you cannot say that the whole church teaches contradictory viewpoints because it doesn't. In fact, we have laid out a complete book that details the teaching of the church... the Catechism. Does your church have such a book, letting you know what has been believed (for 2000 years) and what is to be believed by the faithful in your congregation?
"Did you not read the comment on " Did Jesus have brothers" dated 7-23 ,listing all the "different "denominations" within Catholicism"?"
Oh, David... these are not denominations. First off, some of these churches (like the "Old Catholic Church") are not a part of the Catholic Church since they have separated themselves from her union and are not in communion with her. They are in schism. They merely use the name Catholic. There are, however, rites within the Catholic Church. These rites believe and teach all the SAME things and are all in communion with one another and the Bishop of Rome. They do NOT teach opposing dogmas. Rather, they differ in cultural practice and discipline only. These are not denominations.
Regarding Augustine... No one is denying here that the Scriptures have some level of authority. Everything should be tested against Scripture and nothing should contradict it. Augustine is talking about that authority.
However, Augustine also said:
"But should you meet with a person not yet believing the Gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus Called Fundamental, Chap. 5)
"As to those other things which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world, it may be understood that they are held as approved and instituted either by the apostles themselves, or by plenary Councils, whose authority in the Church is most useful." (Letters, No. 54)
And this is only St. Augustine. There are many, many others who said similar things!
The question remains... Who interprets Scripture for you?
Peace be with you!
Hello Amber---Oh yes ,the Baltimore Catechism: What is faith ? Faith is a gift from God..I believe the Holy Spirit brought that 3rd grade reading fresh and with understanding to my mind at my darkest lost hour, and I ceased from my labors to birth myself and I first trusted in His labor. As far as catechisms ,you make it sound like it is a Roman Catholic thing. I believe the first catechism was published in 1563 ,but by reformed german "protestants". The Catholics followed with their own in 1566 ,the Episcopals in 1789, presbyters in 1648, puritans in 1855 and the baltimore Catholic in 1885. I do not believe the others state that their faith is a "new " thing. I believe they felt their teaching to be apostolic also. I would contend even pre-apostolic, back to father Abraham. The next point on "denominations". If it is apples to apples and you say there is one catholicism , I would venture there are 3 or 4 protstetant churches .If I were to say there are 4 Catholic divisions (do you consider Sedevacantists as still Catholic?) there may be 12 in the protestant. I quote a study done by David Barrett on 7-23 blog (did Jesus have brothers). He would strongly disagree with a statement of catholicism is one but protestant is thousands, even hundreds. Could not I say lutherans is for germany and episcopal for england ,showing only "cultural and discipline differences" ? Evangelicals is a grouping that is very unified ,,worldwide .So on basic articles of faith, there is not this mass confusion that some like to bring up. As a matter of fact, I believe those basic articles do Not conflict with those same Catholic articles( I stated a simple 4 articles yesterday)..As far as scripture having authority: first you state it has "some" authority but then you state "everything " should be tested against scripture. How can it be "everything" ,then only "some"? Are you saying that Augustine believed "everything should be tested against scripture ,but that scripture by itself is not authoratative in itself ? does not make sense without further explanation. It also seems that Augustine and the catholic catechism are at odds with point #562- "All men can not examine or understand scripture, but we can listen to the church and some scripture can not be understood except by tradition. Scripture alone can not be our guide". Augustine states scripture is "easy for eveyone to read .....and accessible to all men" and that "He teaches us" and prays for personal understanding of what he reads and hears (by the church).He did not pray "help me believe the church" (from Augustines "Confessions". book 6 ch 5)I have been fair to state that he loved "catholic teaching ,but this was the end of the fourth century. Yes ,let us put it in context :there were no Lutherans or Baptists or even something called Roman catholicism" .There were agnostics and Manacheans (which Augustine once was )and several other forms of false christianity . So when he s
"He would strongly disagree with a statement of catholicism is one but protestant is thousands, even hundreds. Could not I say lutherans is for germany and episcopal for england ,showing only "cultural and discipline differences" ?"
No, I'm sorry, you can't... because what these churches teach all differ from one another. As I stated before, ALL rites in the Catholic Church teach the EXACT SAME thing!
"How can it be "everything" ,then only "some"?"
You are twisting words. The point I was making is that IF something is tested and contradicts Scripture (in context, of course), then it cannot be true. However, Scripture is still not self-interpreting. Something outside of Scripture must exist. Again, who interprets Scripture for YOU?
Augustine did not love catholic teaching over protestatnt teaching. More specifically, he "loved Catholic teaching" over Manachaen teaching. As far as his quote about tradition:he is specific to what traditions he means. It is the celebrataion annualy of the death ,resurection and ascension of our lord, and Pentecost sunday. He says this is o.k. and worldwide. He goes on to discuss fasting and how often to receive communion and that there can be different practices and all are O.k. He cites scripture often,keeps it simple - love, be free(not legalistic) but do not stumble a brother etc. All very innocuous. Finally, I would be happy for the second or third time to say who interpets scripture or anything for that matter for me .You were honest enough to say you are in compliance to point #351 of the catechism: "Must we seek scripture and traditions ourselves? No need to ourselves for what we are to believe God has appointed the Church to be our guide to salvation and we must accept it's teaching" .Yes' there is one scripture that says the church is the pillar and ground of truth but there are many more that says scripture is paramount and that the Holy Spirit will guide us and teach us. There can not be a contradiction. Yes there is a church, a kingdom with all sorts of giftings and teachers , to be born into. It is God that does the calling the drawing the birthing but He uses the church ,kingdom inhabitants in that process. In the end Jesus is alive, He sups with us personally. Could He not tell me what is right on any issue, could he not reveal to me or you what a simple scripture means or what that teacher meant by saying such and such a thing or what the meaning of fasting or communion means?Does he not say He will do this? WHERE DOES HE SAY THE CHURCH IS THE WAY AND THE LIFE AND NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THRU THE CHURCH? Again, this has All happened before,with the jews.God's plan became more important than who He was and Is and who we are and why the plan was needed in the first place. Please answer me ,is not a believer made a priest? But I ramble. Yes the Holy Spirit guides me in interpeting scripture ,in discerning what Augustine wrote or Luther or you wrote or what any preacher I hear say .The Holy spirit helps me discern the merit of all traditions,and good works by past and present saints. However ,the outcome is not always perfect, that being my fault,my own carnality or flesh which will be judged and burned up, and only what is done in and for Christ will last. But forgive me for my lack ,it is important to be upright for indeed I am part of the church the ground of truth ,which needs no controversy for the gospels sake. So humbly yes ,the Holy Spirit ,yes a personal relationship with Jesus. Alleluia
"Augustine did not love catholic teaching over protestatnt teaching."
Of course he didn't! There was NO protestant teaching at that time. There was ONLY Catholic teaching or teachings that went into heresy! No Reformation. No Lutherans, Methodists, Pentacostals... etc. Period.
"He goes on to discuss fasting and how often to receive communion and that there can be different practices and all are O.k."
Exactly, there are differences in PRACTICE. This is not a difference in dogma. As I stated before, cultures may have differences in practice. By the way, there is nothing legalistic about rituals and traditions when they are done with the right heart - a heart that seeks to please and love God! Society is full of ritual and tradition (marriage, birthdays, military ceremonies, funerals, etc). It is only legalistic when one is doing it to "look good" or when it's done in vain.
"WHERE DOES HE SAY THE CHURCH IS THE WAY AND THE LIFE AND NO MAN GOES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THRU THE CHURCH? "
Well, I certainly never said this. Christ DID, however, establish a church to be the pillar and ground of the TRUTH, one with authority to bind and loose, to forgive and retain sin, etc. Without Christ, the Church is nothing. But you cannot separate the body (the church) from Christ, it's head.
"The Holy spirit helps me discern the merit of all traditions,and good works by past and present saints."
This is exactly what the Holy Spirit has done for the CHURCH since it started at Pentacost. The Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to form the canon of Scripture. You accept that the Holy Spirit guided them there but not that He continued to guide them through the continuing centuries? See, by allowing the Church's interpretation into my life, I don't have to reinvent the wheel and I trust that the church that gave me the Bible can also lead me further and deeper into my relationship with Christ. I don't deny that the Holy Spirit can and does speak to anyone or help anyone interpret Scripture. But in order to not allow my sinful nature to take over, I test those things against what the Church that Christ established teaches as well. Otherwise, I'm just left to my own authority and may find that I'm interpreting contrary to what I should actually believe, contrary to the Christian church of history.
But even so, if we are all left to be guided by the Holy Spirit, then you cannot say that my interpretation is wrong and I can't say that yours is wrong. So what if they differ? What if I read that "ALL in the household were baptized" and I include infants but you don't? How do we know which is right? By what authority do we decide that one or the other of us has it right?
just a quick note-- .The jews thought they were being good jews when they condemned Jesus .They were acting on their traditions,their history .They were on auto-pilot,trusting in their Jewishness,their religion their forefathers. After all they were God's chosen people and Jesus himself said salvation is of the Jews. How could they be wrong? Did God forsake them and let them be wrong? They had their scriptures too to back them up and that God was on their side. After all, to them Jesus was "reinventing the wheel",He was going against the established program,religion , and church. They were following orders. Jesus said they were blind. Paul said they were zealous after God but in ignorance. That could never happen again in christian churches ,right? Jesus told the 7 churches in Revelations that they would last forever ,right? The candlestick could never be removed,right? If you can't decide on interpeting scripture for yourself because of sinful nature how can you decide on which church to help you? Won't your sinful nature be a problem also in that decision (for no man seeks after God)? It is a viscious cycle(circle).I believe the cycle is broken by divine revelation,infallible by the Holy Spirit. He must be our perfect source and He will guide us into the CHURCH,a body of believers,invisibly held together by his baptisms. Then He will guide us to a visible church(be it the local catholic or baptist or any other evangelical church). Please look at the scripture where Peter says Jesus is the messiah. I understand your paradigm of Peter being the rock ,but please look at the other paradigm of divine revelation and confession of it (Jesus is Messiah) as being the rock. I am not asking you to believe it ,but can you at least see it? "The father in heaven has revealed this to you". Jesus did not say "now go and reveal it to others" ,no He says go feed MY sheep (those who have had the same divine revelation). The church is for teaching (preaching)to have divine revelation and then for the equipping of the saints .Can you see that ? Yes there is a church, but it is the trinity that does the work to override our flesh ,by reviving our spirit towards Him, that is the focus. We no longer have any excuse for being wrong about anything,and He will hold us accountable according to the light He has given us Lord help us.
The church I've decided to help guide me into understanding what we are to believe as Christians is THE ONE church that has existed since the time of Christ. Not one created in the last 100 years by one or two men, but one that was started by Christ.
The early Christians would have had a much better picture of what the Church was to be than any church that just picks up a Bible today, gets a building, makes a stage (rather than an altar), and uses a verse or two to back up an interpretation of Scripture that contradicts what the early Christians taught and believed.
The real issue here is authority. I don't believe God left us down here to all make the claim that the Holy Spirit is telling "ME" what Scripture means only to have it oppose what you believe. That is not peace and unity. That is chaos and argument. We need to restore ourselves to THE ONE CHURCH.... not a church of one, with each man saying, "the Holy Spirit told me so-and-so".
It is illogical to say that the church is invisible.
Matt 18:15-17
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (KJV)
Hmm.... if we are to take it to "the church", which church do we go to? Lutheran? Baptist? Methodist? Church of Christ? Non-denominational? What if you get a different answer from each church? There must be a visible church by which to take such an issue to. You can't take your issue to an invisible body of believers to be decided. Also, this means that the church has to have AUTHORITY... they have the authority to have the final say on a matter lest someone be considered a heathen!
One more thing:
This was written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem [315-386 AD] (Catechetical Lectures):
23. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.
24. And it is rightly named (Ecclesia) because it calls forth and assembles together all men; according as the Lord says in Leviticus, And make an assembly for all the congregation at the door of the tabernacle of witness. And it is to be noted, that the word assemble, is used for the first time in the Scriptures here, at the time when the Lord puts Aaron into the High-priesthood. And in Deuteronomy also the Lord says to Moses, Assemble the people unto Me, and let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me. And he again mentions the name of the Church, when he says concerning the Tables, And an them were written all the wards which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the Assembly; as if he had said more plainly, in the day in which ye were called and gathered together by God. The Psalmist also says, I will give thanks unto Thee, O Lord, in the great Congregation; I will praise Thee among much people.
25. Of old the Psalmist sang, Bless ye God in the congregations, even the Lord, (ye that are) from the fountains of Israel. But after the Jews for the plots which they made against the Saviour were cast away from His grace, the Saviour built out of the Gentiles a second Holy Church, the Church of us Christians, concerning which he said to Peter, And upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And David prophesying of both these, said plainly of the first which was rejected, l have hated the Congregation of evil doers; but of the second which is built up he says in the same Psalm, Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thine hour; and immediately afterwards. In the Congregations will I bless thee, O Lord. For now that the one Church in Judaea is cast off, the Churches of Christ are increased over all the world; and of them it is said in the Psalms, Sing unto the Lord a new song, His praise in the Congregation of Saints. Agreeably to which the prophet also said to the Jews, I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Almighty; and immediately afterwards, For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name is glorified among the Gentiles. ... (cont'd)
Concerning this Holy Catholic Church Paul writes to Timothy, That thou mayest know haw thou oughtest to behave thyself in the House of God, which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
(Emphasis mine)
Hmm... how does your understanding compare to the understanding of the early church concerning Peter and the Rock and the church as the pillar and ground of the truth?
Seems to me that the Catholic Church was also the first with a "catechism" as well.
hello Amber ---I am laughing cause here we go again ,praise God. Can you see the kingdom of God ? Can you see when someone is "baptized" into the kingdom or when one is baptized by fire? Can you see how someone in China and someone in America both get divine revelation that Jesus is the messiah? How are they connected? When the thief on the cross was "born again" and God breathed into him the Spirit of life and he saw whom Jesus was and testified of it ,could you see how it happened ? As Jesus said can you see the wind blow? Are not these things seen with spirtual eyes? When Peter received divine revelation,could you see it happening ? I have been trying to emphasize the invisible workings of God in his Kingdom in His church,the inward circumcision of the heart, while acknowledging the outward working also. I did state the church is a visible church . Where did I state it is not? I did state it is "invisibly held together by His baptisms". Again, I am stressing this to show the infallability of God's invisible workings. This is the rock of the church, this the gates of hell can not prevail against. This has been going on for two thousand years and longer. Right? Where is this unscriptural and where is this against catechism teaching?
I am glad you at least refrained from putting in "Roman " in Paul's "Holy Catholic Church" .Why did you? Why did you even put in "Catholic" ?
I like what cyril wrote. If you read him further I wonder if he concurred with the apostle Paul that this is the time of the gentiles ,that it is for a season ,and then God will deal with the Jews again (and all Israel will be saved) ,but for now there is a remnant that are saved. Paul also warns that if they be cast off, so could we- Romans 11.-------As far as the definition of "catholic", yes that is what it is. Christainity is catholic. I do not see 'Roman "in there or Lutheran or Baptist, do you?-------As far as Matt.16:18 I am sure the catholic catechism says Peter is the rock, while other catechisms say the rock is what just occurred -divine revelation of whom Jesus is and the confession of it( Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and you will be saved), the invisisble working of God. The new dispensation of the Spirit, which the old testament only glimpsed. This new church would have a new heart,a surer way than that of old testament and open to all-this is the new song.
I am sure it is you who decided on Roman Catholicism, but who told you it is the One church going back to Christ? Who told you it is holy? Who told you it is one?
Is it not cynical to say I make my beliefs just to oppose others. Who told you protestant views only began with Luther? Who told you there were never any dissenters to papal authority,to "romanism",fom the beginning of it, who were not heretical except in that oppostion? Who told you Christ sanctions Roman Catholicism and not anyone else? Who told you there was no one else in the fourth or fifth or eight century.? who told you that what I believe is not fom the beginning?
You seem to favor age ,and linear descent in favoring or judging the authenticity of a church ,which it could. The jews did the same thing. Who spoke favorably to Job ? Was it the oldest ? No. It was the youngest,the unheralded fourth friend of Job, who understood God is not a respecter of persons or of age. I would rather listen to a babe in the woods if He spoke the truth over an aged well versed man from the most lofty pulpit who did not. Wouldn't you?
This is trivial like "my daddy is biggr than yours" ,but who told you catholics had the first Catechism?
Is not the greek word for Peter and the greek word for rock different in matt.16;18? How can they be the same?
If scripture can not be self interpetive or self authoratative ,how could a church be self authoratative or self interpeting? If one is having trouble trusting which interpetation of scripture to believe, wouldn't you have the same problem in discerning churches?
Again ,can a candlestick (Holy Spirit) be removed from a church?
Did a church give us the Bible or did God give us the bible? Again ,who told you it was the Roman Catholic church that gave us the bible? I thought they were only known as christians back then (first at Antioch). Are there any neutral observers, who had no conflicting interest in the outcome that can shed some light here?
Hello David,
"I am glad you at least refrained from putting in "Roman " in Paul's "Holy Catholic Church" .Why did you? Why did you even put in "Catholic" ?"
That's wasn't me... that was St. Cyril! I was quoting from his "Catechetical Lectures".
The term "Roman" is a qualification of the name Catholic commonly used in English-speaking countries by those unwilling to recognize the claims of the One True Church. It is often viewed as a condescending term. It is seldom you'll hear a Catholic refer to themselves as Roman Catholic, which is why you'll never see me use it either. A study of these and other early examples shows clearly that the use of "Romish Catholic" or "Roman Catholic" was introduced by Protestant leaders who highly resented the Roman claim to any monopoly of the term Catholic.
"I am sure it is you who decided on Roman Catholicism, but who told you it is the One church going back to Christ? Who told you it is holy? Who told you it is one?"
It is a historical fact that the founder of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ at Pentacost in the Upper Room. The term catholic was first used in the letter of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans (about AD110). The pope has a documented succession that goes all the way back to St. Peter! Do your leaders have a documented succession that goes back to the apostles? (By the way, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have bishops, like Catholics do, that can trace themselves back to the apostles. However, they are not in communion with the Pope because they split from the Catholic Church in 1054 AD. This was the FIRST major schism.)
The Church of the apostles was definitely one:
Eph. 4:4-6 (KJV)
"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Paul also spoke of unity regarding the Eucharistic bread:
1 Cor. 10:17 (KJV)
"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."
Jesus had promised from day one that "there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." (John 10:16).
Christ PROMISED, ONE FOLD! Not many!
The Church of the apostles was holy, wasn't it? When we say that the Church is holy, it means that she had the all-holy God as her author. It does not mean that all of its members are no longer sinners and have become all-holy.
Eph 5:25-27 (KJV)
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
1 Tim 1:15 (KJV)
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
The Church was founded for the purpose of continuing Christ's redemptive and sanctifying work in the world. Christ gave himself FOR the Church so that she would be HOLY! How awesome!
"Who told you there were never any dissenters to papal authority,to "romanism",fom the beginning of it, who were not heretical except in that oppostion?"
I never said that there weren't dissenters or heresies. What I'm saying is that the Catholic Church has remained despite those heresies, despite bad popes, corruption and sinners within her. This is because Christ promised to protect his Church from the gates of hell. It's a historical FACT that Protestantism began at the Reformation. That was the whole point. Luther was PROTESTING the Catholic Church because of the corruption he was witnessing. Interestingly, however, he never reconciled himself to the Church (as many had done in centuries before). The Church straighted out the mess and is still going strong today (again, the gates of hell did not prevail despite corruption.) If it's not of God, do you really think He'd allow it to continue as it has (powerful despite persecution, large in number despite periods of corruption) for 2000 years?! By the way, have you ever stopped to notice what has come OUT of the Catholic Church? The largest charitable organization in the world? Hospitals? Universities? Scientists? World renown artists and composers? How could such wonder and beautiful come from something that some claim is the Whore?
"Who told you Christ sanctions Roman Catholicism and not anyone else? Who told you there was no one else in the fourth or fifth or eight century.? who told you that what I believe is not fom the beginning?"
Christ can be found anywhere that people are worshiping him. I don't ever say that he doesn't "sanction" anyone else. There is truth in some measure everywhere!
David, I don't even think you've managed to tell me what faith denomination you're with... Care to share?
"This is trivial like "my daddy is biggr [sic] than yours" ,but who told you catholics had the first Catechism?"
This was in comment to your statement, "I believe the first catechism was published in 1563 ,but by reformed german "protestants"." I basically refuted that claim when I posted St. Cyril's "Catechetical Lectures", which was written in the fourth century and by which he was talking about the CATHOLIC CHURCH and her teachings.
"Is not the greek word for Peter and the greek word for rock different in matt.16;18? How can they be the same?"
They were writing in Greek but Jesus spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word is the same: Cephas.
"Did a church give us the Bible or did God give us the bible?"
Actually, a Church. The Bible didn't fall out of the sky from God himself! The Holy Spirit inspired members of the Catholic Church to write it and then the Catholic Church (not ROMAN Catholic, since that term wasn't used until after the Reformation), under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had to convene to determine which letters were to be part of the canon and which were not to be part of the canon. It was firmly decided by the year 393 at the Council of Hippo and later ratified by Pope St. Boniface I (after the Council of Carthage in 397 AD reaffirmed the list). Catholic Bibles today still have those same exact books included. Call it Catholic or not, it was a pope and bishops who presided over those councils (historical fact), and that alone is missing in Protestant Christianity. In the earliest days of the church, they were called Christians and the Catholic Church still calls it's followers Christians today as well. But, again, the term catholic was already used by AD110 in writing. This is because, by that time, the church was indeed universal!
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm
Thanks for your responses.I look forward to commenting on all but for now 2 questions remain- can a candle stick be removed?---and the one about self interpetive,self authoratative church (as you said scripture is not) and are Sedevacantists still catholic? thanks
one more question --what was cannonized (thought to be God inspired,an aramaic text(I do not think there was one)or the greek text?was the greek text wrong in putting two different words when Christ spoke one?(matt:16 cephas)
I have no idea what a candlestick has to do with the Holy Spirit, nor do I get what removing one has to do with the Holy Spirit, either.
Your question about self interpretive/self authoritative didn't make sense to me. You might want to try to rephrase it because I don't get what your point is.
Your question about the Greek vs Aramiac text is inconsequential. They wrote in Greek, using what words they had for Rock (the problem is you're talking about applying an inanimate object with a masculine person and that's why those words differ. But, Jesus said those words in Aramaic. So Peter would have heard, "You are ROCK, and on this ROCK, I will build my church." No difference between the two. Period. I think what came from the mouth of Jesus might be more legit than it's interpretation into Greek and this in no way takes away from the divine inspiration of Scripture.
Hello again- I understand now- that was a complete quote fom Cyril ,sorry. Thanks for your "Roman "input. And here I was putting it in with catholic as much as possible because I thought Catholics preferred it or that is what the actual name is (why do some churches call themselves that,yes there is one in our yellow pages-Peace of Christ Roman Catholic Parish ). Anyways ,I just read a bunch on line ,wikopedia was helpful. It did indeed say Catholics don't like "roman" because it makes it sound like there are other "catholic" types ,and that allegiance to Rome is somehow not good (wikopedia note #1-"Roman Catholic"). Another site(www.religioustolerance). They begin saying they use "roman" to avoid confusion, and to acknowledge that most christian faiths believe in the Nicene Creed and regard themselves as "catholic ", at least as far as being part of the catholic and apostolic church" . This site also uses terms as Evangelical Catholic, Anglo Catholic etc. so "roman" designates the church headed by the pope in rome. That is in part why I used it, it is very specific. I meant no maligning, and I am sorry if Catholics feel we are being arrogant or wrong (those are not exact words to describe what I am trying to say) in using what Catholics feel is their name. By the same token, we feel friction when Catholics claim only they are "catholic" and no one else is. So I guess it goes both ways, the need to understand both sides.
I now understand what you meant on the first catechism ,done by Cyril. Thank you for that. May I only state that, as noted in above comment, that other churches consider him a part of their history,foundation also.
"I now understand what you meant on the first catechism ,done by Cyril. Thank you for that. May I only state that, as noted in above comment, that other churches consider him a part of their history,foundation also."
That's cool... and by admitting so, they are admitting that their foundation is ultimately Catholic (in allegiance with the Pope). How ironic! :)
I am glad you say Christ can be found anywhere that people are worshipping Him (should we stipulate as long as it is in truth and spirit?), that His sanction can be found outside catholicism also. Now you have stated basic principles of faith have not changed in catholicism, yet could you have made those statements pre -1964 vatican council?
Big, simple question -what is my faith denomination? Think you'll get a simple answer ? Not. As I shared with you ages ago,in one sense I hate denominations. I know you hate divisions also, or what they represent (carnality) ,but you love your own. I don't (love my own). I don't find any in the bible, even "christian" is a world given term. But they began immediately in the church (I am of Peter ,no I am of Paul).I do not believe the terms Lutheran or Baptist or Catholic will ever be mentioned again the other side of heaven,they are not eternal names .Yet I do not mean to sound so pious ,they have ther value on this earth, and the Lord follows all our activites and knows what is going on in every congrgation. Division is the nature of things under heaven, but may His kingdom come. Listen, when I got saved ,denomination was the furthest thing from my mind. Like a story I was told :A young man went to an old sage and said ,"Teach me truth". The old man took him down to a river, waist high. They faced each other,and the old man began holding the young man down under water. The young man complied but wondering why, until he could bear no more and busrt upward gasping for air. Then the old sage asked, "What did you desire at that last moment while I was holding you under?" The young man replied, "Only one thing ,AIR!" The old man said, " You must desire truth in the same way"....... I needed a Savior,in truth and in spirit,not a denomination,not a church .Yet bits and pieces came from many sources(Protetsant and Catholic). I entered into a relationship with Him, I was "baptized" (spiritually) into a church filled with people that had the same experience with Jesus, the foundation ,the Rock of it all.Denomination really was the last thing on my mind. Yet if you must know it may have been a 4 square church, I am not sure. Since then I have been to baptists services ,assembly of god churches and presently I guess we are non-denominational.
"Now you have stated basic principles of faith have not changed in catholicism, yet could you have made those statements pre -1964 vatican council?"
Absolutely! The church has not changed her dogmatic teachings on faith or morals in her entire history. I think you're confusing dogma/doctrine with practice. Many practices have changed but this does not change the dogmatic teachings of the church such as: baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, seven sacraments, redemptive suffering, all the other teachings mentioned in the creed, etc. etc.
Dogma: a doctrine "to be believed by divine and Catholic Faith" that has been proposed by the Church to be "divinely and formally revealed."
Practices would include abstaining from meat on certain days, fasting, prayers, observing saint feast days, liturgy, Latin mass vs. mass in one's native tongue, etc. What was asked of the Church 100 years ago may have changed because of culture, practicality, etc. but it doesn't ever change what the church TEACHES. You can compare it to a Protestant service that for 5 years has sung 4 songs before the pastor gets up to teach and then closes with a song only to, at year six, start with 5 songs and then remove the one at the end and instead say a prayer before they dismiss everyone. It doesn't mean the church is teaching something different. It just means that they've changed the way they do things, perhaps for practical reasons.
"I needed a Savior,in truth and in spirit,not a denomination,not a church"
But what if your Savior GAVE you a church? Wouldn't you want to be a part of that Church? Wouldn't THAT church have the fullness of truth he intended for Christian to know?
I also hold that ultimately Jesus is the end-all and be-all. But if Jesus himself has given me a church by which I can know the fullness of his divine revelation here on earth, then I want to hold onto it because I know it will only serve to bring me closer and closer into his vast and awesome arms!
When I got saved, denomination was ALSO the farthest thing from my mind. I was a happy, Jesus-lovin' nine-year-old with a huge passion for Christ (baptized by water AND the spirit) into the Catholic Church (though unknowingly and imperfectly as a non-denominational). And, as an adult, I was a happy, church-going, non-denominational! It never even occurred to me that I could be missing anything at all! But, I was!
One might say that denominations don't matter... but that's just like saying the truth doesn't matter. It all boils down to the same question I've asked you over and over again. Has God purposely left us down here using our own fallible interpretation to decide what Scripture means? How is it that all these Christians, led by the same Holy Spirit, can have such different interpretations of the same Scripture? WHY? Doesn't God want us to follow ONE TRUTH? ONE FAITH? Or does he really find it acceptable that we be swayed by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:14) jumping from one denomination to another? Is Jesus sitting up there with God the Father disagreeing with him about whether or not baptism is just a symbol or if it actually washes away sin? Can we really just sit around saying, "Well, we agree on the essentials! We can disagree on the non-essentials!" Who tells us which things are essential and which are not? Where is that list in the Bible?
Sure, you and I both believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, came down from heaven, was crucified, died and rose on the third day for our sins so that we might be with him in heaven someday. But all those other things really do matter. Even Christ said, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." Mt 7:21 (KJV)
Whether or not we can LOSE our salvation matters! Whether or not baptism brings us into the body of Christ or doesn't matters! Whether or not Christians must eat the flesh of Christ truly present in the Eucharist or a piece of bread counts as good enough - matters! Whether someone merely must say a sinner's prayer to be saved or must repent, be baptized, keep the commandments and serve the poor - matters! Whether or not we believe sin is sin no matter how small/big or whether there is mortal AND venial sin (one of which can actually keep us from heaven) -matters!
Do you see what I mean here? What one's church teaches them and what they believe could very well be a matter of one's own salvation! But, none of these things matter if we don't have an authority outside of Scripture to tell us how the Bible was historically interpreted and what it means in context. Can the Holy Spirit aid us, YES! But we have to have something to check it against because the enemy is very good at making people THINK the Holy Spirit it telling them something and leading them astray!
Rev.1:13 in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like the son of man and in his right hand were seven stars and keys of death and hell....the seven stars are the angels of the churches....2:5-repent or I will remove thy candlestick out of thy place. the seven candlesticks are the seven churches.It seems blessings,annointing of a church were conditional,not guaranteed .Indeed I believe one of those churches dissappeared ,the city church did fade away into history. So what does removing the candle stick( a church) from the presesnce of the Lord ,His angels,from the One with the "keys mean to you?
So their is a translation error in the Word,they did not put in rock-rock when they could have.I thought one of your blog sites says scripture is perfect,without error.The greek is "stone" masculine and "rock" feminine.why?
See there you go interpeting someone elses history.This causes friction. If I like cyril or ambrose or augustine it does not make me believe your view of them,or believe in your view of the bishop of Rome
O.K. you perhaps you missed my point. I meant could you state pre1964 that christ can be outside the church, could you be saved outside the church before 1964 ?.(I do not believe this would be a simple practice but a tenet of faith)
let us try this again. You said "scripture is not self interpeting", like you need the help of the chuch. My question is do you not have the same problem with "church(which one is right)? It can not be self interpeting else it is greater than scripture. Using your logic you need something outside of church to help you determine which church is correct. You can not have a church interpet itself ,or say it is the right one because they say so. Is the church greater than scripture????? Why do you abdicate your responsibilty in personally getting scripture revelation and leave it to the church yet when you need to pick a church, you don't get outside or other colaboration (say , from scripture)? I mean you again abdicate to the same church to tell you "oh yes we are the right church,trust us .It is cause we say so".It seems there is a conflict of interst. Again this a chain reaction when scripture has a rival and indeed ,the catechism states it,that tradition(church say so) is on par with scripture. As an example, Catholic church says-"peter was the first pope,and bishop of Rome". I ask how do you know, you respond because the church told me so. How do you know they are right? because they(the church) told me so,and they can not be wrong. How do you know they can't be wrong? Because they(the church) told me so,and they had some scripture to back it up .Is that the right application or interpetetaion of the scripture? yes,because they (the church) told me so. They also have traditon also .How do you know it is correct ? They told me it was. Has anybody ever said they were wrong,or pointed out errors? Oh yes but they are heretics. Who told you they were heretics? The church told me so. Why were they heretics.? Because they thought the church was wrong and remember rule number 2 "we can not be wrong". Nothing like a secure candlestick (church). But why did He give us Rev: 1 and 2 and why did He give us the history of the Jews to learn from? why did Paul say "lest ye be cut off also" ?
why do you see and the not see my words selectively? I do believe in CHURCH ,"I was baptized into a church filled with people thet had the same experience with Jesus ,the Rock" 8-10-09. Find where Jesus says "depart from me, you were not in my church",.....but he did say, "depart from me I did not KNOW you". You push a denomination, you have erred.You push a personal Christ, you are in His will.
"So their is a translation error in the Word,they did not put in rock-rock when they could have.I thought one of your blog sites says scripture is perfect,without error.The greek is "stone" masculine and "rock" feminine.why?"
Ok... you're being too literal here. Cephas means "rock". I could have said, "You are Cephas, and on this Cephas, I will build my church." Are you going to split hairs over this? This has nothing to do with being in error or not. Peter means rock and in Aramaic, the word would have been the same. Here are just a few of many quotes from the Early Church Fathers regarding the intepretation of this passage. Followed by three quotes from PROTESTANT scholars who also have seen the validity in this interpretation.
Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the Church would be built [Matt. 16:18] with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven [Matt. 16:1819]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:910 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? Oh you of little faith, he says, why do you doubt? [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
Jerome
"But, you [Jovinian] will say, it was on Peter that the Church was founded [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Protestant Scholars/Commentaries
"Another view common among some Protestants (Alford, Broadus, Vincent) is that Peter . . . is the rock." - Wycliffe Bible Commentary
"Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts." - New Bible Commentary
"Luther . . . took his rejection of the Petrine office from his erroneous interpretation of Christ's saying in Matthew 16 . . . But today we recognize Luther's error and give it up. `Anti-Catholic polemic has done violence to the Lord's saying because it defines the Rock upon which Jesus builds His community not as Peter but as his faith and confession . . . What is spoken of, however, in Matthew 16 is the man to whom Jesus entrusts His work, (7)' writes the Protestant theologian Adolf Schlatter."- Richard Baumann
"See there you go interpeting someone elses history."
Huh? Are you talking about Cyril and Augustine being Catholic? This is a matter of fact, my friend. They were both bishops in the Catholic Church.
"There are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Churchs] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:1517], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).
See previous quote from St. Cyril.
If this is not what you believe I'm causing friction over, then I digress and have no idea what you mean. It's not my desire to cause friction, but these discussions may do that at times since we are clearly not on the same page.
Regarding the church's stance on the salvation of those outside the church... I have address this entirely in another post:
http://thiscatholicjourney.com/2...ugh-
church.html
"Catholic church says-"peter was the first pope,and bishop of Rome". I ask how do you know, you respond because the church told me so."
The church has a succession of popes that goes all the way back to Peter. I also know this because I know that Christ established ONE church by which the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That means this church would have had to have started at the time of Christ. Non-denominationalism is only a 100 years old at best. Lutheranism is only about 500 years old. If I choose a church that goes back to the time of Christ, it leaves me with the Easter Orthodox churches or the Catholic Church. Problem is the Orthodox church has changed some of it's teachings, such as the prohibition to the allowance of birth control and they are not in union with the pope, an office that has also been around since the time of Christ. The Orthodox churches are all independent of one another, so they are not ONE.
It is NOT a matter of "the church told me so". You forget that I am a convert to the faith. I didn't wake up one day as a non-denom and say, "Hey, the Catholic Church says such-n-such so I have to believe it!" Heck no! In fact, I was quite anti-Catholic, spending hours at times talking to people and trying to get them to LEAVE that "man-made religion of unnecessary traditions". The thing is, when you read the Early Church Fathers, their Catholicity is completely undeniable! They taught and believed just want the Catholic Church teaches and believes today.
The thing is, I can back up what the Catholic Church teaches with Scripture either implicitly or explicitly. One is a heretic if they waiver from what the Bible says and how the early church understood the letters themselves.
Who has pointed out a dogma of the church that is wrong and hence labeled a heretic? Who tells YOU Catholic dogma is wrong? How do you know that Tradition is not a part of God's revelation? How do you know they can't be right?
Were the Gnostics right? The Marconians? The Donatists? The Arians? The Nestorians? Are you going to tell me that the Catholic Church was WRONG when they called these groups heretics? The Church defended many tenets of what even Protestants believe today! They defended Christ's divinity, the Trinity, and they defended the right of sinners to be members of a church. These heretical groups eventually died out while the Catholic Church remained strong and continued despite them!
And, by the way, some of the leaders of these heretics groups eventually reconciled with the Catholic Church.
"why do you see and the not see my words selectively? I do believe in CHURCH"
Either I'm misunderstanding you or you're just not making yourself clear. It's difficult at times to have these discussions through writing. I often feel you see and not see my words selectively. But it's nothing to take personally.
It just seems like you're saying two things here. I don't need a church but I believe in church...?
I replied as I did because you stated:
"I needed a Savior,in truth and in spirit,not a denomination,not a church."
"You push a denomination, you have erred.You push a personal Christ, you are in His will."
First off, I don't have a denomination because the Church is not one Christian sect among many but the visible religious body founded by Jesus Christ to teach, spread, and administer the Christian religion.
Second, nowhere in the Bible does it say that if you push a denomination, you are in error. They had no "denominations" in those days. The Church was ONE and she was essential to Christ's message.
Ephesians 5:29-30
After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church for we are members of his body.
Third, good dang thing the Catholic Church is in His will!
From Catechism:
2558 "Great is the mystery of the faith!" The Church professes this mystery in the Apostles' Creed (Part One) and celebrates it in the sacramental liturgy (Part Two), so that the life of the faithful may be conformed to Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father (Part Three). This mystery, then, requires that the faithful believe in it, that they celebrate it, and that they live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer.
Verse 11 in Revelation 1lists the 7 churches:
"...saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea."
But the figure seven symbolizes totality, completeness, and therefore, in fact, John is addressing the entire Church on behalf of Christ. Verse 5 regarding the removal of the candlestick was to the Church at Ephesus but each letter to the churches was a call for them to repent. It is made clear that if the church at Ephesus doesn't repent, they will lose their faith and the faith will be relocated elsewhere to be lived out properly and free from dissent.
Christ says that He has "the keys of death and of hell,"[Rev. 1:18] which means that He is endowed with power over death and hell. He has triumphed over them!
I'm sorry but I don't get what this has to do with the discussion here.
As far as revelations, some people think the candlestick is the catholic church, that it is no longer sanctioned by the Lord. Not for nothing but any denomination, ANY, would have the same problem if they had absolute power and authority for centuries, as did the catholic church. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I am sorry to be so blunt but you did not even entertain this possibilty for a split second . I believe all churches, all ministries, all believers have to keep their eye on the Lord or they will falter. Look at Peter, one minute he is right on, and the next he falls flat on his face (according to you he is made the rock (pope) by Jesus and the next Jesus says to Peter,"Get behind me Satan" ). Again ,as you say, this does not negate the church prevailing over Satan, the church is just "relocated" to another, and I do not mean city. Again, you have not entertained this, but as the jews lost out, missed the boat, so did the catholic church. The Catholic traditon has created a whole priesthood class all over again ,a midle wall of seperation exists,the believers here and the priesthood there. There was NO seperation from the apostles to the people. What Paul did, all could do and go into the holy of holy's, commemeroate the body and blood, baptize, confess sins. There were different giftings BUT EVERY BELIEVER IS A PRIEST. The Jews missed Jesus, and I think Catholics do also. The "Catholic church" is bigger than Jesus Himself (to be part of the church is equated to being in Jesus,right with God). I am judging ,but may I judge righteously. I am going by what comes out of catholic mouth's and hearts and writings. I have known too many priests and nuns who were not BORN AGAIN. Again this is also true with MANY protestant clergy. It was true for the jewish leader Nickodemus. I am sorry but as I read about you expounding on the greatness of the Catholic church I think of the Titanic. I do not know when things went sour ,some think it was in phases like Constatine making it a state religion, or the fall of Rome ,with Papal authority and governance filling in the vacuum . Do you think the candlestick remained whilst close to a million protestants were put to death during the inquistion (the church taking half the property of the accused), or the killing of Albigenses, Waldenses, germans, netherlands, bohemia. This was not pagan Rome or Nero but the world made by Papal rome, with papal alliances with governments in THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. Again C.S.Lewis, "those not knowledgeable of history are slaves to the recent past." Sure they have been better recently ,but as you say,the doctrines (that led to abuses) are still the same. But personally names of the Church founded by Christ,there aren't any, not in heaven nor in the bible. For sure ,there are born again people and those that are not. Those are the only two kinds of people on this earth. This is paramount,all else is wood ,hay and stubble (including names like baptist lutheran or
All else is wood hay or stubble(like lutheran or baptist or catholic). One can more than just hope they are saved, they can know beyond a shadow of doubt they are saved, by the precious blood of the Lamb, who died once, for all. If I have to be part of a church or a bride to be saved, that is works. We are saved by grace ,lest we boast. Let us be perfect and boast of His free salvation to all
I know you are a convert to the faith in catholicism, but could you share you conversion from death to life, of being born again, of metting Jesus personally ? I shared with what you thought was important ,my denomination.
Lord willing ,at a later date I still would like to discuss the greek of Matt 16:18. It may be a hair that I am splitting, but one end is that Peter is one of twelve ,the other end the pope today should be my leader.
"some people think the candlestick is the catholic church, that it is no longer sanctioned by the Lord"
With all due respect, this interpretation is absurd... and you have no basis for it except for your fallible opinion. I have read four or five commentaries (from actual scholars) on these passages and no one said something so ridiculous!
"The Jews missed Jesus, and I think Catholics do also."
WOW! Judge not lest ye be judged. How is it that we miss Jesus when we preach Christ crucified every time we fix our eyes on a crucifix? When the whole central theme of the mass is the memorial of his sacrifice on calvary? When we receive him body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist? The entire Church exists because of Jesus! He is the purpose for our lives and our existence! We miss Jesus?! Absurd! And quite ignorant of you to say such a thing! What makes you the authority on such matters? Clearly YOU missed him in the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all Catholics do! Perhaps you were in the wrong parish? Perhaps you're ears weren't ready for the truth? I have no idea... God does what he wills... but it is wrong of you to make such a claim!
"I have known too many priests and nuns who were not BORN AGAIN."
If they were baptized, they were born again. You are judging their "born again" status on your fallible non-authoritative interpretation of what you believe "born again" means. Being born again, according to Scripture happens at baptism. I know many priests and nuns that are God-loving servants of the Almighty God... just as in love with the Creator as those I know from my Protestant church. But, regardless, the church also contains sinners - weeds among the wheat, if you will. So, the knowing of such people doesn't prove that the Catholic Church is absent of Christ.
Aha! I knew it was only a matter of time before you played the Inquisition card!
Are sinners ONLY outside the door of the church? The Church has and always has had sinners of all kinds, even in positions of responsibility! (Mt 13:24-30) So, what's your point? What exactly are you trying to prove?
This situation is a two-way street, by the way. Both Calvin and Luther felt the state had a right to protect society by purging it of "false religion". Calvin ordered the execution of Catholics (e.g. Jacques Gouet, tortured and beheaded in 1547, and Michael Servetus, burned at the stake in 1553.) Reformers in England and Ireland put thousands of Catholics to death (hanged, drawn, and quartered) for practicing their Catholic faith and refusing to convert to Protestantism. Even more had to leave the country to safety!
It is easy to see how Christians on both sides could reach conclusions that such actions were appropriate when one considers passages such as Deut 13:6-11. Heinous as they were, many felt that the rooting out of heresy was acceptable and necessary.
However, the existence of such evil does not in and of itself mean that God does not approve of a particular faith and the truth of a faith, therefore, must be decided by other means. The Inquisition card just doesn't work. One does not leave Jesus because of Judas!
"One can more than just hope they are saved, they can know beyond a shadow of doubt they are saved"
Wow... what a bold presumptive statement!
Phil 2:12
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
If we are to be so sure, why should we work it out in fear and trembling?
1 Cor 10:11-12
Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.
"If I have to be part of a church or a bride to be saved, that is works. We are saved by grace ,lest we boast. Let us be perfect and boast of His free salvation to all"
Ah... all of a sudden, being a part of a church is WORKS? What?! Give me a break, David. You said yourself you "believe in church"... which is it? The Church is Christ's bride! You don't want to be His bride? Being a part of his Bride is WORKS?! Indeed, it is by his GRACE we are saved! The Catholic Church agrees!
CCC 1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.
"I know you are a convert to the faith in catholicism, but could you share you conversion from death to life, of being born again, of metting Jesus personally ?"
I was born again at my baptism, when I was a child, and I meet Jesus personally every time I receive him in the Eucharist! I meet him when I confess my sins and hear HIS words of absolution through the priest! I meet him in the homeless man I bring a meal to! I meet him when I sit in front of Jesus in Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament! I meet him when I join together with others to study and fellowship together. I meet him in my prayer and when I read His Holy Word! He is everywhere, guiding and loving me every step of the way in the very Church he gave the world... the Church that gave me the Bible inspired by God himself!
David, I don't mind discussing matters of faith and I don't care if you disagree... but I will draw the line when someone makes assertions that Catholics, myself included, are not saved, born again or that they "miss" Jesus and other such remarks. You are not qualified to make such judgments and I will not discuss matters of faith with those who make anti-Catholic remarks lacking in charity.
I would never presume to say that YOU or those within your faith tradition are not saved, born-again, etc. I only ask that you do the same.
Peace be with you!
Thanks for rwesponding .I know it was not easy.The Inquisition is not a "card" .That many denominations have fallen into the same trap does not excuse it .I have been fair to put both protetstant and catholic in the same boat as to other failings, I did not on this one,(inquisition) but one thing is for sure protetstants did far less killing,a handul here and there and of course in Englang thousands(as you say) ,but not tens or hundrerds of thousands as did popes.And europe knew a cetury of papal rule and example, so for sure those that were kicked out of it would ten to act the same way.As far as deuteronomy,yes I agree with the sentiment and there is something to that .Having said that most killed were not for "following other gods " but for not bowing to the pope ,of following there conscience in how to become one with Christ. That is a BIG difference. Yes you shall know them by there fruits. Sometimes its bad people doing bad things ,but sometimes it is a bad system of "church" that fosters such behavior. The church is a spirtual entity. Why would the pope need troops until as late as 1870? I know it was and still is very hard for me to read and believe all the bad stuff in church history (yes there is some good.too) but it is there,corraborated by many sources. For instance keeping bibles from the parishioners. I read a book by an x priest who when he was younger recalls the parish priest came to his house and demand from the father the family bible ,that it was not allowed(1810? Quebec).I found it hard to believe . Then I saw another book about a englishman passing out bibles in spain in the mid 1800's and he ancountered similar,stories,and that indeed most did not have bibles. Hard to believe today when the church does encourage bible reading.
clarification please but what is rediculous about the candlesticks ,were the scholars catholic or protestant..yes it is opinion and i am sure i could find some scholar that would say what I said. I would hope though that all agree that this could happen to a church (Imean it is written).
The often phony inflated facts of the Inquisition put out there by many anti-Catholic sources don't deter me from the Catholic Church and her holiness. There is no way to determine how many people actually died from the Inquisition and it very well could have been only thousands... especially since it was competing with the plague, which killed a third of Europe's population. Recent studies have indicated that at most only a few thousand capital sentences were carried out for heresy in Spain, spanning over several centuries. No one is excusing the behavior. But, I will say again... the existence of such evil does not in and of itself mean that God does not approve of a particular faith and the truth of a faith, therefore, must be decided by other means. The church, and the world, is full of sinners! Judas does not take away from the Holiness of Christ.
"For instance keeping bibles from the parishioners."
This is just another VERY commonly used misconception that you've bought into by anti-Catholics.
Here is a Catholic source that even uses citations to explain the truth of this matter:
http://users.binary.net/polycarp...rp/
burning.html
CCC 2653 The Church "forcefully and specially exhorts all the Christian faithful . . . to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ' (Phil 3:8) by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. . . . Let them remember, however, that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that a dialogue takes place between God and man. For 'we speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles."'
"clarification please but what is rediculous about the candlesticks ,were the scholars catholic or protestant..yes it is opinion and i am sure i could find some scholar that would say what I said. I would hope though that all agree that this could happen to a church (Imean it is written)."
Most commentaries I read were Protestant - only one was Catholic. Please find one article I can read online to support the idea that this was referring to the Catholic Church.
http://
www.revelationcommentary....02_chapter.html
http://www.biblegateway.com/reso...Message-
Ephesus
http://jfb.biblecommenter.com/re...evelation/
2.htm
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id288.html
Absolutely, this can happen to a church as Scripture states (I believe EVERYTHING Scripture says)... but the seven churches refer to the universal church. It's like the weeds among the wheat where you have sinners within the whole church, which can lose their salvation if they do not stay in God's will. This seems to be a common thought among the commentaries I posted.
I read the binary polycarp bit on bible burning .Thanks .It did not address the matter I mentioned however. In fact the article was partially slanted itself, in particular to Tyndale, Wycliffe bible and the King James. I have heard that propaganda too, that they were bad translations therefore they had to be burned (both books and Tyndale and Wycliffe.) The fact is the King James owes much to Tyndales version. Furtermore ,Wycliffe and Tyndale may not have had access to all documents as did the King James not too mention the duress of secrecy. The need was there for an english bible. People did have a language ,they could read, the established church powers were reluctant to fill the need .Why? Would I be cynical to say that in part, it was a power thing (We are the priests, you are the sheep)? Anyways, I did not infer Catholics were out to destroy the bible. Protestants have always given due respect for the preservation of the Word thru the dark ages etc.by the church ,in particular ,monks. I was talking about the idea that there are two classes of people in the church and only one is worthy to "handle "the scriptures. I cited two specific cases that indeed are just factual experiences, not propaganda. You can not make a sweeping statement to cover a two thousand year period . I acknowledged the fact that it is different today(another change ). But what still remains are the two classes (priest and parisioner), very subtle today, perhaps due to reformation and gleaning some good from Protetstantism, which came in by and heralded more often the relevancy of the Word for ALL (as in Augustines' day)
As far as Judas not taking away from Christ ,I agree. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. I was told once that if a fish you are eating has to many bones,you stop eating it.(not worth picking thru all the bones to get a little meat).Another level says that Judas is a bad anology for you .Judas was an apostle destined to be the son of perdition. He fell and never recovered ,unlike Peter. He was cut off from his apostleship, as if he never been. He was replaced. Rev:21:14 "..wall of the city(new jerusalem) had twelve foundations...the twelve apostles", I think we both agree Judas is NOT one of those twelve foundations (as a side note, I do not see any preeminence of any one apostle e.g. Peter). I feel the same way about some of the known bad popes(even by the church itself, just before Hildebrandt. They were like Judas, the opposite of standing in for Christ or even Peter, unregenerate .It is like they did not exist,in holiness or righteousness, the line of succession broken. To say succession is not broken but some of these bad popes is like saying Judas is one of the twelve foundations for the New Jerusalem.
Have you been with Jesus so much and he has not told you personally (you say you are personal with Him),"You SHALL be with me in paradise(heaven now)?
why do you misinterpet my boldness for my salvation as "presumptive", unless you base salvation on my works?
Is water baptism (which brings you into the new covenant-born again) the same as old testament circumcision(which was a sign of God's covenant with man)?
yes ,I agree with you that some agree that Peter is the rock in Matt 16..here is the rest of the quote from Wycliffe-"There is an obvoius play on words of Peter and rock(petros-a peice of rock and petra-a rocky mass). The spiritual body, the church, mentoned here for the first time, is built upon the divinely revealed fact about Christ confessed by Peter (1 Cor 3:11; 1 Peter 2:4) as men are made aware of and acknowledge His person and work (so Chrysostrom, Augustine). Another view, common among some Protestants is that Peter (along with the other apostles) is the rock, but without papal supremacy ascribed to him by unscriptural Romish notions (Eph2:20, Rev: 21:14)." Again I would venture to say most protestants do not think Peter is the rock ,and few if any believe in his supremacy, and fewer yet the succession of that supremacy,according to scripture.
A quick comment on Luther please. you state on 8-09 that Luther never reconciled himself to the church and the church "sraightened out the mess" anyways .A quick school board story-a teacher brought up a bad "practice" in the district ,it made the headlines. The district first denied all, but would look into it .The teacher was sanctioned, and a year later it was determined the bad practice was there and rectified quietly ,but the teacher was still sanctioned. It was called "saving face" and shooting the messenger. All politics is local. I think it is similar to the Luther story. He did not reconcile to the church, because he had to recant the bad practice, say it did not exist, when in fact as the church stated LATER, it did. So the church excommunicated Luther, and Luther feared for his life. Oh, he was a rebel, but only out of his love for his Catholic church, the pillar of truth.
As far as the 7 churches I think I understand your view point .I guess it would be the universal church(Catholic) and you have 7 parishes or seven bishops and if one goes bad ,and they are cut off, but you still have the catholic church in 6 other places. I have not heard this before. What I have heard is they could be the "stages" of the church thru the ages.,or they could be denominations, representative of churches of any age (remember us protestants have a lot to choose from). I view the literal 7 churches as knit together by the gospel but autonomous of each other, each with their own governance, with Paul and John being their apostles. I have not found any referring to Catholicism(representing one of the 7), but apparently they are out there. Wycliffe states in his notes that the Jesuit Alcazar developed a preterist interpetation (that Rev. deals mostly with 1st cetury events), "in an attempt to reply to the arguments of the Reformers, who insisted that the book predicted the corruption and doom of the Catholic Church, especially the two chapters devoted to Babylon. Alcazars views have been adopted by some modern sholars.
"You don't leave Jesus because of Judas". I thought the context was to leave or not leave a church if it begins to have bad fruit(e.g.- the inquisition, some bad popes). The assumption is, is Jesus in other churches or he is not.? Or if you left the catholic church or I the protestant, would we be leaving Jesus?. The statement at the beginning seems to indicate the church and Jesus are equal or interchangeable.I would say Jesus is the product we should want, and the church is the byproduct. If the byproduct is bad (Judas ,or Inquisition), there is a disconnect with the pruduct.(and Hades has prevailed). When Judas kissed Jesus in betrayal, it was not a temporary, it was a done deal, Satan had prevailed and Judas knew it. If you you were about to be burned at the stake for your particular faith, you knew Satan had prevailed in the hearts of your accusers. Indeed Jesus did say "depart from me you workers of iniquity, I never knew you. But did we not cast demons out and work miracles in you name? ". It does not mention the inequity but I imagine it is false religion, religion in name only, circumcised but not in the heart, baptized but not in the heart. This can happen anywhere ,anytime, any church, protestant or catholic..once you truly see Jesus you put out Judas
We have discussed Matt16:18 a bit. One study said it was Peter's confession that blessed him, not Peter himself for in the next few verses Peter says something and Jesus rebukes what he said with "Get behind me Satan". Peter is fallible but when he faces God divinely, God prevails and Peter is a rock( small rock on the big Rock-Jesus). It would have helped if the bible said plainly "peter, on you I will build my church", or "Peter,by divine revelation and your confession I will build my church" or "who I am ,divinely revealed, is the rock", but wisely He did not. What might help is to see that every time "rock" (as a metaphor) is used in the Bible, it refers to God, some 40 plus times. Still one verse can stand by itself(Matt 16:18). So if we go to church fathers it might shed some light . Ignatius epistle to philadelphians ch. 9 "Son of the father....the Rock....the key....the Sacrifice". Justin Martyr- Second Apology ch. 113 -"For I have shown that Christ was prolcaimed by the prophets in pararbles A Stone and a Rock", and in 114 calls Jesus "the good Rock". The sheperd of Hermas (parable9 ch12), "This rock ,...and this gate are the Son of God". Tertullian (An Answer to the Jews ch 9), "for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock". Tertuliian is an interesting character .He first says Jesus is a rock ,then as you point out he calls Peter the rock. But he strongly condemns succession. On "Modesty" ch. 21 "You therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you ,that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord..." It seems, most writings suppoting Peter come around 200 A.D..
Again .I believe the original greek itself leads me to believe Peter is not the rock. Also, the other apostles were there, and apparently they did not act as if Peter were the rock. They later quarreled as to who would be the greatest (Luke 22:24 Mark9:35). Further, in Matt 20:25 others are asking to be at his right hand in the kingdom to come (why would't it have been Peter?) Jesus says the world's way is if you are great, you have dominion over others, instead of being a servant. Has the pope been a servant ? has he been domineering?. Indeed did Christ need a head honcho? Did he not see future bickering as to succession? Was he not trying to steer the apostles away from this paradigm ? To me that is one of the beauties of christianity and its growth, it had no earthly ,central figure but 12 apostles. The early church was centered in Jerusalem with James as its bishop, and the gentile churches had Paul as their spiritual father. Paul also rebukes Peter for his hypocrisy in Gal 2:11. Would he have done so if Peter was Christs' head on earth? Rev 21 says all twelve apostles are the foundation. Eph 2:20 says the same thing. So I believe what I believe on biblical grounds. It doesn't hurt to have history to see some of the dirct bad fruits of the other interpetation.Yes, you could say there are some bad fruits in Protestantism, but I do not think they are directly attributed to not having a pope.
Another biblical observation. Our earliest jewish roots show God as their leader ,Israel was a theocrcay. They had no king but God. Yes there were priests and prophets. Finally they wanted to be worldly and asked for a king. God warned them of the downfalls of having a king, but allowed them their request anyway. I believe that is how Jesus wanted His church ,a loose heirarchy of gifted teachers ,bishops and elders, with Himself, or the Holy Spirit as the head guide,much as early Israel(and the early church) .Rome was the "babylon" of those days, full of power, money and pride in being number one. When Rome fell, and actually before, church heirarchy of rome followed suite in it's quest for power, modeling themselves much after worldly Rome, and filling the vacuum after Rome fell. Indeed some say your first councils were held ,in part, precisely because there was no dominating or supreme bishop of Rome yet. It was a slow process, but many historians say it was around the fifth century when you have a first functioning pope from Rome. Again there is biblical precedence showing God's government with only one head honcho- Himself, with no one human representing that authority over the rest of mankind.contrast that to what a Cardinal Manning wrote for a pope, "I acknowledge no civil power;I am subject of no prince, I am more than this. I claim to be the supreme judge and director of the conscience of men: of the peasant....to the prince, to those who live in privacy to the legislator. I am the sole, last, supreme judge of what is right or wrong." Is this the pride of resting in Christ, being full of His spirit, and knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt of one's salvation, or is it the pride of "babylon" ?
Just a quick note. I am not a protestatnt. That is just a name Catholics attribute to christians who are not subject to the pope. I am not protesting anything, rather by His grace to obey and attest to His work, both in the world for all and for me personally. Luther indeed did protest wihin his own church, until his excommunicaton. However ,in dealing with catholics it is fair to say I protest or oppose, can not agree with certain doctrinal stands, so I guess after all my babble you can call me anything you want , including protestant for sure. Praise God for precision in words.
1st Cor. 1:12 Now this I say that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ...He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord (vs 31). I believe the second you proselytize toward a denomination you have strayed. The second you say "become a catholic or become a lutheran to a lost soul, you have strayed from the simplicity of the gospel, to be born again,to personally meet Jesus and accept His gift of faith and salvation. "For Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel" vs 17. Those other things you (8-10) mentioned,how and when to be baptized, or transubstantiation etc. pale in comparison.
Hello Amber - On 8-9 you stated the reformation began with Luther.perhaps. You also state that the church defended the truth against heretics,like the gnostics and arians. But there were "heretics" whose theology was not heretical except that it differed from Rome. I read an interesting book, "Notre Dame de Pari" by Richard Winston. Here is an excerpt, "Heretics by definition are those who find themselves on the losing side of disputes over dogma or church policy. Protestantism ceased to be heresy and became a seperate church because it won a few battles. The people of Languedoc were not so fortunate; history therefore speaks of them as heretics. But in fact they were very close to setting up an independent church before they went down to defeat in a bloody and marciless war." The year was around 1200. I believe there have been many voices who spoke truth at every stage of the church going into errors, previous to that (1200). Again I do not believe my faith "began" with Luther but is more apostolic or pure, that is, before too much tradition was added. Again winning the argument(making it popular or "established" ) doesn't make it true. Remember the anology of Beta vs VHS ? (Beta tapes are better but VHS tapes marketed better and "won")
the book on notre dame also showed the change in the doctrine of baptism and how it affected church building....."how extremely common it was to build two seperate cathedrals as well as seperate baptistry during the so called dark ages. Converts were attached to the church but had not yet received baptism...many believers postponed it to their deathbeds where there was little chance to commit new sins..This believer was known as a catechumen. Even liturgy was divided into two parts, one for the catechumen,and one for the baptized. The architecture of churches reflected this division,so catechumens could depart from the first part of the service without disturbing the rest of the congregaton. "But as conversions increased the narthex( colonade porch for the catechumen) proved inadequate. It became the practice to build two seperate churches: one for the initiates and one for the unbaptized faithful (found throughout France and northern Italy.) "With the rise of infant baptism and conversion of entires peoples to christianity, the division between catechuman and the baptized fell into oblivion." (as did building two seperate churches)(Reminds me of the court of the gentiles ,part of the Jerusalem temple).
On your 8-10 statement--I agree that the enemy of our soul is a good imitator ,making some think they are led by the Holy Spirit when they are not. But the bible and history is even more replete with examples of a church thinking they are led of the Holy Spirit when they are not.
early chhristians did not have an altar as you say on 8-8. Most historians say they met in homes of fellow believers, with no stage or altar and they did "break bread " as Jesus did on the night He was betrayed. There were no priests, no fancy roman garments or candles or incense. They spoke in their own language and prayed in their own language. By early church I mean from 33 a.d. to about 70 a.d..So I am wondering if some christians services today may still reflect some of that earliest simplicity, which you seem to belittle, while catholic services resemble something more akin to 2nd to 4th century services, still relatively early also, but not from the "beginning" or apostolic.
"early chhristians [sic] did not have an altar as you say on 8-8"
Really? Scripture says otherwise:
1 Corinthians 10:21
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils.
Can the homes not have tables (or altars) by which to celebrate the breaking of the bread? Did you know that the earliest Christian altars were made of wood, and identical in form with the ordinary house tables?
Not to mention, have you ever read anything in Revelation?
Rev 6:9
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
Rev 16:7
And I heard another out of the altar say, Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments.
Rev 9:14
And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God,
Rev 14:18
And another angel came out from the altar, which had power over fire; and cried with a loud cry to him that had the sharp sickle, saying, Thrust in thy sharp sickle, and gather the clusters of the vine of the earth; for her grapes are fully ripe.
You seem to have a bigger problem with altars than God himself does.
Revelation paints a picture very much like a Catholic Mass and nothing like the scene you would find in many non-Catholic Christian churches. It's not belittling, it's just a simple fact. http://thiscatholicjourney.com/2...in-
mass_05.html
"There were no priests, no fancy roman garments or candles or incense"
Wouldn't you agree that the OT is a foreshadowing of the NT? I wonder, then why God set up a covenant with the use of liturgy and priests only to abolish it in the new covenant?
One forgets that God COMMANDED that vestments be used for priests and was even explicit in the color choice of these garments! (Ex 39:1-2): And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the LORD commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine twined linen. (See also Exodus 28:4-8, 15, 33; 39:1-8, 29)
If this was commanded and pleasing to God then, I see no reason why he would not be pleased with this today. Logically then, the mere wearing of garments does not mean that the Catholic Church is partaking in something that cannot please God. Whether or not the early church wore garments in no way diminishes their role as the Christian church of history anyway.
Additionally, we can again point to Revelation as it is full of liturgy, formality and the use of incense.
Rev 8:2-4
And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets. And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand.
Hmm... seems to me that God doesn't have a problem with such things and that, in fact, the Catholic Mass sounds a lot like heaven!
Hello Anon,
You said, "Heretics by definition are those who find themselves on the losing side of disputes over dogma or church policy. Protestantism ceased to be heresy and became a seperate church because it won a few battles."
There must be an absolute truth to the "win" or it's just a win of relativism. "Winning" is also sometimes in the eye of the beholder. No one "won" with the Reformation. It did nothing but succeed to divide Christianity into thousands of splintered and broken churches, each using the Bible alone and his fallible, usually NON-historical interpretation of the Scriptures - making him believe he "won" when in reality, he just bought the lie.
Anon,
Re: your quote on the Notre Dame book:
Umm... again, this has NOTHING to do with changing the doctrine. It has to do with a matter of practice.
You make my point with Paul .Why does scripture say table and not altar ? Do you call your dining room table an altar? As you say homes have tables in which to break bread, and that is where early christians met .Right? So Paul calls it a table, he is not in a synagogue or temple or church building. Of course I know there are altars where sacrifices were made,and there are altars in heaven or in revelations. I am simply stating a simple fact that you corroborte ,early christians met in homes, and when the time came to break bread in remebrance it was probably around a table. Is it not interesting the one ceremony which carries over, in fullness, the passover, (unleavened bread), to us from Jewish days is one that can be done at home or outside the "church building" .Did Jesus have a rabbi there at the last supper ? Did every jewish home that night need a priest for the simple ceremony?. Did the earliest christians need a priest in the home for the commemeration. Does not scriptuere say you and I are priests ? Does not scripture say the Christ was ofered up ONCE,for all. An altar is for a sacrifice, but that was done away ONCE for all,and now we commemorate. Yes, a holy occassion but not the same as the actual sacrifice. Again ,my simple point is that it was simple back in 50 a.d.,the age of the apostles. There is no scriptural evidence for all the added grandeur. We can add what we we wish ,may it just be in truth and spirit, and that is a whole other discusion. I would just like to first affirm what the apostles did. Thanks. Good to hear from you again.
Please do not say you are apostolic ,then do things that are not apostolic. There is no evidence the apostles or elders of the ealiest (not early that could mean 500 a.d.)church wore special garments. Again you make my whole point as you justify your position using old tetsament. Did not Jesus come? Did you miss him? Is there not a new covenant ? Can you put new wine in an old skin?. It was not at the beginning but slowly it occurred ,the middle wall of partiton was sewn up again ,and you and I can not go where the priest goes ,as in Jewish days. Way back in 4-19-09 in the Mary discusion, I shared this with you about the midlle wall of partition, and we are all priests to consecrate the bread.I do believe you are very Jewish but in a backwards way,that is what Jesus set us free from, you have gone back to needing the rabbi ,the ceremony,the division of laity and priesthood, the shedding of blood. You cite all these Jewish things ,things that were done by those that crucified Christ. What good did it do them? I thought faith is what pleases God ,Yes those garments were ordered of God because the messiah had not come yet. We were not holy enough.We needed priets, a go between to show the ultimate necessity of the ultimate sacrifice. This is what I feel..that the church gradually went back to the old,as in old testament times. That was good for many back then (even the old testament had to be in truth and spirit),but Christ has come,he fullfilled the law.It was predicted that He would do something new ,He would give us new hearts and we can go into the holy of holies and not be zapped dead because the spirit now INDWELLS,a new dispensation.It is like a rocket to the moon. The rocket has stages, pushing the capsile up and away. Well, we are up and away in Christ, we have jettisoned the booster rockets, they are no longer needed, their holy mission accomplished, Alleluia. We are on our way to the moon,in the capsule,no rockets behind us except what the Lord did 2000 years ago (yes we have small direstional thrusters ,on the capsule, for direction (the Holy Spirit) Why would you want to reattach the EMPTY booster rockets ? This was predicted in the old testament. That is the reason it might not be pleasing to God today...... You speak of Revelations, and rightly so. Yes there is incense and prayers and an altar, but it is totally different in truth and spirit than the old testament. Indeed if you want to be like "Revelations", then know this -there are no names like catholic or protestant there, there is no pope or priestly class, just 24 elders. The only ,the ONLY prerequisite to get there is to be washed by the blood of the Lamb. It does NOT mention by what church this is done by. It does tell us it is one on one with the Lord on the washing, by faith, bringing forth a testamony,of His work. Yes the mass has incense and praise and supplication and an altar, but why do you need a priestly class,or the sacrifice of the Lord all over again, or any
He hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having abolished the law of commandments in ordinances, through Him we have access by one spirit unto the father..fellow citizens with the saints( no performance of a miracle needed here to be a saint other than regeneraton) built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles. Eph 2:12-20
Jesus ,when he he out with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And behold THE VEIL OF THE TEMPLE WAS RENT IN TWAIN FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM..Matt 27:51
Seeing there are priests that offer gifts accoding to the law as an example of heavenly things admonished by God But now hath HE (Christ the High Priest) has obtained a more excellent ministry mediator of a BETTER covenant, upon better promises, for if the first covenant had been faultless ,there would be no ned foor a second. I will make a new covenant. I will write my laws on there hearts.....Now the that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away (Old covenant)....truly there were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death ..but He continueth forver an unchangeable priesthood who needeth not daily offer up sacrifice, for this He did once....For the LAW (old ,done away with) maketh men priests which have infirmity.....For the priest hood being changed, there is made of necesity a change in the law also........Christ having washed us with his blood, hath made us kings and PRIESTS unto God (Rev 1:6 ,5:10 ).......... But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself..So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many......But in those sacrifices( Old Testament)there is a REMEMBRANCE again made of sins every year.... evey priest standeth daily ministering and offering sacrifices, which can NEVER take away sins (old testament needed priests, in vain)........ And after the second veil (in the temple) which is called the Holiest of all......the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle (needing a priest) was still standing....Now we can go boldly before the throne of grace (Hebrews ch. 6-10)
Hi Amber ,I am "anon" ,somehow my name slipped off the header. I did not say that is the definiton of a heretic ,that is a quote from the book I cited( Notre Dame). I agree with you on absolute truth. Why did you bring that up and avoid the small truthful aspect of the author ? and you reverted back to an untruth of "thousands of splinterd and broken churches" Again I cited a study ealier that says (apples to apples) you had two or three denominations before the reformation ,now you may have 10 or 12 divisions. Again, should unity be at the edge of a sword ? Again,if the church reformed and listened to Luther that would have helped, after all there is not that much difference otherwise between lutherans, episcopals and catholics. I love your frankness of protetsants believing the big lie. We do know how to spar. As far as baptisms in the Notre Dame book, I am not sure that it is merely practice that changed but doctrine also. He calls the believer "catechumen " ,and people would wait a lifetime before baptism, yet they were believers (born again) but not baptized. Very muddled ,off base, superstitious, certainly not with the simplicity of scripture as in Acts.
I believe there was a win in the reformation. Yes the Catholic church lost members, but it is not as if they became buddhist or muslim. They continued many things they had done as catholics, and many even more deeply. Catholics did win because they were forced to address some of their errors. Germany certainly won out by having a german bible. The printing press stopped printing out indulgences and started printing out more bibles. More germans were reading scripture. In light of our discusion on Revelations ,I believe more people washed their souls by the blood of the lamb ( from ALL denominations ,including Catholic) because of the reformation. Yes there were religious wars to come ,but they had been with the church for centuries before, but the end was in sight. Yes there was division (again not a new thing) but there was obedience to allowing freedom of conscience, again. The principles of the sand of the sea for numbering saints but also broad is the path to death and narrow to life and few find it still apply. So before most were Catholic but I suppose many in name only (as the jews) and after the reformation the same holds true in protetsantism, but now under many other names (what is the difference if you are a lost soul under Catholicism or a lost soul under Lutheranism ? remember there were lost souls under judaism so don't say it can not happen in the right "church").No ,I understand why you must say no one won in the reformation, but I have to say everyone won.
Saw an interesting moving about Luther on PBS. Apparently as a devout monk he found no peace with God, and that the rituals of the church could not grant him peace and felt he had not achieved salvation. He became very ascetic and almost sick with a nagging conscience (an ever ending cycle of confession, sometimes just hours apart). He was appointed to a university to teach, with hopes he would be too busy and tired for a nagging conscience. It was then he dove completely into studying scripture (latin, hebrew and greek texts) for the first time, for he was going to have to teach with authority. In the monastery they apparently did not delve into scripture other than at mass. Eventually he was set free from his guilt when he realized that scripture teaches justification by faith. He felt he was born again. Now salvation was directly between him and God. No institution could atone, believe or stand between himself and God. He experienced the Holy Spirit as personal teacher as Jerome did.....He later became upset when his parishoners stopped going to confession etc., because the indulgence man came into town and took care of their need. He was concerned that some might get it wrong, the allusion that the indulgence gave hope for forgiveness and salvation. If they got it wrong they could go to hell. I felt the same way when I got saved .Yes the church helped plant the seed but could never have given me life, that I was still going to hell,I had not really changed from my sin nature. My catholicism was wrong in that it made me feel saved when I was not. Indeed priests later told me "Oh, the loving Father would not have sent you to hell", after all I was a baptized catholic. I had to personally meet Jesus, alone ,one on one, and receive His forgiveness (after rejecting this invitation many times before because of sin, pride and after all ,I was catholic). Rejecting that personal invitation was going to send me to hell (not my pot smoking or fornicating etc.). That is what was amazing, that He still loved me after all my rejections. He was faithful to any seed, when I lost it allin my darkness. I certainly did not seek Him, but He sought me out and finally broke my heart. So no ,I was not born again at my catholic infant baptism or confirmation, or first communion. I knew all about Jesus ,but not personally,in all His fullness toward me.
You brought up Ph 2:12 about "working out your salvation ,in fear and trembling" as in you can not know for sure your salvation. I do believe that scripture is to christians who are already "saved", by the blood of the Lamb as he states earlier. The "working out" is not towards salvation, but because of salvation, that is what do you do now that you are saved. He goes on to admonish not to murmur, be blameless, hold forth the word of life, etc.....If you want to apply it "towards" salvation, where do you see it is thru out a lifetime.? I could see being in fear and trembling before salvation. "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom and knowledge"...also negative judgement from God(wrath) is upon us before salvation. So fearing and trembling is wise BEFORE salvation. Luther and Charles Wesley,and George Whitfield feared and trembled BEFORE they were saved. 3000 jews feared and trembled after Peters' first preaching and said "what do we do?". I do not see anywhere where they they trembled after they were saved ,born again, except for living up to that high calling. When a butterfly comes out of the cocoon ,do you see it flying around all its life in fear and trembling of hoping to become a butterfly? No it trembled as a catepillar ,building its' coccoon just so properly in order to metamorphise, doing nothing once inside, but waiting for what the Lord would do. As Paul states the next verse, " It is God in you doing the work" .I do not see anywhere in scripture where those same 3000 came back to Peter several months later saying, "What do we do ,what do we do ? " in fear and trembling again for having crucified Christ, for they had already repented and were baptized. No, I believe it is false piety that refuses to believe in such a sure salvation, where you know beyond a shadow of a doubt of your entry into heaven, not because of ones' religious or church life, but because of Christs' ransom.
No man seeks after God.....they have each gone astray, and think they are right in there own eyes ,but their ways are the way of death.....Depart from me, I never knew you....we have heard of the dispensation of grace....in whom we have boldness and access....to enter the holiest....a new and living way, through the veil.....unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding....we came to you in power and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance....the spirit beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God....I have written unto you that you may KNOW that you have eternal life....therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God....he that has the Son has life....He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself....you have an unction from the Holy One, and you know all things....for God desired knowledge of Himself more than burnt offerings....Alleluia
"wow ,what a bold presumptive statement" you said of me saying you can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are saved. If you have a doubt of your salvation, this is sin for faith pleases God, and He freely gives this gift of faith. It is like doubting His gift, isn't it ? Actually I agree with you ,it is a bold presumptive statement. It is based on what Jesus did on calvary. What He did there is explained from Genesis to Revelations. What He did was bold, and whom He did it for is even bolder. It was a katrillion dollar act,unfathomable. Anything I do towards being worthy to receive it is puny, even an affront to His deed (stench in his nostrils, even sin for not resting in His work))..Two people could do the same good religious work ,and one will be pleasing to God and the other not. It all depends if you are FIRST resting in HIS good work first. Hence "Depart from me you workers of inequity" (even though they had good works). Is there anything I could do to cleanse me from any sin, big or small ? Doesn't His katrillion dollar suffering, cover any of my nickle and dime offenses, (yes every farthing(penny) must be accounted for) ? To say you could do something is bold and presumptive, as if you have anything to offer against His free gift of a katrillion.
Commenting by HaloScan
