A question for all Protestants

[Bill_Pick]

This is incorrect.

Jesus said, “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.”

Sure, the scriptures refer to Jesus as the cornerstone elsewhere, but in this passage, Jesus portrays Himself as the builder and not as the foundation.

Now, it is true that things built on man normally fail, but the Catholic Church built by Christ has not failed in 2,000 years.

Consequently, you can see that Jesus has built well and that the promise of the Holy Spirit to lead the Church into all truth has meant that the gates of hell have never prevailed against her.

Never will, either, no matter how the winds of the Protestant Rebellion howl.

Peter is the rock just as the bible tells You

 

[Bill_Pick]

Hey Jericho, of course Jesus is the Divine Rock on which the CC is built, after all He is God. But, as the builder, Jesus still said: you are Kepha and on this kepha, I will build my church. This always troubled me as a former Lutheran.

If I said to you:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast, would you think that I was referring to something else other than my hypothetical boat? If not, then why do you believe that Jesus was referring to something else other than Kepha (cephas, transliterated)?

Again, no one is denying that Jesus is the Divine Rock, Cornerstone; if Jesus were to remove that Cornerstone (Himself) - the church built by Christ, on Simon, renamed Kepha, would no doubt collapse under the heavy hammer of the evil one. However, as long as that Divine Cornerstone ( the chief foundation of the church - Christ) - remains firmly intact in the House of the Living God and the Pillar and Foundation of truth, surely the fellow citizens and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of Kepha and the other apostles and prophets of the 1st century, will forever be joined together and rise to become a holy temple in the Lord, in which God lives by his Spirit - right?

No Peter is the rock,just as the Bible tells

 

[joe370]

Jericho, you said, I will hold to the clear teaching of scripture…

If these teachings are so clear, then why are there so many conflicting truths, doctrinally speaking? I know that all Christians, regardless of denomination, are one and united when it comes to faith in Jesus Christ as our one and only savior, but in no way are all Christians, regardless of denomination, united regarding doctrinal truth! Surely sola scriptura as the Christians be all end all, final authority, has led to disunity and division in Jesus’ Mystical Body? I could start a church tomorrow, call it Joe’s reformed church, and remove all Sacraments, the Trinity, etc. etc. - basing my teachings/doctrinal truths on my singularly unique interpretation of the bible, which was never entrusted to me to begin with. Something seems terribly wrong with that idea. don’t you think, but, thanks to the 16th century man-made teaching of SS, anyone can avail themselves of the word of God and do just that.

Jericho, you believe one thing, and regarding that one thing (the Eucharist for example) - no doubt I believe the exact opposite; why is that, if the teachings of scripture are so clear? Who or what arbitrates, evaluates, determines and resolves our doctrinal dispute, in the end? I know that the holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ Mystical body, the church, into all truth, as per sacred scripture, so where can one go to find all truth regarding the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Peter said:

*He (Paul) - writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, *which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

That doesn’t sound like “the clear teaching of scripture…”

*Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
*

Are you and I both carried along by the holy spirit to to interpret the scriptures and evaluate/arbitrate doctrinal disputes, or did that happen on Pentecost (They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit… Acts 2) - to Jesus’ fledgling church of Matthew 16:

The words:* “…men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit,” *certainly seems to apply to the church of Matthew 16 exclusively. The following words should really just apply to the one church founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century, shouldn’t they? Let’s assume that these words do not apply to the CC:

*And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever…

But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me…

But I tell you the truth, it is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. *

According to the holy bible, Jesus’ church Must still be here, guided by the holy spirit into all truth until the end of time, as opposed to partial truths or half truths. Doesn’t that seem both biblical and logical? Perhaps we can figure out which church in the world today is the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the holy spirit into ALL TRUTH? Again, let’s assume that the CC is not the church of Matthew 16, founded by God on Pentecost, in Jerusalem, and see where that leads us.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Hey Jericho, of course Jesus is the Divine Rock on which the CC is built, after all He is God. But, as the builder, Jesus still said: you are Kepha and on this kepha, I will build my church. This always troubled me as a former Lutheran.

If I said to you:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast, would you think that I was referring to something else other than my hypothetical boat? If not, then why do you believe that Jesus was referring to something else other than Kepha (cephas, transliterated)?

Again, no one is denying that Jesus is the Divine Rock, Cornerstone; if Jesus were to remove that Cornerstone (Himself) - the church built by Christ, on Simon, renamed Kepha, would no doubt collapse under the heavy hammer of the evil one. However, as long as that Divine Cornerstone ( the chief foundation of the church - Christ) - remains firmly intact in the House of the Living God and the Pillar and Foundation of truth, surely the fellow citizens and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of Kepha and the other apostles and prophets of the 1st century, will forever be joined together and rise to become a holy temple in the Lord, in which God lives by his Spirit - right?
No Peter is the rock,just as the Bible tells
Reply With Quote

Bill, I absolutely agree with you. I would never deny that fact. However, Jesus is the Divine Rock, Cornerstone and the builder of His Fathers House.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter is the rock just as the bible tells You

Which was my point exactly.

 

[XinMinny]

I would like to simply add a ‘what if’ to this discussion. I don’t mean this as a point of argument or apologetics in any sense, but rather as ‘food for thought.’

What if we did not grow up in a situation where we heard the word “Trinity” often? What if we didn’t know there was disagreement about what the “incarnation” means? What if we had not seen Popes, local bishops, priests, confessionals, etc all of our lives?

Is it actually possible that we are worried about questions that no one really needs an answer for? Is it possible that in all the discussion about ‘points of doctrine’ that we are missing the real truth, which is that we should strive in our own minds and hearts to become ‘poor in spirit’, ‘meek’, ‘merciful’, etc (Matthew 5)?

I like to think about these questions, because they keep me more “alive”. Does anyone else have the same response or experience?

 

[joe370]

I would like to simply add a ‘what if’ to this discussion. I don’t mean this as a point of argument or apologetics in any sense, but rather as ‘food for thought.’

What if we did not grow up in a situation where we heard the word “Trinity” often? What if we didn’t know there was disagreement about what the “incarnation” means? What if we had not seen Popes, local bishops, priests, confessionals, etc all of our lives?

Minny, I have often ask that question myself; what if someone is raised in a family and has never heard of the CC or Christianity, or they simply were raised to be a good Jew or Muslim etc. - and chose not to investigate Christianity, because they truly believe, with all their heart, soul and mind, that they are where they need to be?

No doubt they will make it to heaven if they lived lives of charity, mercy and love, but only through Jesus Christ, Who is the door and the way and the truth and the life. They will have to pass through that door first, to finally peer into the eternal beatific vision.

I use to ask myself: If Jesus came to save the whole world, why did he manifest himself only to the region around present day Israel? How can a revelation, given historically in a specific place and time, be the standard by which the world BEFORE the event and the world ignorant of those events AFTER their occurrence, be in ANY way fair?

Well, He is God and He chose to do it this way. Who am I to question God.

How can God punish those who never heard of Jesus?

Well the logical answer is, He won’t! Jesus is Mercy; Jesus is love. People who have never heard of Jesus will simply be judged by the way in which they lived their lives IMHO. If they lived their life, Christ like, as best they could, then they go to heaven, as far as I’m concerned. The Bible implies that humans will be judged according to the amount of information they have about God, not according to the revelation they did not receive. Jesus said that those “to whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48). Those who were given more revelation will be held more accountable.

We as the Mystical Body of Christ are the ones to whom much is given,and much is definitely required. If the bible is the word of God, and I believe it is, then there is no doubt that no one gets to heaven without going through Jesus Christ for He stated:

*(John 14:6 ) - Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
*

How did the Old Testament people get to heaven? It could not have been that they knew Jesus, because He had not yet come to earth as a human being for them to know. So how were they saved? Through the atoning work of Christ, retroactively speaking; God lives outside of time.

(Romans 10:14-15) - How then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?"

Many (south east Asia for example) - have not heard of the Trinity, the incarnation, Popes, bishops, priests, pastors confessionals, etc, so how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

Sidelight:

BTW, I have friend who is a Lutheran pastor and he and some others have travel to the Philippians, bringing the word of God to them, and he does not teach that the bread and wine are real food and drink; certainly those new converts should not be judged for not following this explicit commandment of Jesus:

*…unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. *

Well, a perfect example is the thief on the cross next to Jesus:

(Luke 23:43) - Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”

This is what Jesus said to the thief on the cross, yet he was oblivious to any Christian doctrine. He was never baptized and he never received Jesus’ flesh and blood. I believe that the ones who truly believe and do nothing about it or just live a lackluster Christian life, never picking up their cross and living lives of charity and performing good works, every day, are the ones in the most trouble.

*“Trust is the container that we bring to the well-springs of God’s mercy. The more trust we have, the more grace and mercy we can obtain.” *These words of Jesus to St. Faustina are a source of undying consolation to this contemporary world, beset by troubles and fears, and if we who know Jesus, really try to bring that cup, brimming with God’s grace and mercy, to all those who are oblivious to God’s eternal grace and mercy, then we can say as Paul said: we have fought the good fight, finished the race, and kept the faith; God will do the rest.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Originally Posted by joe370 View Post
Hey Jericho, of course Jesus is the Divine Rock on which the CC is built, after all He is God. But, as the builder, Jesus still said: you are Kepha and on this kepha, I will build my church. This always troubled me as a former Lutheran.

If I said to you:

Bill, I absolutely agree with you. I would never deny that fact. However, Jesus is the Divine Rock, Cornerstone and the builder of His Fathers House.

Thank You, This is just not my opinion this is from the Bishop of Charlotte,I ask him when he was at My church and having coffee. Have a great day

 

[XinMinny]

Joe,
Good answer. I can totally see your reasoning about people who have never ‘had opportunity to be taught.’ It makes perfect sense.
The real question to me is more like this:
Suppose we lived in 30 AD Israel. Jesus is living and teaching. (Now, I realize that today there is much discussion about the meaning of John 6, and so on. However, I have wondered if our discussion today is driven in our minds more by the fact that our present situation has made us see those passages in a certain light.) So, Jesus is preaching about the sower and the seed. He is telling us about loving our enemies. And so on. I believe that we would be so focused on those teachings, realizing the truth of them for our lives, that we would not bother to wonder about “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, etc.
And, the next real question is: Is it possible that God would be more pleased if we concentrated on that, rather than the discussion that we normally have here at CAF and other places?
In other words, could it be that we are so focused on ‘doctrine’, that we have left off focusing on the things that are the most important?

 

[chessmane4e5]

Joe,
Good answer. I can totally see your reasoning about people who have never ‘had opportunity to be taught.’ It makes perfect sense.
The real question to me is more like this:
Suppose we lived in 30 AD Israel. Jesus is living and teaching. (Now, I realize that today there is much discussion about the meaning of John 6, and so on. However, I have wondered if our discussion today is driven in our minds more by the fact that our present situation has made us see those passages in a certain light.) So, Jesus is preaching about the sower and the seed. He is telling us about loving our enemies. And so on. I believe that we would be so focused on those teachings, realizing the truth of them for our lives, that we would not bother to wonder about “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, etc.
And, the next real question is: Is it possible that God would be more pleased if we concentrated on that, rather than the discussion that we normally have here at CAF and other places?
In other words, could it be that we are so focused on ‘doctrine’, that we have left off focusing on the things that are the most important?

Your post makes me think that “ignorance is bliss” is true, because if we were living at the time of Jesus and hearing these things for the first time, you are right, we would cling to them and follow them. Although let’s not fool ourselves and think that would be enough, because surely would fall and begin to question these teachings. That is why Jesus left us the Church.

Knowledge is almost a curse, because the more we know, the more we question. I mean imagine teaching someone about God, who knows nothing. How would you start? I know my 6 year old is struggling with the fact that Jesus is the Son of God, and yet also God. This is heavy stuff The Early Church Fathers were constantly fighting heresy, which mostly stemmed from people don’t understanding or trying to use “human” reason to explain the mysteries of God.

So I think that, Yes we should focus on the message given to us by Jesus, but we also need to preserve the Truth that was given to the Apostles and that has been revealed to the Church throughout history.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would like to simply add a ‘what if’ to this discussion. I don’t mean this as a point of argument or apologetics in any sense, but rather as ‘food for thought.’

What if we did not grow up in a situation where we heard the word “Trinity” often? What if we didn’t know there was disagreement about what the “incarnation” means? What if we had not seen Popes, local bishops, priests, confessionals, etc all of our lives?

Is it actually possible that we are worried about questions that no one really needs an answer for? Is it possible that in all the discussion about ‘points of doctrine’ that we are missing the real truth, which is that we should strive in our own minds and hearts to become ‘poor in spirit’, ‘meek’, ‘merciful’, etc (Matthew 5)?

I like to think about these questions, because they keep me more “alive”. Does anyone else have the same response or experience?

XinMinny-

I think it goes the other way…many of the doctrines that we have today were defined precisely because heresies arose in the past that distorted the true faith. What if we had not had all these heretics teaching false ideas about Jesus, Mary, the sacraments, etc.?

Well, thinking believers would have still developed some of the doctrines that we embrace since it is the nature of man to ask questions. However, there is no doubt that many doctrines were developed in direct response to falsehoods.

 

[XinMinny]

Randy,
I see your point. However, I still wonder if the thinking believers who developed the doctrines and the heresies could be guilty of reducing the faith of Jesus to something that exists in facts, and not in heart-felt love for God. That is the struggle I see. I see people whose mind gets filled with “How can I prove this is right?” when the real truth is to live by the power of God, which was brought to us in Jesus.
And, as a further question, (again and I am sorry for that), are there some doctrinal issues that don’t need to be settled? I mean, let the truth be with God in heaven, and here on earth we concern ourselves with our lives, our attitudes, our actions, our spirit. Is there a place for that?
Just wondering…

 

[chessmane4e5]

XinMinny-

I think it goes the other way…many of the doctrines that we have today were defined precisely because heresies arose in the past that distorted the true faith. What if we had not had all these heretics teaching false ideas about Jesus, Mary, the sacraments, etc.?

Well, thinking believers would have still developed some of the doctrines that we embrace since it is the nature of man to ask questions. However, there is no doubt that many doctrines were developed in direct response to falsehoods.

This is what happened historically, but I do understand what XinMinny is saying.

Of course their is a difference between not knowing and now wanting to know.

joe370:

Many (south east Asia for example) - have not heard of the Trinity, the incarnation, Popes, bishops, priests, pastors confessionals, etc, so how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?

This is why Jesus’ command to the Apostles to preach the Gospel was so important. This is why the Catholic Church is so important, because it continues to preach the Entire Gospel and not just what those since the Reformation think is the most important.

A lot of the same heresies that the Early Church Fathers battled against, are popping back up again. Yet, when the writings of these Church Fathers is given as evidence today, they are simply dismissed as not being Authoritative because they are not in the Bible. This logic is flawed on so many levels, but one obvious reason would be the New Testament did not exist when these Church Fathers were combating these heresies.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Randy,
I see your point. However, I still wonder if the thinking believers who developed the doctrines and the heresies could be guilty of reducing the faith of Jesus to something that exists in facts, and not in heart-felt love for God. That is the struggle I see. I see people whose mind gets filled with “How can I prove this is right?” when the real truth is to live by the power of God, which was brought to us in Jesus.
And, as a further question, (again and I am sorry for that), are there some doctrinal issues that don’t need to be settled? I mean, let the truth be with God in heaven, and here on earth we concern ourselves with our lives, our attitudes, our actions, our spirit. Is there a place for that?
Just wondering…

While that might seem to make sense, think about it in light of the Reformation.

Had the Early Church Fathers just kept to themselves and followed what they knew was true, a lot of other sects of Christianity would have also developed. How then would anyone distinguish the truth from these false teachings?

 

[jericho777]

Jericho, I was perusing the thread and thought I would respond to your post. Could you show me the passages in the bible that clearly demonstrate that Jesus and the holy spirit are one, and that the Father and the holy spirit are one; perhaps I overlooked them.

This is all I could find so far, and nowhere do these verses indicate that the Son and the holy spirit are one, *(the words, “There is one body [church] - and one Spirit” *comes close but it doesn’t say that they are one like John 17 does regarding the Father and the Son; the bible also says that there is one body and one baptism, that doesn’t mean they are one) - or that the Father and the Son are one:

John 17 - "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Mattew 28:19 - " therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…"

2 Cor. 13:14 - “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

Eph. 4:4-7 - There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift."

The word pope is nothing more than a nickname for the Bishop of Rome, and the word bishop is very biblical. Seems harmless enough to me. The words sola scriptura (scriptura alone) - Trinity, bible, incarnation, (John 1:1,14 - original sin, theotokos (mother of God) - rapture, (1 Thess. 4:16-18; many different interpretations) - divinity, monotheism (Isaiah 43:10; 44:8) - are not found in the bible either.

Hi joe here is another Douay-Rheims 1 John 5:7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Hi joe here is another Douay-Rheims 1 John 5:7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

My bible says something different and has the following note.

"This reads as follows in the Vulgate, “There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” The “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” as the first sentence is called, is first found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.

Ignatius Bible

 

[joe370]

Hi joe here is another Douay-Rheims 1 John 5:7 And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.

Hey Jericho, I totally stand corrected. Man, how did I overlook that one. Good job and thanks so much. A person could read the bible a thousand times and discover something new.
/COLOR

"This reads as follows in the Vulgate, “There are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.” The “Three Heavenly Witnesses,” as the first sentence is called, is first found in the Latin (fourth century) and does not appear in any Greek manuscript until the fifteenth century. It is probably a marginal gloss that found its way into the text.

Are you saying that it shouldn’t be in the bible?

 

[joe370]

While that might seem to make sense, think about it in light of the Reformation.

Had the Early Church Fathers just kept to themselves and followed what they knew was true, a lot of other sects of Christianity would have also developed. How then would anyone distinguish the truth from these false teachings?

That is a really good point.

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by joe370
Many (south east Asia for example) - have not heard of the Trinity, the incarnation, Popes, bishops, priests, pastors confessionals, etc, so how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard?
This is why Jesus’ command to the Apostles to preach the Gospel was so important. This is why the Catholic Church is so important, because it continues to preach the Entire Gospel and not just what those since the Reformation think is the most important.

A lot of the same heresies that the Early Church Fathers battled against, are popping back up again. Yet, when the writings of these Church Fathers is given as evidence today, they are simply dismissed as not being Authoritative because they are not in the Bible. This logic is flawed on so many levels, but one obvious reason would be the New Testament did not exist when these Church Fathers were combating these heresies.

Very flawed!

I couldn’t agree more with you. The CC is the doctrinal beacon of light where the fullness of truth can be found. That is why I came back to the CC.

 

[joe370]

Hi Minny…

Joe,
Good answer. I can totally see your reasoning about people who have never ‘had opportunity to be taught.’ It makes perfect sense.
The real question to me is more like this:
Suppose we lived in 30 AD Israel. Jesus is living and teaching. (Now, I realize that today there is much discussion about the meaning of John 6, and so on. However, I have wondered if our discussion today is driven in our minds more by the fact that our present situation has made us see those passages in a certain light.)

I don’t really see it that way. The CC leaders in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century… all believed in this doctrinal truth (true presence). If the holy spirit was truly guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, in those centuries, then logically speaking, it must be true don’t you think, and it seems critical to our salvation, at least for those who are aware of this teaching?

So, Jesus is preaching about the sower and the seed. He is telling us about loving our enemies. And so on. I believe that we would be so focused on those teachings, realizing the truth of them for our lives, that we would not bother to wonder about “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, etc.

Why not both? Why is loving our enemies more important than “Trinity”, “Incarnation”, etc.???

…And, the next real question is: Is it possible that God would be more pleased if we concentrated on that, rather than the discussion that we normally have here at CAF and other places?

Minny start a thread and broach the subject. If the CC would have taken that position in the early centuries, as some have already stated, many today, might very well embracing some pretty noxious heresies, don’t you thank?

In other words, could it be that we are so focused on ‘doctrine’, that we have left off focusing on the things that are the most important?
Reply With Quote

Like what? Doctrines are simply the truths of Jesus Christ entrusted to His church leadership, protected and guarded by His church via the perpetual guidance of the HS. The bible tells us that the holy spirit is guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, not some truths, doctrinally speaking. Shouldn’t we focus on all doctrinal truths? They must be pretty important, otherwise they wouldn’t be in the holy bible.