All we need is Jesus

[JanSobieskiIII]

The problem when using scripture alone is it turns into circular logic. It doesn’t convince people outside of our own belief system.

 

[Sean77]

I am not sure you even understand your own question. The purpose of these councils was to combat heretical teachings that had cropped up. That doesn’t mean the scriptures were somehow ambiguous on whether Christ was divine or human. Just as I think you would also agree that the scriptures are very clear on the definition of marriage in God’s sight, yet people twist the word of God to redefine it according to their sinful desires. The clarity is there, but we still have to confess the same truths that have already been revealed.

 

[Sean77]

I think you misunderstand what scripture alone even means, something that is common because most Catholic apologists present a boogey man that does not represent the proper definition of what this doctrine means. Scripture alone is NOT me by my lonesome under a tree somewhere. When Lutherans proposed Sola Scriptura, it was a reaction to something else. Scripture Alone means that scripture is the sole, infallible rule of faith and doctrine for the church. Essentially it says that scripture, because of its nature as being breathed out by, spoken by God, it is by its nature infallible. In other words, God doesn’t err. Why doesn’t God err? Because he is God. I think you would agree with that ontological circular reasoning that God is infallible hence he doesn’t err. I would have my suspicions of any Catholic that doesn’t accept that as a presupposition. Now, given that God’s word is infallible, and that the scriptures are the God-breathed record of God’s word, this is authoritative to the believer who is subject to God. God spoke, therefore I am subject to it because he is God and I am a creature. Luther’s issue (I know you disagree with me, but set that aside for a moment) is that he believed that other authorities were saying one thing about certain doctrines which were in conflict with what God’s word says. How did he reconcile the contradiction? He said that God’s word holds supremacy over authorities that are in conflict with it. This isn’t a repudiation of authority sources such as tradition, logic, reason, etc. It is a purposeful subjection of those things to scripture where the two don’t reconcile. As an example, it doesn’t logically make sense that God is three persons in one being. I can’t reconcile that logically. But that’s what scripture demonstrates, therefore I submit my reason to scripture and take God’s word on faith.

It doesn’t convince people outside of our own belief system.

Neither does touting the authority of the church. God is the final authority. If people reject him, why would they accept the authority of a person, or sacred tradition? Also, I don’t convince people into faith. The Holy Spirit opens their eyes and ears and brings them to faith.

 

[Reuben_J]

In conversation with a cousin who has started their own “Church” and states all we need is Jesus:
Can anyone help, guide, provide pointers for me in constructing a reply to this “all we need is Jesus” belief? Not so much a “taste me sword you heretical heathen” but something a bit more compassionate, thoughtful and rooted in truth?
Thank you.

It is a no brainer. Of course we need Jesus and nobody else. The question is – how do we do it? For that, again the obvious, we have to turn to the Church. Jesus left behind a Church for us to follow. And she is the best where we can really look to as to how we need Jesus. It is not just a saying but action as well.

Jesus said not everyone who says, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of his Father in heaven.

That is a great line that we must understand. Anybody can claim and say, ‘Lord, Lord’, but do they really do they will of the Father?

When we say we need Jesus, it comes with what we are doing. And all the knowledge to do this is with the Church. I could go on but suffice it is to say at this stage, saying all we need is Jesus does come with what it entails and the best ways to do it. Go to the Church, the gift that Jesus has left behind for us.

 

[adf417]

I am not sure you even understand your own question.

Sadly, that is not surprising.

The purpose of these councils was to combat heretical teachings that had cropped up

Why was there a need to combat anything if there was a bible with final authorty sitting on the table? It was also these same scriptures that was used to attack the divinity and bring a large portion of the church to disagree with this claim.

That doesn’t mean the scriptures were somehow ambiguous on whether Christ was divine or human.

I agree but that is easy for us to say today. The hard work was done many years ago and the body of Christ prevailed.

Peace!!!

 

[TK421]

In conversation with a cousin who has started their own “Church” and states all we need is Jesus:

“I read your post and I noticed you have a lot of passion for the Catholic Church and that’s good but I would like to say that Jesus is everything we need He is our rock our guide our love our forgiveness our Savior our Lord it’s all about Him I’m not minimizing anything any religion I’m saying I’m thankful to have a loving God who loves me unconditionally!!”

This to me has undertones of “faith alone” and “personal relationship” theology common in protestantism. My knee-jerk reaction is to go full out Micheal Vorris on them but I’m not blessed with the gift of articulating a response I believe that could plant that seed in them and bring them back to the fullness if truth. Can anyone help, guide, provide pointers for me in constructing a reply to this “all we need is Jesus” belief? Not so much a “taste me sword you heretical heathen” but something a bit more compassionate, thoughtful and rooted in truth?
Thank you.

Imagine that you love a king. You tell him how much you love him and how loyal you are to him, but then you tell him that you want nothing to do with his kingdom: you are only interested in him. You don’t want anything to do with his mother, or his brothers, or sisters, or his caretakers, or his people, or anything else in his kingdom.

And if you loved him and everything and everybody in his kingdom, do you think that the king would be offended by this? What if you gave roses to the mother of the king? Would that make the king angry? Or what if you fed his people when they were hungry, and clothed them when they were naked, and visited them in prison, and instructed them when they were ignorant, and encouraged them when they were distressed, and buried them when they died, and did so many other things for them. Would this show that you love the king less or love him more? What if you asked those alive in Heaven to pray for you and for others the same way that you ask those alive on Earth to do it? Would this show that you love the king less or love him more? God says, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob” after they are gone from the world, because He is the God of the living and not of the dead, and everybody he touches becomes filled with light the way that he is filled with light, and everybody that accepts him becomes good and beautiful because he is good and beautiful. And if you want to love a King, then you must also love his kingdom and his entire family.

Peace.

 

[goodcatholic]

If I write down what I really think here, I’ll be forced to have another vacation away from CAF. And I’ve become so attached to all you guys, that I don’t want that to happen.

 

[MT1926]

Essentially it says …

Wouldn’t this be better stated that scripture WAS breathed out 2000 years ago. It WAS spoken by God 2000 years ago?

Not trying to be nit picky it’s just the way you word it makes it sound like God is still verbally speaking every time you read scripture. When we can both agree you are the one doing the reading and the thinking here. Correct?

Also, could you please explain how an inanimate object can be infallible?

In other words, God doesn’t err.

Totally agree. God did not err when He breathed. However, we err on a daily basis. Including when we interpret scripture.

Now, given that God’s word is infallible… this is authoritative to the believer who is subject to God

Agree. However, the person in the OP is following Bible Alone and believes he is being subject to the God-breathed record of God’s word also.

So where does this leave us?

If there is no authoritative interpretation of what the Bible is telling us how can we ever say we are right and he has erred?

God spoke…

Once again this thread is proof that God spoke (past tense). However, if we don’t have an Authority to back up what God spoke then He is not speaking every time we read the Bible. We are the ones speaking for God.

Luther’s issue… in conflict with what God’s word says.

Sorry this can’t be set aside because it is the basis of you entire argument. Can you provide the evidence that what Luther BELIEVED was in line with what God Spoke 2000 years ago? We are talking about a 1500 year gap here, how do you know Luther wasn’t the one conflicting God’s ORIGINAL Word?

Sure we can argue back and forth Bible verses and which one of us is correct. However, the question still stands. Aside from the fact that you agree with SOME of the things Luther believed. How do you know, with infallible certainty, that he was right? I don’t know your faith and don’t want to jump to any conclusions but I haven’t met a single person, who uses Luther as their defense, who actually believe everything Luther believed. That in and of itself kind of makes me wonder why anyone would follow a guy who they disagreed with?

He said that God’s word holds supremacy over authorities that are in conflict with it.

How does this statement not make Luther the authority over God’s word? After all he was the one telling everyone see this is what God’s Word says.

It is a purposeful subjection of those things to scripture where the two don’t reconcile

From the Catholic point of view these things reconcile. Just because they didn’t reconcile to Luther how does this mean he was correct?

Sorry for jumping in. I’m just dying to have someone finally answer these questions.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

Luke 22:70: ‘And they all said, Are You the Son of God, then? And He said to them, Yes, I am.’

There are variant translations, to be sure, but the typical one is “And He said to them, ‘You say that I am.’”

 

[Gorgias]

what was the purpose of the early councils like Nicaea in 325 and Ephesus in 431, in your opinion?

To gain a deeper understanding of Christ’s divinity. That He was divine wasn’t a novel assertion; how He could be, and what that implied were the difficult questions (and the ones that led to heretical opinions)…

Luther’s issue (I know you disagree with me, but set that aside for a moment) is that he believed that other authorities were saying one thing about certain doctrines which were in conflict with what God’s word says.

There we go. That’s the heart of it.

It’s not that anyone disbelieved Scripture – it’s that Luther disagreed with an interpretation of Scripture, and wanted folks to agree with his interpretation rather than the Church’s.

What often gets bandied about as some high-minded desire to have folks read for themselves and think for themselves was really just a desire for folks to assent to his personal teachings. He got mighty ticked when folks read for themselves and came up with dissenting doctrines!

 

[Sean77]

No sir. Luther was absolutely correct in his interpretation. We don’t obtain grace by purchasing indulgences. We obtain grace through faith. There is no one who has read Romans fairly that would disagree with Luther on his objections to that practice. He just happened to be the guy that challenged it and wasn’t subsequently burned alive for his objection.

 

[AugustTherese]

There is no one who has read Romans fairly that would disagree with Luther on his objections to that practice.

Luther, and many, many others fail miserably to properly interpret St. Paul’s letter to the Romans. Do you really think the Church could not properly understand St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans until Martin Luther came around?

 

[Sean77]

Whether they could or could not, I won’t speculate about. What is objectively verifiable is that the practices of the church were not in line with Romans and that rather than reform practices, the Pope chose to double down on them. Luther was faced with being loyal to the gospel or to the Pope. He chose the gospel.

 

[MT1926]

No sir. Luther was absolutely correct in his interpretation. We don’t obtain grace by purchasing indulgences.

And your point is??? Who was he objecting to?

The Catholic Church has never taught that we can purchase grace. Sure some bad people might have taken advantage but the burden of proof is on you my friend. Please attach the Catholic Document that teaches we can purchase grace.

There is no one who has read Romans fairly that would disagree with Luther on his objections to that practice.

Nope I am good with this. Luther was correct to object to this PRACTICE. The problem with Luther is he knew that this was not a teaching of the Catholic Church yet used this to stir up controversy and get people to follow his misguided interpretations of scripture.

He just happened to be the guy that challenged it and wasn’t subsequently burned alive for his objection.

Luther was burned alive???

Where on earth are you getting your information from?

God Bless

 

[Delphinus]

Well, they are right. Jesus is sufficient, and He is ALL we need!

The thing is…people don’t really follow after the fullness of Christ. As a former protestant, I have been peeling this back over the last several years. Protestantism is like…well, to borrow from Twilight “…a person living only on tofu. it keeps you strong, but you’re never fully satisfied.” They have Jesus, and he is sufficient. However, Jesus gave us His church. The church is the lighthouse that steers us away from heresies. Little faulty beliefs like “foxes that ruin the vineyard”. Jesus makes himself fully known to us in the church, in other believers, in the sacraments, in the life of the universal body of believers.

The act of going to church or belonging to the Catholic Church isn’t to win salvation. It’s to know Jesus fully in all his beautiful aspects - in the Eucharist where he makes himself present. To meet with him in reconciliation to humbly confess my sins and hear, through the words of a man acting in His place through the power of the Holy Spirit giving me absolution so I can move on and serve God in pure joy and hope. The church helps me bring the ever-sufficient Christ more deeply into my human heart which is fickle and turns away from the truth so much. Jesus is the light, all we need. The church is an institution the great I AM instated to keep our flawed hearts rooted in his truth and love. It’s just another sign of Him acknowledging our frailty and giving immeasurable grace to reach us and keep us. I love Him all the more for it.

 

[Sean77]

And your point is??? Who was he objecting to?

Exactly. Luther was addressing an abuse of a practice (which was unscriptural to begin with, but I digress). And when Luther’s response to this abuse was sent to the Pope, the Pope backed Tetzel. And to answer your question, even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s interlocutor, admitted to Tetzel’s abuse. Saying the church didn’t teach the abuse is nonsense since when the church was confronted with the abuse they supported the abusive practice.

The problem with Luther is he knew that this was not a teaching of the Catholic Church yet used this to stir up controversy and get people to follow his misguided interpretations of scripture.

Again, the issue was not Luther addressing the practice of indulgence sales, it was the papacy’s response by supporting error that caused the problem.

Luther was burned alive???

Again, my quote was:

He just happened to be the guy that challenged it and wasn’t subsequently burned alive for his objection.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Micheal Vorris

(1) Stay away from Micheal Vorris.
And (2) Stay away from Micheal Vorris.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Who is that? NVM.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

wasn’t

He said wasn’t burned alive. Not was.

 

[MT1926]

And when Luther’s response to this abuse was sent to the Pope, the Pope backed Tetzel. And to answer your question, even Cardinal Cajetan, Luther’s interlocutor, admitted to Tetzel’s abuse. Saying the church didn’t teach the abuse is nonsense since when the church was confronted with the abuse they supported the abusive practice.

And like I said where is the document that states “we obtain grace by purchasing indulgences”.

Even if the your version of the story is the true version, the Pope backing Tetzel is a moot point. All you prove by this is that a man made a bad choice.

Claiming the Church teaches something without any evidence to back your opinion is the only thing I would consider to be nonsense.

Again, the issue was not Luther addressing the practice of indulgence sales, it was the papacy’s response by supporting error that caused the problem.

I thought you said the issue was…

No sir. Luther was absolutely correct in his interpretation. We don’t obtain grace by purchasing indulgences.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement here, but the way I read this is the Catholic Church taught, from the beginning, and sold indulgences so people could buy a Get out of Hell Free Card (OSAS anyone ). Until Luther came along and showed the Catholic Church they have been wrong for 1500 years by showing them the correct interpretation of the Bible.

If this isn’t where you were going with this comment please explain which words I got wrong?

On a final note I just wanted to point out that many non-Catholics have the misguided notion that as Catholics we need to believe and follow every word that comes out of the Pope’s (Bishop’s or Priest’s) mouth. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Unless the Pope firmly proclaims “Thus Saith God” we can accept what he has to say or we can hold our own opinions. Sure we might not have enough authority to get very far with our own opinions but this by no means gives us the authority (from God) to go out and start our own church.

So if the Pope were to say everyone needs to send 50% of their income to Rome or they won’t be saved (prosperity gospel anyone ) we are free to send him the money or free to tell him in your dreams.

God Bless