Articles on "Separated Brethren"

[benhur]

Boastful in the Lord :

Of course it is by grace that you accept all of the Lord’s words where others do not.

Same thing?

No. Proving is one thing, evidences are another. Evidences can be presented , but the presenter can not control the conclusion of the hearer.

A different interpretation is, in its essence, an interpretation.

Yes, but then why do you say we do not accept the very thing we are interpreting?

However, one cannot believe that different interpretations of the Lord’s Word hold the same amount of Truth. There is one full truth, some half-truths, and some with no truth. No two interpretations that differ are considered equal. It’s like the Constitution of the US: when people try start redefining marriage they interpret the Constitution differently than those who see marriage as one man and one woman. Both of them cannot be right (it’s impossible to have two opposing views be true because of the Law of Contradiction).

Agreed. Absolutely absolute truth. But reaction to others should be honest and accurate. You can say we misinterpret words but do not say we do not accept the words or reject them. We both look at same evidence just come to different conclusions.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I need Bible verses, ben.

Which verses say that it’s a legalistic issue and which ones say it’s not?

You simply gave a list of your man-made ideas of what’s legalistic.

I don’t want man-made answers. I want Bible answers from you.

No verses yet .

You mentioned increasing the Kingdom. Then you listed differing preaching. I will take back my legalism remark if you admit the kingdom is increasing within the varied preaching you listed, and I listed.

I think that is why Vat 2 seemed to be congenial towards “other” brethren-they are expanding the kingdom.

Apparently a different gospel ( other than CC’s) can save you.

Wisdom, even honesty and love, can help keep our absolutism from being "legalistic’’.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Actually, no.

I am simply confused about what your paradigm is.

Is this your paradigm: there is a correct way to interpret Scripture?

Or is this your paradigm: everyone is free to read the Scriptures on their own and come to their own understanding of it?

Hey PR, an oldy but goody. Not either or but both!

 

[PRmerger]

Hey PR, an oldy but goody. Not either or but both!

LOL! Fair enough.

I think the fact that you think you can apply that paradigm using “both/and” shows how utterly untenable the Bible Alone ethos is. Whenever someone agrees with you, you can say, “Hey, you freely interpreted Scripture and it just happened to agree with my view!” And when someone disagrees with you, you can apply the corollary, “You are not free to interpret the Bible any way you wish.”



That makes the final arbiter of the Bible to be…YOU.

 

[PRmerger]

LOL! Fair enough.

I think the fact that you think you can apply that paradigm using “both/and” shows how utterly untenable the Bible Alone ethos is. Whenever someone agrees with you, you can say, “Hey, you freely interpreted Scripture and it just happened to agree with my view!” And when someone disagrees with you, you can apply the corollary, “You are not free to interpret the Bible any way you wish.”



That makes the final arbiter of the Bible to be…YOU.

It’s like using the “both/and” for: when Scripture is silent, what do we do–do we prohibit something or permit something?

So when someone tells you, “Where are altar calls in the Bible?” you can say–Scripture doesn’t prohibit it, so I’m free to do it!

And then you can turn around, using the “both/and” paradigm and say, “But since Scripture is silent about the rosary, you are forbidden to do it!”

This allows you to do all the things you want to do that aren’t found in the Bible (after all, Scripture is silent on this issue, so it’s permitted!)…

while objecting to all the things other people do that you don’t like that aren’t found in the Bible (after all, Scripture is silent on this issue, so it’s forbidden!).

How nice for you to be able to call on the “both/and” principle!

 

[PRmerger]

No verses yet .

Hint: you’ll never find them.
Why? Because what you’ve asserted is a man-made assertion.

There is NO LIST in the Bible that tells you what’s a legalistic practice and what’s something all Christians must adhere to.

You mentioned increasing the Kingdom. Then you listed differing preaching. I will take back my legalism remark if you admit the kingdom is increasing within the varied preaching you listed, and I listed.

Whenever anyone preaches something consonant with Catholicism, we say

So when a preacher says: Jesus said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, he (or she) is increasing the kingdom.

But when a preacher says: the writings of Paul are NOT inspired, he (or she) has NOT increased the kingdom.

I think that is why Vat 2 seemed to be congenial towards “other” brethren-they are expanding the kingdom.

V2 states that lots of folks can come to the knowledge of the Truth which is proclaimed by Catholicism.

Apparently a different gospel ( other than CC’s) can save you.

The gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church, ben, cannot save you.

The gospel of Christopher Hitchens, ben, cannot save you.

The gospel of the JWs, ben, cannot save you.

Except when what they profess is consonant with Catholicism. Thus, when the WBC says that Jesus died for our sins, we say

When Hitchens says that the unborn baby has the right to life, we say

When JWs profess that the Bible is the Word of God, we say

But, no. There is no other gospel, save that proclaimed by the CC, which can save you.

And I would be very careful about asserting that “V2 teaches that another gospel (other than what is taught by the CC) can save you.” That is bordering on contempt for Catholicism, something which is not permitted here.

 

[MaryT777]

Hint: you’ll never find them.
Why? Because what you’ve asserted is a man-made assertion.

There is NO LIST in the Bible that tells you what’s a legalistic practice and what’s something all Christians must adhere to.

Whenever anyone preaches something consonant with Catholicism, we say

So when a preacher says: Jesus said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, he (or she) is increasing the kingdom.

But when a preacher says: the writings of Paul are NOT inspired, he (or she) has NOT increased the kingdom.

V2 states that lots of folks can come to the knowledge of the Truth which is proclaimed by Catholicism.

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

The gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church, ben, cannot save you.

The gospel of Christopher Hitchens, ben, cannot save you.

The gospel of the JWs, ben, cannot save you.

Except when what they profess is consonant with Catholicism. Thus, when the WBC says that Jesus died for our sins, we say

When Hitchens says that the unborn baby has the right to life, we say

When JWs profess that the Bible is the Word of God, we say

But, no. There is no other gospel, save that proclaimed by the CC, which can save you.

And I would be very careful about asserting that “V2 teaches that another gospel (other than what is taught by the CC) can save you.” That is bordering on contempt for Catholicism, something which is not permitted here.

 

[PJM]

=Riser;12950364]Advancing membership in one organized body of believers as being God’s command is to put our human reasoning on His lips.

God gave us His word via the Prophets, Jesus, and His disciples. None of them said that we are to join an organization in order to obtain salvation or to be selected for ministry.

That is man’s determination. That reasoning serves to cause an increase in membership, not an increase in faith or righteousness.

Perhaps we should be working to increase the size of the Kingdom of Heaven instead.

These attitudes that put man’s words on God’s lips don’t do that.

Actually Christ did and so did Yahweh in the Old Testament

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to myself for my people, I will be your God: and you shall know that I am the Lord your God who brought you out from the work prison of the Egyptians.

Exodus 15:26
Saying: If thou wilt hear the voice of the Lord thy God, and do what is right before him, and obey his commandments, and keep all his precepts, none of the evils that I laid upon Egypt, will I bring upon thee: for I am the Lord thy healer.

The “Chosen people of God” had to OBEY God. While the they did not always have The temple ; Yahweh DID even Command Moses to build a place for the Ark of the Covenant: Genesis: chapters 25-27

Mt. 16: 18-19 " [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH singularCOLOR=“red”]And I will give to thee the [ALL OF ] keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

God Bless you, keep seeking!
Patrick

 

[PRmerger]

Okay, I apologize; I see where I goofed.

What I meant to say is that it’s not biblical to force others to conform to a view regarding observing days or not observing days.

There’s nothing unbiblical about an individual or a Church observing days.

Sorry again.

Let’s not make my question that specific, as far as “observing days”.

I am asking you if it’s ok to force others to conform to your view of Scripture in general?

If yes, then how is it different than what the CC has done, to which you reserve for yourself the right to refuse to conform?

If no, then how can you tell JWs that their interpretation of Scripture (i.e. God is not trinitarian) is incorrect?

 

[Bballer32]

Agreed. Absolutely absolute truth. But reaction to others should be honest and accurate. You can say we misinterpret words but do not say we do not accept the words or reject them. We both look at same evidence just come to different conclusions.

Yes, but that does not mean both of them lead to the Truth. We can both be looking at the moon, but for you to say that it is the sun and for me to say that it is earth’s primary natural satellite (not the same thing as the metal ones ) means that we come to different conclusions on the same evidence. However, one of us is wrong.

 

[Erich]

Jesus and His finished work on the cross saves me.

In John 19:30, what did Jesus mean when he cried, ‘It is finished’? What does the 'it’ refer to?

Jesus could not have meant the completion of our redemption at that moment. For one thing, Paul teaches that our redemption is not complete without Jesus being “raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

 

[PJM]

=Bballer32;12918963]Hello everyone,

Does anyone have a good article(s) about Catholic views of Protestants before OR after Vatican II? I’m studying and trying to understand why Catholics went from seeing Protestants as Heretics to seeing them as Separated brethren.

God Bless,

Bballer32

Great question

First of all we must understand that because neither defined Doctrine or Catholic Dogmas can “be changed”; that the original teaching on this matter has to and DOES remain intact and in force.

What has changed is our Understanding; guided by the Holy Spirit of this teaching.

So then WHY did the Church, in an absolute sense HAVE to change its understanding of this Doctrine?

The Answer lies in the Protestant Reformation that both took countless Souls away from Catholicism.AT GREAT RISK to their souls [Heb. 6:4-8 address this condition precisely];
and continues to attract countless Souls to their many differing faith beliefs with a essential common modality; Christian Baptism in the name of the Trinity [Mt. 28:19] and with water [John 3:5]. This common and necessary trait does as it is intended to do make the Baptized “children of the One true God.”

As a NORM, salvation does begin and end there. Baptisms promise and Powerful Authority are conditional on no further sinning once the age of reason is attained.

So we understand that our Salvation IS conditional on other, also essential truths.

Our Catechism teaches:

**843 **The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.” Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

But BAPTISM as a NORM is just the beginning of one’s personal faith journey; not its end.

PRIOR to the advent of the 16th Centiry Protestant Reformation which did not give birth, but new life to these man-made faiths; the ONLY notable “Christian” Faiths were 1… Catholicism and in 1054 AD after the “Great Eastern Schism”;2. the Orthodox Christians; so their was not the same level of need for an rethinking of this teaching.

GUIDED by the Holy Spirit, our understanding grew to conditionally accept the fact that other Christians too MIGHT be saved.

 

[Abu]

dronald #250
Jesus and His finished work on the cross saves me.

Totally false.

The crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus has REDEEMED us from our fallen state in which heaven had been closed, but our SALVATION depends upon our cooperation with His saving Grace.

This wallowing in self-interpretation always leads to error.

What is lacking is our co-operation. That is precisely why St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12). We don’t achieve salvation in one fell swoop by accepting Christ as our personal saviour as some are misled to feel. St Paul knows very well what he is teaching: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). The members of His Body have to co-operate – no pain no gain.

 

[benhur]

Yes, but that does not mean both of them lead to the Truth. We can both be looking at the moon, but for you to say that it is the sun and for me to say that it is earth’s primary natural satellite (not the same thing as the metal ones ) means that we come to different conclusions on the same evidence. However, one of us is wrong.

Preaching to the choir.Again ,it started because you made it sound we did not look at the moon (because it might not be the sun).

 

[benhur]

Hint: you’ll never find them.
Why? Because what you’ve asserted is a man-made assertion.

There is NO LIST in the Bible that tells you what’s a legalistic practice and what’s something all Christians must adhere to.

Whenever anyone preaches something consonant with Catholicism, we say

So when a preacher says: Jesus said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, he (or she) is increasing the kingdom.

But when a preacher says: the writings of Paul are NOT inspired, he (or she) has NOT increased the kingdom.

V2 states that lots of folks can come to the knowledge of the Truth which is proclaimed by Catholicism.

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

The gospel of the Westboro Baptist Church, ben, cannot save you.

 

[benhur]

I think the fact that you think you can apply that paradigm using “both/and” shows how utterly untenable the Bible Alone ethos is. Whenever someone agrees with you, you can say, “Hey, you freely interpreted Scripture and it just happened to agree with my view!” And when someone disagrees with you, you can apply the corollary, “You are not free to interpret the Bible any way you wish.”

That part of "you are not free’’ hints of old paradigms, where one really was not free, in C or P churches.

A bit cynical, like the cup is half empty ?

Can’t you admit we all have the privilege and responsibility to discern matters, and that correctly? Iron sharpening iron is more than clergy to lay people.

That makes the final arbiter of the Bible to be…YOU.

Sometimes, but you can imagine that when churches and councils are infallible.

“Little children” also, also have an unction from the Holy Ghost to know all things per the John the beloved disciple.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

It’s like using the “both/and” for: when Scripture is silent, what do we do–do we prohibit something or permit something?

So when someone tells you, “Where are altar calls in the Bible?” you can say–Scripture doesn’t prohibit it, so I’m free to do it!

And then you can turn around, using the “both/and” paradigm and say, “But since Scripture is silent about the rosary, you are forbidden to do it!”

This allows you to do all the things you want to do that aren’t found in the Bible (after all, Scripture is silent on this issue, so it’s permitted!)…

while objecting to all the things other people do that you don’t like that aren’t found in the Bible (after all, Scripture is silent on this issue, so it’s forbidden!).

How nice for you to be able to call on the “both/and” principle!

Much about nothing ?
We do as you do. We are alike.
We all have free will.
You have you own personal understanding of matters, and so do I.That you say yours are not yours but your churches is your personal understanding of matters. That I say I must come to personally understand and make my own what came from others is my understanding. Anything else might be false piety.

We both agree that we are to come to the right understanding on a matter, that there is a right one as intended by the Lord.

Church authority, bible authority, tradition authority, magisterium authority not withstanding the original two points:being correct and with with personal understanding.

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Agree but hyperbole and does not negate that a baptist, lutheran, anglican, orthodox,assembly’s, etc., etc.( and maybe 30,000 more) “gospel” can save you.

Only if they are preaching the Catholic gospel, which is the gospel given by Christ to His Body, the Catholic Church.

and when they don’t, as one of your posts suggested ? Cool I have said the same thing.I follow the pope when he also says the same thing etc.

That’s quite curious given the fact that you won’t let the Church declare that about you.

You should conform your views to the CC. You say; “No! I have the right to determine for myself what the gospel is!”

Yet when, say, the JWs don’t conform their views to yours, you say, “No! You don’t have the right to determine for yourself what the gospel is!”

Why is that, ben?

Why do you reserve for yourself what you object to in others?

 

[PRmerger]

We do as you do.

Really?

You defer to the authority of the Church to tell us what to do when Scripture is silent?

 

[benhur]

Really?

You defer to the authority of the Church to tell us what to do when Scripture is silent?

PR in context of what were discussing,yes,we are alike.The context was that we all have a personal understanding of matters, and that of there being a correct understanding,
regardless of where we place authority.