Beginning with luther?

[carlos19]

What foundation is shaky?

My foundation is that there is a standard for truth out there. Whatever it is, it cannot contradict scripture.

Now one will ask, but who are you to interpret scripture? Look at how many interpretations there are out there with each trying to read it for his own meaning, etc,etc

Do not be deceived, just because there are a variety of interpretations does not mean that we need to rely on one interpretation as a way to avoid the variety, without looking at the validity of that one interpretation. If you want the peace and relaxation, then just listen to whatever you want to, and ignore logic, rhetoric, and classical thought.

The simple fact of the matter is that Paul does not speak of justification in terms of “works”. Those who think that “works” here mean simply the outward ceremonial laws are not in agreement with St. John Chrysostom or Augustine or Thomas aquinas. Secondly, those who believe that Paul is speaking of initial justification are also not in agreement with any of these authors.

Speaking of foundations, how do you know you exist? How do you know you speak english? How do you know purple is really purple? What is the foundation that you have to believe that you are able to know anything in reality? What we are diving into are deepl epistemological issues which can lead one to think that one cannot know anything for sure

Can we assume that we can read the scripture and historical writings of early church fathers? If there is a possiblity, then we should not write off everyone but one interpretation just because it says it is the right one.

I am just going off what you have written…you have played both sides of the arguments for osas, faith alone, imputed/infused righteousness now you are arguing for a quasi sola scriptura…

and forgive me if I offended you but I am merely reacting to what appears to me to be inconsistencies across your threads…

Let me ask a simple set of questions…if you do not believe in Sola Scriptura…where does one go for authority? if the answer is the Church…then which Church?

 

[carlos19]

What foundation is shaky?

My foundation is that there is a standard for truth out there. Whatever it is, it cannot contradict scripture.

Now one will ask, but who are you to interpret scripture? Look at how many interpretations there are out there with each trying to read it for his own meaning, etc,etc

Do not be deceived, just because there are a variety of interpretations does not mean that we need to rely on one interpretation as a way to avoid the variety, without looking at the validity of that one interpretation. If you want the peace and relaxation, then just listen to whatever you want to, and ignore logic, rhetoric, and classical thought.

The simple fact of the matter is that Paul does not speak of justification in terms of “works”. Those who think that “works” here mean simply the outward ceremonial laws are not in agreement with St. John Chrysostom or Augustine or Thomas aquinas. Secondly, those who believe that Paul is speaking of initial justification are also not in agreement with any of these authors.

Speaking of foundations, how do you know you exist? How do you know you speak english? How do you know purple is really purple? What is the foundation that you have to believe that you are able to know anything in reality? What we are diving into are deepl epistemological issues which can lead one to think that one cannot know anything for sure

Can we assume that we can read the scripture and historical writings of early church fathers? If there is a possiblity, then we should not write off everyone but one interpretation just because it says it is the right one.

excuse me but it was you who said works were salvific…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Works come after salvation in one sense. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone because it is God alone who remakes the soul and sets it to walk in good works. In fact the good works are prepared from before the world.

In other sense, when we appear in the judgement our works will demonstrate that we are the elect and they are meritorious only in the sense that gods grace provided us to work in righteousness.

There can be no disagreement or differentiation in the persons elected before the world began from the persons who will enter the kingdom of heaven. Gods elect are those from before the creation into enternity.

Therefore there is no person that asjages gods wrath and becomes saved by their works .

 

[onemangang]

What foundation is shaky?

Speaking of foundations, how do you know you exist? How do you know you speak english? How do you know purple is really purple? What is the foundation that you have to believe that you are able to know anything in reality? What we are diving into are deepl epistemological issues which can lead one to think that one cannot know anything for sure

Can we assume that we can read the scripture and historical writings of early church fathers? If there is a possiblity, then we should not write off everyone but one interpretation just because it says it is the right one.

Good point, to start at Epistemology!

What is the grounds of our faith?

The bible? History?

How do we recognize truth?

Pope Benedict XVI once wrote as a cardinal something along the lines of how our language provides an intriguing clue in this regard, for we speak of our acts of knowledge as moments of “recognition,” literally a re-cognition, a thinking again what has already been thought. Ratzinger cites Einstein in support of this connection: “in the laws of nature, a mind so superior is revealed that in comparison, our minds are as something worthless.”

How is this revelation which is obscured by our finite mind revealed?

Was it reveled progressively through men whom which God had chosen? Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah, the prophets,ie: in a social order (the people of Israel)?

What has been revealed progressively through a social order (Israel) was yet seemingly hidden and incomplete to Israel!

That which was hidden, and incomplete, has been revealed, and complete, in Christ Jesus!

How do we know this?

What Modus Operandi did Christ choose to proclaim the good news?

Christ has infallibly revealed Himself to man, the mode that He infallibly chose is an infallible visible social order, so by, the order of His conferring. So, Christ intentionally and infallibly chose an infallible visible social order, to mediate His infallible authority to the world. Ergo the Social Order He conferred is an infallible one, and has infallibly written, compiled, and discerned Holy Writ, to be profitable for teaching, correction and reproof."

Christ appointed a Church to preserve and communicate His revelation, that Church must be infallible, being that She was conferred by God Himself.

This is merely a possibility, but since I am not God and do not posses God’s middle knowledge. One could posit that, If there were no N.T scriptures today, Christ would still be proclaimed and made present through The Church since, that was the reality of the situation in 1st century Christianity

I believe God has revealed Himself to men through the Person of Jesus Christ, and Christ established a Social order, one with a historical continuity tracing all the way back to Christ Himself. History and Scripture bears Her witness, they are proofs that bears witness of the Social Order Christ established (the Church). The Church is the medium in which Christ has revealed Himself to man, history bears witness, and scripture proclaims it!

This Social Order (The Church) has been an active participant in making Christ Present throughout the ages! Many historical writings bear witness to the fact that the Church has been proclaiming Christ, and keeping His name Holy, and Undefiled, by those Schismatics, and Heretics, who look to sully His beautiful Name with contrary doctrines, attempting to lead men astray in their shallow, deceptive philosophies, and traditions of men, yet His name is lifted up on high, and TRUTH continues to be proclaimed!

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how 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.**

1 Corinthians 2:4 And my speech and my preaching was not in the persuasive words of human wisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power;
5 That your faith might not stand on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among the perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, neither of the princes of this world that come to nought;
7** But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, a wisdom which is hidden, which God ordained before the world, unto our glory :**
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew; for if they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But, as it is written: That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But to us God hath revealed them, by this Spirit. For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

Ephesians 3:8 (St. Paul) To me, the least of all the saints, is given this grace, to preach among the Gentiles, the unsearchable riches of Christ,
9 And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things:
10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places** through the church,**
11 According to the eternal purpose, which he made, in Christ Jesus our Lord:

The disintegration of coherent epistemology into circular logic, may have been sparked by Luther, (more so Calvin IMHO) but how the steady decline into modern day “reformed epistemology” has manifest, can be traced throughout history ie: Calvin, Charles Hodge, (Princeton theologians)…etc…etc… Charles Spurgeon…etc…etc… Greg Bahnsen…etc…etc…

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

It is the Catholics who fail to desire to interpret Scripture because of their faith in the apostolic deposit carried in the roman catholic church.

When has anyone ever dealt with the verses i have posted?

And when I cite Catholic scholars who prove my point, you write him off as if he cannot be interpreted by us.

For example, “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God, for what does the scripture say ‘Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness’. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. Just as David describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed is the man whose sins are forgiven; whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin” (Rom 4:4-9)

Right in this very passage, you have proven the protestant understanding of justification. Abraham was justified by faith alone, with no contributing works, otherwise he would have room to boast. Faith was his believing God’s promise despite the circumstances which challenged God’s word. Those who are workers for favor with God are receiving it as a debt, not as grace. Grace would be non-working but believing in God and accepting God as lover of man and forgiver of sin. And then David describes “imputed righteousness” (something catholics do not believe) in terms of the “non-imputation of sin”, all things which occur externally to the human person. In other words, nothing here is stated concerning the interior soul of the person being transformed.

Now, on a wide note, a person must repent and turn from their sin in order to be justified (acquitted) and to find favor with God, but the actual grace of justification is not the transformation of the heart, that comes before through regeneration.

St. John Chrysostom holds to what I just above, and argues against an interior behavioral reading

 

[onemangang]

The Church doesn’t have a play by play Ordo Salutis like the people who hold to “Reformed” doctrines.

You can create you’re very own Ordo Salutis for Erick to hold to all you like, you can dissect every ECF that doesn’t hold to your particular brand of the Erick Ybarra doctrine of Justification if you will, you can even pronounce them anathema, and excommunicate them if you like, in the end, you submit yourself to the teachings of Erick, who is of Erick!

Start with sin if you like!

Is it ancestral (Eastern Orthodox) or original (Catholic, Latin Rite) or the EY Exploding sin Theory?

I see a man trying desperately to prove himself right above all things and find it boring, much like talking to a JW. You seem to come in with a preconceived idea that you are right and convinced is true, then argue against all things in order to show everybody you are right. All hinging on an interpretation of one single ECF (St. John Chrysostom) just to try to point out the “reformers” didn’t invent new doctrines!

You made a claim that St. John Chrysostom couldn’t mean we are ontologically made sinners when talking about original sin, then when it is pointed out that St. John Chrysostom may have not held to the Augustinian view of Original sin, you never responded, being that your view did, and was now incompatible with St. John Chrsostom’s. So now you are back in another thread, to reword and rework a new way to justify your already preconceived Idea of truth, by talking about exploding sin!

The rabbit trail continues…

 

[carlos19]

How disingenuous…first you have stated that you do not believe in faith alone either second you did not respond to posts about John chrysostom stating the necessity of works.

Chrysostom says that Abraham was saved by faith alone and he says in the homily of John that if a man believed rightly in the father son and holy spirit but he does not live rightly, his faith avails him nothing. So, i have asked three times how can you reconcile this…
you haven’t…

He talks about in the gospel of Matthew about tall holiness in the desert monks not yours new theology that you have been espousing…yours only anger is to go back to the verse on Abraham.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You guys have no discernment.

From our human standpoint, we must bear fruit to pass the final judgement. Who has ever denied the necessity of works to pass the final judgement?

I take Matthew literally in all of his writings. Maybeyou should read chrysostoms comment on the Jerusalem council in acts 15, he actually says faith alone. Not just here but also in Romans 1.

Faith is a higher calling then merely works. Chrysostom says works are necessary when one speaks of faith as a mere profession. Is that what you think Paul means? A mere cereal confession that god is one?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And I do not believe in the ordo saludis. There is room in reformed theology which excludes this notion.

I personally believe what many of the english reformers believed (come to find out) that through regeneration performed in baptism and the renewal of the Holy spirit is the setting for our justification, sanctification, washing, and redemption from sin & death.

What happened with the Catholics is they wanted to make justification and sanctification the same exact thing. The word “justified” is to be “favor with God”. It has a forensic meaning which has been adequetly shown for years and years. Look at the previous posts I have made. There isn’t one verse which teaches that “justified” means “make righteous” in the ontological sense. And no, Chrysostom does not allow one to see “justified” as to make righteous ontologically. He explicity denies this and explains what he himself means when he says “justified”.

Catholics cannot explain how Paul can directly tie the cause of justification to the death of Jesus without adding the notion of our own righteousness being infused by God.

For Paul, it’s one straight shot “Having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (Rom 5:9). Obviously the condition is 'FAITH", but this is not a interior renovation into holiness and righteousness.

Justification is basically the forgiveness of sin in Paul. However, he does not deny that there are more justifications in life and that there is one in the end, the judgement of Christ. Here we will be justified by our works.

 

[onemangang]

Is original sin that we posess being in Adam, ontological?

Is it a state of being or a condition of guilt?

What did St. John Chrysostom believe?

Like all other threads you started, you haven’t sufficiently shown that the “reformers” theology was in a common union whith that of St. John Chrysostom’s

In regards to epistemology, you have not provided a working epistemology either, only reject Catholic thought. As Eufrosnia has pointed out, you offer no logically consistant view in regards to epistemology.

As far as discernment, I guess I lack that, since I haven’t discerned the EY doctrine of “sin explosion”

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

We recievr an ontological corrupt nature, but before we are born we are already imputed with Adams sin, that’s exactly what Chrysostom is trying to say. Of course we are ontologically corrupt from Adam but this is not specifically what Paul is speaking of in Romans 5. And we are likewise ontologically transformed in christ. Yes yes yes. But justification remains that state of forgiveness according to Paul, the release from guilt.

 

[thenobes]

The word “justified” is to be “favor with God”. It has a forensic meaning which has been adequetly shown for years and years. Look at the previous posts I have made. There isn’t one verse which teaches that “justified” means “make righteous” in the ontological sense. And no, Chrysostom does not allow one to see “justified” as to make righteous ontologically. He explicity denies this and explains what he himself means when he says “justified”.

He doesn’t have to explicitly state it. John does.

1 John 3:7
7Little children, let no one deceive you. Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

So we (the obedient in faith) are righteous as Christ is righteous. Is Christ ontologically righteous?

Now, I’ve shown you that Chrysostom said righteousness is more than just forgiveness. This was done in response to your claim that forgiveness is all comprises righteousness. Your counter response at that time seemed to accept that rightoeusness entails more than just forgiveness, but also living in righteous (a faith working out in love).

Why are you changing your tune now? Did you forget?

peace
steve

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

We are saved unto righteousness . Therefore those who practice righteousness demonstrate they are saved

 

[onemangang]

We are saved unto righteousness . Therefore those who practice righteousness demonstrate they are saved

So, someone wills to do good, but falls short of what they will to do, and sin, are they demonstrating they are lost?

How much right righteousness must be shown to demonstrate one is saved?

How much unrighteousnes must be shown to demonstrate one is lost?

Is it a quantitative demonstration, or a qualitative demonstation of righteousness\unrighteousness, to show if one is saved\lost

If you don’t ascribe to a particular Ordo Salutis then why all the quibbling over justification and sanctification not being separated, when it be by grace?

You previously in another thread laid out a ordo salutis, now its not important?

If man must assent to divine truth revealed, even if by grace, to complete faith, then why should justification and sanctification be separated.

Below is a link to Catholic teaching on faith
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

If you read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans you will see how thoroughly protestant his explanations are. Without making up excuses as to what method should be used to read Chrysostom or that we do not have the resources to understand the context in which he speaks, are both unacceptable ways of avoiding the clear teaching of Chrysostom that justification is by faith alone, apart from all works of righteousness.

The fact that you pull out quotes from his commentary on Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father” as a way to refute this. Almost every protestant (REFORMED) theologian will teach that we must have good works in order to enter heaven, but that these works are a result of our justification and union with Christ.

 

[Cat_Herder]

It is the Catholics who fail to desire to interpret Scripture because of their faith in the apostolic deposit carried in the roman catholic church.

Here we go with the great apostasy argument again. Dude, read 1 Tim. 2:3-4.

If you read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans you will see how thoroughly protestant his explanations are. Without making up excuses as to what method should be used to read Chrysostom or that we do not have the resources to understand the context in which he speaks, are both unacceptable ways of avoiding the clear teaching of Chrysostom that justification is by faith alone, apart from all works of righteousness.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1087&pictureid=13952
Here’s a newborn baby. Tell me how this baby is supposed to be justified by faith alone. If your answer is that the baby is justified but will lose this justification later on if he or she does not later come to faith, then show me where in the Bible, book chapter and verse, it says there is an age of reason and that one automatically loses their salvation at that age.

 

[Church_Militant]

If you read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans you will see how thoroughly protestant his explanations are. Without making up excuses as to what method should be used to read Chrysostom or that we do not have the resources to understand the context in which he speaks, are both unacceptable ways of avoiding the clear teaching of Chrysostom that justification is by faith alone, apart from all works of righteousness.

The fact that you pull out quotes from his commentary on Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father” as a way to refute this. Almost every protestant (REFORMED) theologian will teach that we must have good works in order to enter heaven, but that these works are a result of our justification and union with Christ.

If St. John had truly disagreed with Catholic doctrine, why then did he remain Catholic? Yet he obviously did, since he did indeed remain in the Church.

In fact, you should have sat down and read all of that homily by St.John, and not taken that site’s word for his position. It seems they somehow failed to note how he concluded that same homily. But I didn’t…

Yet it is in our power, if we will, no longer to be in the flesh, no, nor upon the earth, but in heaven, and in the Spirit. For our being here or there, is not determined so much by our position, as by our disposition. Of many people, at least, who are in some place, we say they are not there, when we say, “Thou wast not here. And again Thou art not here.” And why do I say this? We often say, “Thou art not at (en) thyself, I am not at (en) myself,” and yet what can be more material (a stronger instance of corporeal locality) than this, that a man is near to himself? And yet, notwithstanding, we say that he is not at himself. Let us then be in ourselves, in heaven, in the Spirit. Let us abide in the peace and in the grace of God, that we may be set at liberty from all the things of the flesh, and may be able to attain to those good things which are promised in Jesus Christ our Lord, with whom to the Father, together with the Holy Spirit, be glory, and might, and honor, now and henceforth, and for ever and ever. Amen.

Faith alone? Not at all. Faith acting through love, just as the Church has always taught. If it’s “in our power”, then it is certainly faith alone, but faith working through love. Just as the New Testament teaches.

I suspect that whoever authored that page has taken other people’s word for these things, and, like you, believed that the quote, offered out of context, proved that this doctor of the Church preached something that he actually did not.

I always go look at the context. Even if it means reading the entire document as this did. I suggest that you do likewise Erik, or you’ll continue to be confused and in some cases outright deceived about the Catholic faith.

Y’know, it’s sort of funny though…You recently stated that you didn’t care what the Catechism says, and yet this site you offered lays out their own sort of errant catechesis, and you believe it and then offer it to us as supposed oppositional proofs against the Catholic faith. That makes no sense Erik. I had to do my own homework in finding my way home to our most holy faith, which has meant a great deal of serious study. I take seriously St. Paul’s mandate to St. Timothy where he tells us, “Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.” I believe that we all should.

 

[onemangang]

If you read St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans you will see how thoroughly protestant his explanations are. Without making up excuses as to what method should be used to read Chrysostom or that we do not have the resources to understand the context in which he speaks, are both unacceptable ways of avoiding the clear teaching of Chrysostom that justification is by faith alone, apart from all works of righteousness.

The fact that you pull out quotes from his commentary on Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me Lord Lord shall enter the kingdom of Heaven but only those who do the will of my Father” as a way to refute this. Almost every protestant (REFORMED) theologian will teach that we must have good works in order to enter heaven, but that these works are a result of our justification and union with Christ.

Again, what role does man have in faith?

Abraham’s FAITH was reckoned to him as righteousness!

Why should Catholics separate Justification, and Sanctification, if reception is through FAITH?

Did St. John Chrysostom teach Original sin/imparted guilt, as St. Augustine or did he have a view more in line with Ancestral sin/inherited mortality?

On another note, shouldn’t St. John Chrysostom’s writing be read as a whole to try to have some sort of systematic theology?

The “reformers” paradigm (except Zwingli to some degree perhaps) of Original sin is contrary to St John Chrysostom’s view of being an image bearer!

If we had a particular standing before God because of the sin of Adam, and we come to have a new standing, due to one Man’s righteousness (Christ) how does that standing change but by grace through FAITH!

Again, If man must assent to divine truth revealed to him, even if by grace, to complete faith, then why should justification and sanctification be separated.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm

Here is one “reformer” on St. John Chrysostom

Calvin"s Institutes Book 2 Chapter 3 section 7… But I maintain, that as well in the words of the Psalmist which I have quoted, as in other passages of Scripture, two things are clearly taught, viz., that the Lord both corrects, or rather destroys, our depraved will, and also substitutes a good will from himself. In as much as it is prevented by grace I have no objection to your calling it a handmaid; but in as much as when formed again, it is the work of the Lord, it is erroneous to say, that it accompanies preventing grace as a voluntary attendant. Therefore, Chrysostom is inaccurate in saying, that grace cannot do any thing without will, nor will any thing without grace, (Serm. de Invent. Sanct. Crucis) as if grace did not, in terms of the passage lately quoted from Paul, produce the very will itself.

What would draw Calvin to such a conclusion?

He and the other “reformers” had a fundamental different view of Sin, Humanity, Image Bearing, and a Fallen Nature than St. John Chrysostom, so to lay claim that the “reformers” were operating in the Spirit of St. John Chrysostom is untenable!

So, St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Romans are not thoroughly protestant, nor are protestant views within the living tradition of the Catholic/Orthodox Doctor, St. John Chrysostom!

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

What website?

I got the quote of John Chrysostom from New advent.

Also, I’ve have consistently gone through Chrysostom’s writing and it simply does not match with Catholic exegesis.

He understands “Righteousness” in Romans as the gift of status, not the inward sanctifying grace of “making us inwardly righteous”, He understands that this is primarily the remission of sin, he outright rejects the idea that the gift of justification is a behavioral or habitual grace and rather is the gift of status and quality before God, he believes that we are justified on the instance of faith without any works contributing (only faith), he understands the Adam/Christ parallel in terms of forensic contrasts (Adam making us guilty and Christ making us righteous)… I am really not sure what more you want from him…

He outright says “faith alone” in a number of contexts concerning justification. Of course he mentions the necessity of works when it comes to the final judgement, which all protestants have acknowledged (reformed).

Church Militant, you are forgetting that you were never deep in the protestant faith. You have never really sat down with protestant scholars to examine the writings of the early fathers and the texts of the new testament. If so, what training do you have?

It seems as though what Catholics do is they read something in the Fathers and they think that by virtue of it’s acceptance, it must be true and faithful to Christ. For instance, purgatory. We know that purgatory is not in the scriptures, plain and simple. However, it definitely is there in the early fathers. The Catholic applies the rational that this must have been a faithful oral tradition since these fathers believed it and practiced their faith concerning it. This is not illogical at all, it is reasonable. But to take it to the extent that the Catholics took it especially during the era just before the reformation was simply wrong. If purgatory is true, it is not in the 27 books of the NT. Of course the NT is an abbreviated version of the gospel and the tradition handed down from the apostles, and therefore we must not look here for all the traditions, but I am just a little scared to believe it with all my heart, especially when I see Catholics using 1 Corinthians 3 to show that purgatory is true. It would be better just to keep it to the oral tradition because the lack of intelligence involved with seeing purgatory in 1 Corthians 3 makes the whole party of the Catholics look unreliable and unfit to reason well.

Church Militant, I have been visiting the Catholic Church now for months. I have developed a friendship with an RCIA instructor who has 2 PHD’s in Catholic Theology and Scholarship. He has recommended books and literature that I have run through and have thought carefully about. I am not the average protestant who just snarls at the idea of the roman catholic church and the pope. I actually admire the whole system and I think that it’s organizational structure is very helpful. I actually wished that there was logical and historical precedence for the structure.

For instance, I do not think Matthew 16 or the original appointed bishops of the catholic church used this verse as a petrine dynastic structure. I do not believe you can squeeze the idea of succession. I believe the keys of the kingdom are used just like the key of knowledge is used by the pharisees. The keys of the kingdom were previously used by those sitting in the seat of moses, now the keys are in the hands of those who sit in the seat of the apostles, which is not a transmission of succession necessarily, but of godly men who love God and whose life show good works and devotion and that they carry the doctrine of the apostles, this is what carries the doctrine of the apostles.

On top of this, you have many doctrines in the Catholic Church which simply contradict the teaching of the NT. The Catholic Church has taken itself way to strong off such little foundations. Newman sees a flower from a seed, and I see a building sitting on a chicken coop foundation. And along the way, there has been a devastating immoral history in the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church believes in the necessity of good works, the sure as hell did not act like it. Even today, just go to your average Catholic Church, and tell me if you see a holy people who are devoting to loving one another, caring for each others needs, being of one mind and in the unity of the holy spirit? Oh I know that they are all supposed to adhere to one document, but really does that even happen?

I think there is more disunity in the Catholic Church than there is unity. 1 person is a universalist and another is a fornicating drunkard who just goes to church out of familal custom, he believes he is going to heaven. For such a huge organizational structure, there is little care for the particular concerns for each soul. St. Paul believed it was the job of the clergy to judge the laity and to make sure all are living in accordance with Christ’s commandements and to excommunicate people who refuse to repent. This is exactlty one of the good things about the reformation. It actually started to shock people into the fact that they had to live for Christ, not just go to Church.

 

[Sirach2]

Erick:

For instance, I do not think Matthew 16 or the original appointed bishops of the catholic church used this verse as a petrine dynastic structure. I do not believe you can squeeze the idea of succession.

Have you not understood that not all truths of our faith are spelled out in scripture?

May I ask whether you were with Jesus and the eleven during the 40 days after his resurrection in order to hear the instruction he left with them concerning his church? These instructions and teachings are not all recorded, as John 21:25 tells us:

There are also many other things that Jesus did [and TAUGHT], but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.