Catholics vs. "Traditional" Protestants

[mark_avery]

I understand what your saying and don’t totally disagree. Just in part.

How would you arrive at your definition from reading 2 Corinthians 12-4? Obviously you have to place that scripture verse in context with the chapter.

God Bless, Gary

Well if Paul was willing to boast of such a man, then i would surly join him.

Lets be honest,as we know God is in all and with us all, there is no favouritism here or there, sometimes a calling to faith can seem to us, as if not a blessing…

 

[GaryTaylor]

First, just because a person uses a word in one context does not mean he intends that word to be used in the same manner in other contexts. So when Christ said that all must have water baptism to be saved, one could also read into the “baptism of desire” while not contradicting Christ’s words.

Second, Corinthians talks of a man caught up to the third heaven (is there a first and second heaven as well?). It then says he is caught up to Paradise.

Does that mean that this man was caught up to two different places, the third heaven and Paradise? Or does this mean that the third heaven is Paradise, but not the first and second?

There’s a lot of IFs in the language. They do not preclude what I described as my view of a place between death and the resurrection in which the spirits of men reside. I do think that spirits of men continue after death, and since all have not been resurrected there must be a place where these spirits reside.

In the body or out of the body: he seemed no longer confined to bodily conditions, but he does not claim to understand the mechanics of the experience. Caught up: i.e., in ecstasy. The third heaven . . . Paradise: ancient cosmologies depicted a multitiered universe. Jewish intertestamental literature contains much speculation about the number of heavens. Seven is the number usually mentioned, but the Testament of Levi (2:7-10; 3:1-4) speaks of three; God himself dwelt in the third of these. Without giving us any clear picture of the cosmos, Paul indicates a mental journey to a nonearthly space, set apart by God, in which secrets were revealed to him. Ineffable things: i.e., privileged knowledge, which it was not possible or permitted to divulge. So then since this verse is talking “3rd Heaven” which is where God dwells. Would this not be the same “paradise” in Revelations thus as Christ spoke of on the Cross?

 

[tortdog]

In the body or out of the body: he seemed no longer confined to bodily conditions, but he does not claim to understand the mechanics of the experience. Caught up: i.e., in ecstasy. The third heaven . . . Paradise: ancient cosmologies depicted a multitiered universe. Jewish intertestamental literature contains much speculation about the number of heavens. Seven is the number usually mentioned, but the Testament of Levi (2:7-10; 3:1-4) speaks of three; God himself dwelt in the third of these. Without giving us any clear picture of the cosmos, Paul indicates a mental journey to a nonearthly space, set apart by God, in which secrets were revealed to him. Ineffable things: i.e., privileged knowledge, which it was not possible or permitted to divulge. So then since this verse is talking “3rd Heaven” which is where God dwells. Would this not be the same “paradise” in Revelations thus as Christ spoke of on the Cross?

You had to presume that there are only three heavens, and that this third heaven was one in which God dwells. I see nothing in scripture that clearly states the number of heavens (though three is suggested), or where God “resides” in any of them.

It’s speculation that could go either way. My view is that were Christ here to listen to the question, he could provide an answer that would solidify the views of all Christians behind him. But that’s not recorded in the Bible. So we speculate. We form various sects based on that divergent speculation.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You had to presume that there are only three heavens, and that this third heaven was one in which God dwells. I see nothing in scripture that clearly states the number of heavens (though three is suggested), or where God “resides” in any of them.

It’s speculation that could go either way. My view is that were Christ here to listen to the question, he could provide an answer that would solidify the views of all Christians behind him. But that’s not recorded in the Bible. So we speculate. We form various sects based on that divergent speculation.

Well, you know, one truth we don’t need to speculate on, is we as Christians are going to have to better than present times indicate in the USA.

We’ll have to do better at putting difference’s aside in order to prevail for the greater good in moral and right thinking. The common bonds have to be the constant drum-role in our time.

It good just to able to talk in the mystical realm, so many today simply have no belief in something which is very obvious in our time.

So multiple problems confront us as Christianity.

God Bless, Gary

 

[mark_avery]

I think a very important part of scripture is when our lord refutes those that did not help the smallest of his children i.e the atheist ect, which he discloses as being him.

What you think or need i ask!

Take care…

 

[Della]

From what I’ve gleaned from the discussion so far: Homosexuality in and of itself is not considered a sin in the Catholic Church, however, acting on the impulse to have sex with someone of the same sex is because it is deviant behavior. The teaching about homosexuality is not dogma, but doctrine. There are a limited number of dogmas and that’s not one of them. However, doctrine is to be believed even if it isn’t a dogma, so the question is forever closed.

As to the Catholic Church changing its teaching by pronouncing that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, it can’t be a change in teaching since the relationship between the 3 Persons of the Trinity had not been defined up until the pronouncement. If the Orthodox don’t wish to accept the definition, that’s their choice, of course, but to claim the Church changed its teaching is simply not the case, so that argument is a invalid.

The thief on the cross received pardon and absolution from Christ himself–that was his baptism. Even so, God is not bound to the sacraments, we are. The Church clearly teaches that God saves whom he wills, but that if we are able to avail ourselves of the sacraments we are bound to do so.

The dead are either in the state of purgatory or enjoying the beatific vision. Those in purgatory will enter into the beatific vision after their purging. Exactly how and “when” that happens is hard for us finite beings to understand since we do not inhabit eternity–not yet. But, God understands it and the Church proclaims it, so that’s all we need to know.

So no. The pope doesn’t have the authority to proclaim “new” truths. There are no new truths. Christ was the final revelation of God to man; he established his Church to speak for him and be his presence in the world. Christ, the Word of God, never changes. He is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments, which are immutable because he is. God does not change his mind no matter how many centuries of human bing-bang go by. Men don’t tell God what is right–he tells us.

 

[mark_avery]

LORD i am not worthy to receive you but just say the word and i shall be healed.

Not to mention in Paul`s letters; Those that call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved…

 

[tortdog]

So no. The pope doesn’t have the authority to proclaim “new” truths. There are no new truths. Christ was the final revelation of God to man; he established his Church to speak for him and be his presence in the world. Christ, the Word of God, never changes. He is the embodiment of the Ten Commandments, which are immutable because he is. God does not change his mind no matter how many centuries of human bing-bang go by. Men don’t tell God what is right–he tells us.

Here’s whare I don’t quite follow. I simply do not believe that Christ was confronted with many questions that are of high moral import. The reason is these issues had not yet arisen. For example, there is no direct scripture on the morality of abortion, or on birth control. Even pornography has no direct scripture that is on point.

I think that had these issues been highly controverted at the time of Christ, that Christ would have answered the questions. We would know and there would be no debate among Christians.

So while I agree that Christ is the law, and that Christ does not “change his mind,” it’s not enough for me to say that all truth is in the Bible (if that’s what you are suggesting).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So while I agree that Christ is the law, and that Christ does not “change his mind,” it’s not enough for me to say that all truth is in the Bible (if that’s what you are suggesting).

Truth is in the Bible, even the truth to hold to all tradition, whether by word or epistle. The truth by word coming from the authoritative Church Christ built and promised to be with until the consummation of the world, with no gaps mentioned.

Are you suggesting that God let hundreds of years people, generation after generation, go without knowing His truth concerning moral law?

 

[tortdog]

Are you suggesting that God let hundreds of years people, generation after generation, go without knowing His truth concerning moral law?

If people do not have the technology to engage in abortions the 2d week after conception, then yes, I’m arguing that God did not need to advise man of the “truth” concerning that moral issue.

Why?

It wasn’t an issue.

Even on issues of lesbianism, we have to “stretch” a little to get there. Scripture talks about man laying with man, while also clearing delineating differences between man and woman. It’s by interpretation that we conclude homosexuality is for both genders, not just one.

Had a person asked God (whether Christ or a prophet before him or an apostle after) and that question was written down we would have one more instruction that would make things more clear. That would be good. There would be less interpretation by man and less Christian sects.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If people do not have the technology to engage in abortions the 2d week after conception, then yes, I’m arguing that God did not need to advise man of the “truth” concerning that moral issue.

Why?

It wasn’t an issue.

Even on issues of lesbianism, we have to “stretch” a little to get there. Scripture talks about man laying with man, while also clearing delineating differences between man and woman. It’s by interpretation that we conclude homosexuality is for both genders, not just one.

Had a person asked God (whether Christ or a prophet before him or an apostle after) and that question was written down we would have one more instruction that would make things more clear. That would be good. There would be less interpretation by man and less Christian sects.

Abortion, at any time, is against the commandments of God. As society found such practices acceptable, it had to be specifically spelled out, by the authority set by God.

We don’t have to stretch to follow God’s plan of procreation.

There was ONE Church for over a thousand years and the many interpretations came later than that. The many interpretations is why Christ placed an authoritative Church over His, in my honest opinion. He said He wouldn’t leave His as orphans, and orphans don’t generally raise themselves, especially in spiritual matters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even on issues of lesbianism, we have to “stretch” a little to get there. Scripture talks about man laying with man, while also clearing delineating differences between man and woman. It’s by interpretation that we conclude homosexuality is for both genders, not just one.

1Co 11:9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

 

[Della]

Here’s whare I don’t quite follow. I simply do not believe that Christ was confronted with many questions that are of high moral import. The reason is these issues had not yet arisen. For example, there is no direct scripture on the morality of abortion, or on birth control. Even pornography has no direct scripture that is on point.

I think that had these issues been highly controverted at the time of Christ, that Christ would have answered the questions. We would know and there would be no debate among Christians.

So while I agree that Christ is the law, and that Christ does not “change his mind,” it’s not enough for me to say that all truth is in the Bible (if that’s what you are suggesting).

No, I’m not at all suggesting that all truth is in the Bible. That’s not to say the Bible doesn’t tell us the truth, it does, nor that it can’t be used to guide us when new situations arise, it can. But, the Bible alone can tell us nothing. It’s a book, actually a collection of books, not an authority. Authority lies in persons not in documents, it’s why there are courts in practically every country to interpret their laws, such as the USSC, here in the USA. It’s why Jesus gave Peter and the Apostles authority to speak in his name–and not a book, no matter how holy or good.

The Magisterium (the successors to the Apostles, who are the bishops of the Church) is the body that, like the USSC, decides matters of faith and morals using the Bible as a part of Sacred Tradition, which is also the oral teachings of the Apostles passed down to us, as well as all the previous documents of the Church. Some issues are hotly debated, but in the end, the teachings must square with what is already revealed. It’s why contraception was nixed even though many, many in the Church were strongly pushing for it.

Our Lord didn’t leave us without any proper authority to decide such things and leave us to flounder on our own. He definitely established his Church, the pope as the head of his Church on earth, and gave it the charisms of infallibility and indestructibility. We do know that deliberate abortion is wrong and why, and the same for artificial birth control and pornography. These things are not up in the air for Catholics. If other ecclesial bodies say otherwise, that is up to them, but they do not have the Magisterium Christ himself established. This is why Sola Scriptura is a false teaching–the Bible alone cannot tell us what is morally right or what is sound doctrine.

 

[tortdog]

Fair enough. And if I though the Magisterium has been accurate in its interpretation of the Bible, and what Christ wanted, I’d be right there with you.

 

[tortdog]

1Co 11:9 For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

This gets to what I’m saying, Prodigal. To use that scripture as support that lesbian acts are immoral is a HUGE stretch.

Just sayin’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This gets to what I’m saying, Prodigal. To use that scripture as support that lesbian acts are immoral is a HUGE stretch.

Just sayin’.

Because it doesn’t specifically state that a woman was, or wasn’t, made for a woman? That’s where the stretch is, that someone needs it spelled out to their satisfaction. That’s not serving Him as much as it seems to be an attempt to circumvent, in my opinion. Again, that’s the reason Christ set an authoritative Church in place.

 

[tortdog]

Because it doesn’t specifically state that a woman was, or wasn’t, made for a woman? That’s where the stretch is, that someone needs it spelled out to their satisfaction. That’s not serving Him as much as it seems to be an attempt to circumvent, in my opinion. Again, that’s the reason Christ set an authoritative Church in place.

I don’t think that scripture has anything to do with sexual activities at all.

 

[Della]

Fair enough. And if I though the Magisterium has been accurate in its interpretation of the Bible, and what Christ wanted, I’d be right there with you.

Yes, that’s reasonable. Coming to the place where you can believe it is another matter altogether, of course. And it’s not my “job” as an apologist to tell you what to believe, only to explain what and why the Church teaches, to the best of my ability. The rest is up to you and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Della]

I don’t think that scripture has anything to do with sexual activities at all.

If you’re going to make such a bold statement you should prove it. If there are no references to sexual immorality in the Bible, I’ll eat a garage mechanic’s shirt.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think that scripture has anything to do with sexual activities at all.

Seriously, I cannot find any agreement in that statement. God made woman for man, as shown in the scripture already provided. That’s it.

God said:

**
Gen 1:27 And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth**.

Two of the same sex cannot fulfill His command.