Doesn't your relationship with God matter more than your denomination?

[benhur]

[Mt. 18. Jesus says even though this person may belong, **kick them out.

Hi D,

Like the apostles not liking those "disciples’’ who were doing the Lord’s work because they didn’t hang out with the apostles ?

I know what you mean (excommunicate) , but your wording is nonsensical. You do not kick some out who belongs.

My general statement stands. When one is genuinely baptized, Christ places them in the ecclesia, for that is what they now are,"called out’’ by the Lord. They are become a member of the body of Christ. Not being Catholic does not do away with this. They are still part of the church.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Of course I believe in His prophets. Can you show me where His prophets corrected the Law?

Hi D,

Touche. Yet one does not need to change a doctrine but rather get back to it’s original intent. So the law does not change in essence , but rather it’s interpretation, application formulating a “tradition”.

Yet Christ did say specifically that the Pharisees had doctrine to beware off (error) , not just hypocritical application.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You, on the other hand said Jesus’ promise to the Church of binding and loosing was conditional. I asked you to give me one, just one passage from Scripture, showing this bizarre statement of yours. This you have not done. I still wait.

Hi D,

I have given a few…but for the sake for discussion, can the pope not bind that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real ? Can he not elevate Mary as everlasting (no beginning) ? ,claiming revelation from the Holy Ghost ?

Any negative answer can only refer to conditional binding.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

In the example you gave, if followers are led by a perfect guide, and they are led astray, how can the guide be perfect? What you have stated is an oxymoron.

 

[benhur]

Another statement that has nothing to do with what I stated. Once again you do not address the point I made, because you cannot.

Hi D,

''I find it funny that you believe the Spirit has not guided the Church into all truth. Must be a poor guide in your opinion." You said.

“God is not poor, whereas we certainly can be poor in spirit , and blessed are those who admit it.”, I said

I think it is pertinent. God is not a poor guide, but we are certainly poor in spirit, with which we follow Him.

Totally addresses your point of the origination of error and mine that does not then impute God for our error.

It challenges the thought that because He perfectly guides we perfectly follow. Doesn’t sound like we are "poor in spirit’.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Like the apostles not liking those "disciples’’ who were doing the Lord’s work because they didn’t hang out with the apostles ?

I know what you mean (excommunicate) , but your wording is nonsensical. You do not kick some out who belongs.

My general statement stands. When one is genuinely baptized, Christ places them in the ecclesia, for that is what they now are,"called out’’ by the Lord. They are become a member of the body of Christ. Not being Catholic does not do away with this. They are still part of the church.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Of course they are still part of the Church, and the CC states this. However…I found this Protestant pastor’s explanation to be spot on. From patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-to-do-if-someone-sins-against-you-the-teaching-of-jesus/

Let Such a One Be to You as a Gentile and a Tax Collector

From our postmodern point of view, this seems harsh and even unchristian. **From a first-century Jewish point of view, Gentiles and tax collectors were outsiders who had no part in the Jewish community. **Tax collectors, though they might have been Jewish by birth, had chosen to align themselves with the Roman oppressors for the sake of personal gain. Thus, they were worse than mere Gentiles, and were hated by their fellow Jews. So, to hear Jesus tell his Jewish followers to regard an unrepentant sinner as “a Gentile and a tax collector” seems almost incredible.

What Jesus assumes about sin in this text is something most people today, including many Christians, don’t understand. Sin isn’t some little blemish that can be covered over or ignored. Rather, it’s like a malignant melanoma, which, if left in place, will ultimately metastasize, destroying the individual sinner and wounding the Christian community. So, though surgery for removal can be painful, it is necessary for the health of the individual and the church.

At this point you might want wonder: “Where is the love of Jesus? Where is forgiveness? Where is acceptance?” It’s pretty clear, from this text and many others, that love, forgiveness, and acceptance do not include tolerating unconfessed sin in Christian brothers and sisters. In our day we think it’s loving to let sinners alone. We think it’s not our business to get involved. But Jesus sees things differently. Life in the community of his followers involves risky and messy involvement in the lives of others, both for their sake and for the common good. Sometimes this involvement includes discipline that is actually a reflection of Christian love.

Moreover, we must remember that the offender had three chances to recognize his or her sin and repent. **By failing to do so, this person essentially ostracized himself or herself from the community. It’s not so much that the church has to kick out the offender as it merely recognizes the breach that is already there. This is implied in Jesus’ statement about regarding the offenders as “a Gentile and a tax collector.” **These people weren’t literally kicked out of Jewish society. Rather, they were either by birth or by choice simply not included. There were outsiders. And so is the person who will not repent of sin when given every chance to do so.

Tell me Ben, the prodigal son, though he was a member of the family, did he have any claim to the benefits of membership of that family, when he was living in a foreign country amongst the pigs?

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Touche. Yet one does not need to change a doctrine but rather get back to it’s original intent. So the law does not change in essence , but rather it’s interpretation, application formulating a “tradition”.

Yet Christ did say specifically that the Pharisees had doctrine to beware off (error) , not just hypocritical application.

Blessings

Christ also made it clear the the doctrine to beware of originated with the Pharisees, so they were adding. But Christ also said to follow the teachings because they had the authority that came from Moses’ seat. Obviously, the teachings were good, or Jesus would not say to obey them. Somewhere in between the teaching, and the application something went amiss. The Pharisees were never promised the Spirit to guide them, as the Church was.

Hi D,

I have given a few…

The ones you gave, I said can be shown from other passages of Scripture can be proven to be conditional. Not so in this case.

but for the sake for discussion, can the pope not bind that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real ? Can he not elevate Mary as everlasting (no beginning) ? ,claiming revelation from the Holy Ghost ?

Any negative answer can only refer to conditional binding.

Yes he can. But he won’t. The gift came with a guarantee that if it is bound on Earth, it shall be bound in Heaven. Jesus gave us a gift to never have to worry about whether the Church has bound, or will bind, in error. Was it possible for Christ to sin, or would He always choose the right thing?

If I give my daughter a $100,000, and say spend it on whatever you want, does my knowing she will not ever gamble one penny of it away, mean the gift was conditional?

That is the beauty of Christ’s promise. He gave the Church a gift, knowing she would never bind in error.

Does perfect guidance always suggest perfect following ?

You are right, no it does not. But…while this is true for individuals, it is not true for His institution, the Church. It has always been understood (and the writings of the early fathers bear this point out), that were the Church to ever officially teach error, then the gates of Hell had prevailed.

To rationalize the seeming dichotomy that was before them, the Reformers had to change the meaning of what the gates of Hell prevailing meant. They did this to justify how it could be that for 1500 years, the doctine that is essential to Protestantism, cannot be found in the Catholic Church. Under the old formula, such a doctrine not being able to be found taught anywhere in the Church, would mean that Hell had prevailed.

Let’s say I was a Judaizer, with followers, living in Antioch at the time of the Council of Jerusalem. We searched the Scriptures, and guided by the Spirit, we believe the council got it wrong, and choose to ignore what the council taught. We continued teaching that the Gentiles must be circumcised, what would our standing be in relation to the Church of the Apostles? Would we be in schism? Under your system of beliefs, how would we know?

 

[benhur]

No one has, so what is your point?

Hi D,

You said,"You have already admitted that Church was visible, did it suddenly become invisible?

I said,"I do not call "other " baptized brethren “half visible”.

Are you suggesting “other” churches are invisible ? or that if the CC errs she becomes invisible?

My reference is that P or O are brethren , but not "fully’, or not in fullness of truth according to CC. So I said instead of half brother half visible.

Blessings

PS I understand the CC teaches that anything connected to the Spirit’s working in all churches is only thru the visible CC, or owing to her.

Others may say the Spirit at times is not a respecter of such divisiions (sects) and works graciously as He wills. I believe some wrongly refer to the “invisible” cohesiveness of His body. Wrong only because although we can not see the Spirit we certainly see members of His body, always, as they do His bidding.

 

[benhur]

Of course, on teachings that bind. Jesus said whatever. Should I only follow when I agree, or should I also trust in Jesus, and follow when I disagree?

Hi D,

Where is it written not to beware of leaven ? Where does He say to disciples leave that *alone *to the bishops ? Where does He say that never will a bishop(s) be a fox or a wolf ? Where does He say these will only be found outside the church ? Where does He say the church will never apostatize , in part, or even a lot ? Where does He say the Spirit only discerns all things for clergy ? And if we are all given some level of discernment, and are indwelt by Christ Himself, we are somehow cut off from such responsibility, to beware of leaven?

Indeed the “whatever may be bound” is bound by the truth that is in Jesus , that is in us, also.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Where is it written not to beware of leaven ? Where does He say to disciples leave that *alone *to the bishops ? Where does He say that never will a bishop(s) be a fox or a wolf ? Where does He say these will only be found outside the church ? Where does He say the church will never apostatize , in part, or even a lot ? Where does He say the Spirit only discerns all things for clergy ? And if we are all given some level of discernment, and are indwelt by Christ Himself, we are somehow cut off from such responsibility, to beware of leaven?

Indeed the “whatever may be bound” is bound by the truth that is in Jesus , that is in us, also.

Blessings

Hi Ben,

Where does He say: *Benhur, whatever you bind on Earth, is bound in Heaven? * Did He only intend the binding to be used when you agree with it?

Ben, again I ask you: If the Judaizers sincerely disagreed with the Council of Jerusalem (and we know that such a community actually came into existence after that council), what should they have done? Follow the Apostles, or what they had discerned?

 

[Duane1966]

From the article found here: calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/michael-horton-on-schism-as-heresy/

And when schism from the Church is defined out of existence, one loses the possibility of recognizing whether one (or anyone else) is in schism from the Church; it becomes a meaningless question, a question that evokes a blank face, or an attempt to translate the question into the only definition of ‘schism’ one knows, namely, a question about heresy, which is then answered with an assurance that one is holding on to the biblical gospel and sacraments, and therefore that one is surely not in schism from the Church. Hence the Protestant inability to make a principled distinction between a branch within the Church and a schism from the Church.

When terms in the Tradition are redefined in a way that replaces (rather than develops) the essence of their meaning, then not only does this lead to ecumenical difficulties, but it also leads communities who adopt these redefinitions to a different way of seeing, in this case, a way of seeing in which schism from is not even conceptually visible.** By redefining schism from the Church as heresy, the community that adopts this redefinition essentially goes blind to schism from the Church and to the very possibility of schism from the Church.**

What has happened, when a fundamental patristic concept is no longer even accessible or intelligible? This concept of schism from the Church dropped out of Protestant theology because the justification of the Protestant departure from the Catholic Church required an underlying radical change in ecclesiology, from an essentially visible catholic Church to an essentially invisible catholic Church with local visible expressions. This concept of schism from the Church is therefore no longer available (and has to be redefined as heresy to cover the semantic hole its absence would leave) in Protestant ecclesiology because the conjunction of (a) the denial of the ministerial priesthood and Holy Orders and (b) the denial of an essentially unified divinely established visible principle of unity entails that the Church is not essentially visible, and therefore that visible unity is not essential to her. But schism from the Church is impossible unless the Church has visible unity. Hence the Protestant move from a visible Church ecclesiology to an invisible Church ecclesiology (even though the language of ‘visible Church’ is retained by Reformed persons) eliminated conceptually the very possibility of schism from the Church, and thus required redefining schism from as just a synonym for heresy.

For this reason, even if Horton wanted to hold to the possibility of schism from the Church by claiming that the visible Church is, say, NAPARC (or some other association of Reformed denominations), he could not do so. That is because if some denominations which held to the same doctrines affirmed by NAPARC denominations were not in communion with NAPARC denominations, nothing would make those denomination the ones in schism from the Church, rather than the other way around. Without a divinely established visible principle of unity that serves as the defining point of reference for the location of the Church, schism from the Church must be redefined as “not holding to [my interpretation of Scripture regarding what is] the gospel and [my interpretation of Scripture regarding what are] the sacraments.” For Catholics, by contrast, that divinely established principle of unity is St. Peter to whom Christ entrusted the keys of the Kingdom, as St. Ambrose said: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.”5

Moreover, to justify redefining schism from as heresy, one must assume that all the early Church Fathers who addressed schism from the Church were deeply mistaken, having departed from the Apostolic faith regarding the nature of schism from the Church. In that sense, to justify departing from the Church Fathers regarding the nature of schism from the Church, one must presuppose some form of ecclesial deism. Otherwise, if in their teaching concerning schism from the Church, the Church Fathers were faithfully preserving and defending the Apostolic faith they had received, those who are now redefining schism from as heresy are departing from the Apostolic faith, and thus ironically (given their own their definition of ‘schism’) in that respect separating themselves from the visible Church.

 

[Michael_Francis]

For me, going to a non-Catholic service is terribly unfulfilling. To me it’s like going to a restaurant and paying for a good meal, only to find that every plate is empty. Without the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist the experience is largely devoid of spiritual benefit.

As one who spent over 30 years among them and away from the church I was amazed at the freedom and depth of relationship I have in Christ now upon my return. In retrospect those were empty years that gave me nothing I couldn’t have been better fed by being a faithful Catholic.

All music and other peripherals are less important to me than the Mass and the homily and I am actively engaged in it from beginning to end.

Catholicism is not a denomination…it is the original, New Testament, “full Gospel” Christian faith.

I think St. Augustine said it best. “All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”

 

[Church_Militant]

For me, going to a non-Catholic service is terribly unfulfilling. To me it’s like going to a restaurant and paying for a good meal, only to find that every plate is empty. Without the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist the experience is largely devoid of spiritual benefit.

As one who spent over 30 years among them and away from the church I was amazed at the freedom and depth of relationship I have in Christ now upon my return. In retrospect those were empty years that gave me nothing I couldn’t have been better fed by being a faithful Catholic.

All music and other peripherals are less important to me than the Mass and the homily and I am actively engaged in it from beginning to end.

Catholicism is not a denomination…it is the original, New Testament, “full Gospel” Christian faith.

I think St. Augustine said it best. “All heretics wish to be styled Catholic, yet if anyone asks them where is the Catholic place of worship none would venture to point out his own.”

 

[benhur]

No, in English full truth would mean no room for anything else. So if you added something to it, you were not full in the first place. So your example fails.

Hi D,

Actually I partly agree, and my post showed it. One can be led to full truth and have it, but if you then add or detract to it, for we still have free will and are not robots , we then nullify the full truth.

I disagree that if you add or detract you were not full in the first place. Same rationale OSAS use,that you were not fully saved if you end up losing it.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I highlighted the key part. From within the Church. Ben, the Church always needs reformation, that we agree on.

Hi D,

Why would the church need reformation if she has been led to the full truth per Christ’s promises, and the church can not depart from it ?

Why would a doctrine need correction if she can not err in matters of faith and morals ?

Why would an interpretation or application of Christ’s "law’’ need reforming for a church that is perfectly led by the Spirit ?

Blessings

 

[benhur]

How is it reformation when you are asking the Church to adopt a doctrine that she knows she never taught, and that none of the early church fathers ever taught, and which the founder of said doctrine admits none of the early fathers of the Church believed in? Can you show me where Jesus says, and when you take it to the Church, if they disagree with you, start your own?

Hi D,

Start of with the last point that is easiest to discuss.

The text in question has to do with when a brother sins against you, or is at fault with you. The context is not about "doctrine’’ or a differences in religious practice (unless it deals specifically with the sin against you). Remember the individual has authority here to confront the grievance/sin, as then do two believers, and finally the church.

The apostle paul deals with this a bit also, when he condones grievances being taken to civil courts instead of being handled as Jesus admonished,amongst each other and within the church, the local body .

As fars as reformers…they addressed more than one issue, so it is best to discuss each one separately .I would not categorize them all as new, or never taught, or that reformers admitted that in all points.

Luther may have admitted one point was "new’’, but he would also admit that what it addressed was also "new’’, or not from the beginning or apostolic.

I mean the term Trinity was “new” and some christological terms were new in 4th century.They were necessary to combat another "new’’ thing in Arianism. Another words, did the reformers say this point was "new’, but that had similar circumstances existed in the earlier church or even apostolic times it would have been taught ?

I personally do not see anything “new” being taught, and that the reformers indeed tried to be "apostolic’’, as is part of their "catholic’’ tradition to be so.

Blessings

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Actually I partly agree, and my post showed it. One can be led to full truth and have it, but if you then add or detract to it, for we still have free will and are not robots , we then nullify the full truth.

I disagree that if you add or detract you were not full in the first place. Same rationale OSAS use,that you were not fully saved if you end up losing it.

Blessings

Not the same rationale at all. Being in a state of grace, says nothing about whether one will be saved at the end. Here is the definition of full, notice, nothing can be added to it.

1. containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space

Show me where I said that if you detract, you were not full in the first place. Never said it. Never implied it.

Hi D,

Why would the church need reformation if she has been led to the full truth per Christ’s promises, and the church can not depart from it ?

Why would a doctrine need correction if she can not err in matters of faith and morals ?

Why would an interpretation or application of Christ’s "law’’ need reforming for a church that is perfectly led by the Spirit ?

Blessings

Why did Jesus call the Jews to repentance, if the law was pure? Did God err in the commandments? Since many Jews erred in observance of the Law, should the Law be abolished? Of course not. But that is ridiculous position the Reformers took with Catholicism and her teachings.

But what was the Catholic Reformation? It was a cleaning up of abuses by humans of the teachings of the Church. The teachings were clarified. Notice that not one of the teachings that the Protestant Reformers had problems with, were done away with. Why? Because they did not contain error.

 

[Duane1966]

Hi D,

Start of with the last point that is easiest to discuss.

The text in question has to do with when a brother sins against you, or is at fault with you. The context is not about "doctrine’’ or a differences in religious practice (unless it deals specifically with the sin against you). Remember the individual has authority here to confront the grievance/sin, as then do two believers, and finally the church.

Yes, that is the context. Now my question to you again, what happens if you do not agree with the judgement of the Church? What does Jesus say to do? And what if it is not an individual, but a community, that disagrees with the judgement of the Church? What does Paul say about such a community?

As fars as reformers…they addressed more than one issue, so it is best to discuss each one separately .I would not categorize them all as new, or never taught, or that reformers admitted that in all points.

Luther may have admitted one point was "new’’, but he would also admit that what it addressed was also "new’’, or not from the beginning or apostolic.

I mean the term Trinity was “new” and some christological terms were new in 4th century.They were necessary to combat another "new’’ thing in Arianism. Another words, did the reformers say this point was "new’, but that had similar circumstances existed in the earlier church or even apostolic times it would have been taught ?

Luther said sola fide is the doctrine that the Reformation stands or falls. He acknowledged you cannot find this concept in any of the fathers. Protestant historian McGrath says you cannot find Luther’s concept in any writings of the Church for 1500 years, East or West.

If sola fide is truly how we are saved, how come no one believed in the concept for 1500 years? If what Luther taught us really what Paul taught, then the Mormons are right, and the Church apostatised right after Paul died. I see no principled difference between you and Mormons.

Some Protestant historians admit that you cannot find the concept of sola scriptura also anywhere for 1500 years.

As for the Trinity, the concept is in writings of the Fathers before Nicaea. Do you see the difference? The Trinity, a concept that is held and written about from the beginning. Sola fide, a concept historians admit cannot be found until Luther came up with it.

I personally do not see anything “new” being taught, and that the reformers indeed tried to be "apostolic’’, as is part of their "catholic’’ tradition to be so.

Blessings

Really? The Reformers did not like the answer the Church gave them. How would that they did be any different than if the Church at Antioch had rejected the Council of Jerusalem?

Again I ask you, if the Judaizers sincerely believed that council got it wrong, what should they have done?

P.s. you personally not seeing is *solo scriptura *at it’s finest. If you know the Reformers, you probably know Turretin. He has a statement where he basically says that *solo scriptura * always trumps sola scriptura, which has led some people to realize that their is no difference.

 

[benhur]

We know a community called the Ebionites sprang up not long after the Council of Jerusalem. We know that they rejected that council’s decision on Gentiles not having to be circumcised. Which leads me to my next question.

2.) Since you say the Church can err on binding and loosing, were they wrong to reject that council, if they really believed the council erred, which they said the Spirit had led them to believe?

3.) Under your paradigm, is it possible for any community to be in the sort of schism that Paul warns us about? If yes, how would that look?

Hi D,

The Ebionites were wrong. They rejected the apostles and the elders and the consensus of the church. They wrongly interpreted God’s vision to Peter about the gentiles gentiles , and wrongly interpreted God’s actions in baptizing gentiles , exactly as he did Jews, as witnessed by Peter and Cornelius and as witnessed by the apostle Paul. They wrongly interpreted writ as mentioned during the council.

Of course under my paradigm a schism can be wrong ( as I mentioned , like Korah in OT). I just do not say the church is never wrong (just as leaders were not always right in OT, and persecuted God’s voice thru some of the prophets.)

Also, it must be mentioned that for a time part of the church was wrong in requiring some to be circumcised. They finally reformed (dogmatized God’s intent) at the council.

Blessings

PS The gentiles exhibited identical fruits in the Spirit, while uncircumcised, as those of the circumcision,even the apostles.

I have stated P’s an O’s also exhibit identical fruits of the Spirit, while being "unCatholic’’, as those being Catholic.

 

[benhur]

Hi Ben,

Of course they are still part of the Church, and the CC states this. However…I found this Protestant pastor’s explanation to be spot on. From patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/what-to-do-if-someone-sins-against-you-the-teaching-of-jesus/ Tell me Ben, the prodigal son, though he was a member of the family, did he have any claim to the benefits of membership of that family, when he was living in a foreign country amongst the pigs?

Hi D,

Can someone who is “dead” having any claim ? That which was entitled to him was given unto him, and was misspent. Anything given to him after that was by pure grace,undeserved…these are my first thoughts,subject to refinement…

Blessings