For our non-catholic followers: A what and if Question

[jmcrae]

What does an understanding of grace have to do with the sacraments of the catholic church, many of which are never actually specified by Christ Himself?

Because they are the “transport system” by which grace travels through time and space from the heart of Christ on the Cross at 3 pm on a Friday in the spring of 33 AD to us here and now today, in a different part of the world, many hundreds of years later.

 

[Johnny777]

My DEAR friends in Christ.

Please assist my understanding of YOUR understanding in rergards to GRACE

For those of you who teach faith THROUGH grace…

If this is a fondational beleive [as we catholics too believe]

WHY then do you not believe and accept the Seven sacraments ALL Instituted By Christ to provide GRACE?

Acts.18: 27 “And when he wished to cross to Acha’ia, the brethren encouraged him, and wrote to the disciples to receive him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed”,

Eph.2; 8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God "–

God Continued Blessings,
Patrick

Grace is not an institution friend. Grace and truth is a person, the personhood of Christ Jesus.

John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Christ is the truth, the way and the light and his personhood stands for all these three things without even looking outwardly towards sacraments instituted by a church system.

You will not find grace outside from the one to one personal relationship with Christ’s Spirit.

Anything outside of Christ is not grace nor an extension and nor an inference. Grace and truth is not an inference, but is a person, the person being Christ Jesus.

Do you know Jesus and follow him everyday of your life. If you do then you are under his grace and truth through him only and by his Holy Name and no other institutional name.

Grace and truth being the personhood of Christ, cannot be franchised by any institution, no matter what they claim.

May Jesus bless you.

 

[Johnny777]

The first century church never claimed to be the source nor the institution of grace.

We need to be reminded to not go over the head of the personhood of Christ to form establishments that are advertising themselves as conduits of grace through sacraments or other institutional works.

The danger of getting ahead of Christ’s personhood by promoting an institution as a conduit of grace, is also setting itself as the source of living waters.

There seems an antithesis happening today across the world in all institutional congregations by whole heartedly placing themselves in the place of Christ’s personhood.

The danger is manifesting in what is best described as an antithesis to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Think about it for one moment. If institutions are saying we are sanctifiers, we are grace ministers, we are living water bearers, then slowly but surely we are seeing Christ’s name and honour stolen by men who are creeping into these institutions and making their prerogative to take Christ’s place.

We are truly heading towards the climax to the end, because I always feared that men’s vanity and fickleness has gotten the better of them, because as the saying goes, POWER CORRUPTS, yet ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY.

We are going through the phase where the personhood of Christ is being slowly phased out and replaced by the institution that is now mistakenly called itself the church. Whereas the first century church played the role of the servant, the modern church??? Is playing the role of master.

May Jesus bless you.

 

[Doug_S]

Because they are the “transport system” by which grace travels through time and space from the heart of Christ on the Cross at 3 pm on a Friday in the spring of 33 AD to us here and now today, in a different part of the world, many hundreds of years later.

That is not true! How can you conceivably limit Gods grace to the sacraments. The RCC claims that to be in the fullness of Gods grace you must be a Practicing Catholic. FALSE!!!
What we must be is as Christ said, we must be born again of the spirit.

We just had our service this morning on 2 Timmothy 4. As always it was another reminder as to the sufficeincy of the word of God. It also struck me that since the RCC claims to have been around since the time of the apostles, that it is very likely that Pual was warning Timothy about their teachings. As described in verses 3 4.

4 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: 2 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. 3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

Just before this in Chapter 3 we are told that the scripture will prepare us for all good work, and here it is usefull for rebuking.

I tell you now my friends be ware of the wolfs in sheeps clothing. They will take you down the broadroad. The word of God is sufficient!!! All else ls a myth.

I am saying this out of a love and compassion for Gods people. May God bless you.

 

[jmcrae]

I already said that baptism is equated with circumcision of the heart. That’s different.

The debate of the early Christians was not whether Baptism was equal to a spiritual or physical circumcision, but rather, did they have to wait eight days before baptizing their children, or could they do so as soon as possible after birth?

The decision made then by the Apostles, and which remains today as a law of the Church, is that parents are encouraged to bring their children for Baptism as soon as possible after birth.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Fair point if that’s what the laying on of hands was for. However, laying on of hands wss used for many reasons to the point that it can’t be seen as specifically for passing on authority. It was also used to transfer spiritual gifts, but not necessarily to “ordained” individuals.

The key verse is near the end, but I’m building to that point, so bear with me.

Apostolic Succession Through the Laying on of Hands Proved from Scripture

How was Apostolic Authority handed on? By a formal ceremony known as “laying on of hands” as we see in the following passages:

1 Timothy 4:14
Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders [or bishops] laid their hands on you.

2 Timothy 1:6
For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands.

Notice that multiple Bishops were present at the ordination of Timothy and that Paul was apparently among them. This practice of having multiple Bishops involved in the ordination of a new Bishop continues in the Catholic Church today to ensure the validity of the Apostolic Succession.

Later, Timothy was sent to Corinth with the Authority of Paul to teach and remind them of the things Paul had taught them personally. Again, Paul instructed Timothy concerning the handing on of his teachings:

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In this one passage, we see four generations in the line of Apostolic Succession: 1) Paul, 2) Timothy, 3) those to whom Timothy would pass on Paul’s teachings, and 4) those whom they in turn would teach. Remember, the mission of the Church is to teach, and one office in the Church is that of teacher. Thus, Paul is instructing Timothy about the handing on of teachings of Christ which is the function of a Bishop. This is Apostolic Succession at work. Paul also told Titus:

Titus 1:5-7
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer [or bishop] is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless.

Paul also cautions Timothy:

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands

So we see that the ordaining of Bishops is not something to be taken lightly or done spuriously. The mission of the teaching Church must be entrusted to reliable men through the laying on of hands – a ceremony which we now call “ordination”.

Now, my question to you Traverse: If the laying on of hands was done “for many reasons” and “to transfer spiritual gifts”, why on earth would Paul urge Timothy to not be hasty? Why wouldn’t he want EVERYONE to receive those blessings as quickly as possible?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t doubt that roles for men in the church were appointed. I do not dispute that. I only dispute that one would need to be a bishop in order to appoint other bishops. Titus, for example, was in Crete, going to all the cities and appointing bishops in every city as he was instructed by Paul. But should not a bishop, if he was one, have his own church to look after? Yet he’s traveling around and making appointments. He is not acting as a bishop in any passage that I’m aware of, unless you only make the assumption that he had to be a bishop because he went around appointing them.

It would be impossible for someone to give authority that he himself does not have.

On the subject of priests, this stems from a disagreement between Catholics and other denominations about the use of the word presbyter. Many argue that presbyter and bishop were in fact used interchangeably.

They may well have been. The office of priest, as distinct from the Bishop, evolved over time as Dioceses grew larger and began to have more than one parish. Priests are subject to their Bishops, and without a Bishop, the priest cannot act in his priestly role at all, even if he is ordained correctly. He must be incardinated into a Diocese, and make vows of obedience to a Bishop, before he can begin to act as a priest.

The church, of course. The only difference is that I don’t believe there was a reason to wait a couple hundred years for the matter to be settled. Logic dictates the matter was settled well ahead of time.

The historical facts disagree with you. Pope Damasus appointed three Councils - Hippo, Carthage, and Rome - to discern the canon of the Scriptures. Working separately, their canons agreed with one another, which Pope Innocent I (succeeding to Pope Damasus, who had in the meantime died) took as a sign from the Holy Spirit that this was the proper canon of the Scriptures. He then appointed Jerome to undertake the translation and compilation of a book of the Scriptures, to be copied and disseminated to all the churches in the world. That happened in 405 AD.

 

[jmcrae]

I always see faith as being the indirect object or the main gift of grace. Would God’s other gifts matter if faith was not one of them. In respect to the rest of eternity being spent in hell; the gift of tongues during a finite period seems insignificant. What I am trying to ask in respect to your comment is If grace exists without faith would not grace be essentially meaningless at least from a human perspective. I can see how God could see meaning in something insignificant. On a different level or in a different way of explaining what I am asking I do not see anything contradictory in a strict implication of faith and grace. Maybe I do I don’t know convince me what you think is right

Grace is the river; faith is to drink.

The river can exist even if no one drinks from it, but without the river, no one can drink.

 

[jmcrae]

That is not true! How can you conceivably limit Gods grace to the sacraments.

Who is “limiting”? The Sacraments make grace available in the here and now, to all who make themselves disposed to receive them.

The RCC claims that to be in the fullness of Gods grace you must be a Practicing Catholic. FALSE!!!

Because you say so?

What we must be is as Christ said, we must be born again of the spirit.

Which is not possible without the graces received in the Sacrament of Baptism.

We just had our service this morning on 2 Timmothy 4. As always it was another reminder as to the sufficeincy of the word of God. It also struck me that since the RCC claims to have been around since the time of the apostles, that it is very likely that Pual was warning Timothy about their teachings.

St. Paul was a Roman Catholic; probably the original - he was from Rome, and he was a Catholic.

 

[RyanBlack]

Who is “limiting”? The Sacraments make grace available in the here and now, to all who make themselves disposed to receive them.

Because you say so?

Which is not possible without the graces received in the Sacrament of Baptism.

St. Paul was a Roman Catholic; probably the original - he was from Rome, and he was a Catholic.

St. Paul was not from Rome.

 

[PJM]

=Traverse;

PJM:
Skepticism in the claims of the catholic church doesn’t mean that the only other option is to assume there was more than one church established by God. Of course there was only one church. But history is divided on what church that IS. The orthodox certainly have very different opinions on the matter. Who is to be believed? History doesn’t define everything as neatly as you like to suggest.

Point #1
The ONLY meaningful opinion is God’s

Point #2
Read:
Mt. 10: 1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
John 17:14-20
Mark 16:14-15
Mt. 28: 16-20
Eph. 4: 1-10

One God

Only One set of Faith beliefs

In and through Only One Church [founded by this same One Perfect God]

The Eastern Church in Schism “may” have their OWN opinion but “CAN THEY?” No

 

[jmcrae]

St. Paul was not from Rome.

HIs defense at his trial was that he was a Roman citizen.

 

[RyanBlack]

HIs defense at his trial was that he was a Roman citizen.

He was a Roman citizen, but he was not from Rome; he was from Tarsus, which is in Asia Minor.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Please assist my understanding of YOUR understanding in rergards to GRACE

From a Gnostic perspective, our belief about Grace is similar to Roman Catholics… There’s Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace. Grace is a participation in the Supernal Life of God, and is a gift bestowed upon us through Gnosis (which is really the big difference between us and Roman Catholics), but is also bestowed through other means such as the Holy Sacraments, prayer, and diligent study of scripture.

For us, Sanctifying Grace flows from the spark of God within our own spiritual natures. It’s a permanent quality that is stimulated by God through His gifts and can only be lost if the soul (psyche) perpetually turns away from the spirit (pneuma). Actual Grace is supernatural help coming from God that helps us elevate our consciousness, and know God and our true spiritual nature as being part of God Himself. If we’ve completely separated ourselves from God by identifying too much with our bodily (hylic) nature, we need the help of Actual Grace to gain access to that Sanctifying Grace that we’ve cut ourselves off from.