How do you get from here to there?

[mozart-250]

He would ask them all, “Where is your bishop?” and “Is he united with the pope?” He would inform them that that is how the Church is defined.

So you are presuming to speak for St. Iranaeus. I wouldn’t make that presumption.

 

[sterryfamily]

You obviously don’t understand the concept of correlation well.

Note: it has been several years since I took statistics courses and my memory fades me somewhat. However, I think I remember the basic concepts.

Correlation is a statistical term that measures whether two variables are related and how closely they are coupled.

A correlation factor of 1.0 means that two variables are directly related to each other. As one changes the other changes proportionally. A correlation factor of 0.0 means that two variables are not related at all. A change in one does not mean a change in the other.

However, real life is not so neat-n-clean. Correlation factors are usually somewhere between 0 and 1. Meaning there is some relationship between the two but not a perfect one. The closer to 1, the stronger the relationship, the closer to 0, the weaker the relationship.

Now if there were a correlation factor of 1 between church teaching and conduct, then I would expect the phenomenon you describe. Perfect teaching would mean perfect conduct.

Obviously the correlation factor is not 1 here.

If the correlation factor is 0, then I would expect there would be no link between behaviour and conduct. You obviously by your comments do not believe the correlation factor is 0. Neither do I.

So where does that leave us. Obviously in real life where the correlation factors are commonly between 0 and 1.

With this correlation factor there is some relationship between teaching and conduct but an imperfect one. Here I would expect that if the teaching of one sample were significantly of higher quality (or in this case “perfect”) that it would have some measurable impact in the overall lives and testimony of its adherents than the sample where the teaching quality is “defective”. It is just that the relationship is not a perfect-neat’n clean one and I should not expect perfection in any case.

Conversely in any system where the correlation factor is not 0, it should give one some pause if he can not observe for himself a greater quality of lifestyle in the sample that claims for itself “perfect teaching”. Maybe the teaching is not as perfect as claimed.

I think what he was trying to point out is the mistake of trying to correlate the teachings of Christ with the behavior of His Chosen People. God always had to discipline His people because they would not follow His commands or they would not trust Him. But because His people would not listen or would not perfectly reflect His love would in no way diminish God’s law, His covenants, nor His love.

To suggest such a correlation should be evident is just a mistake.

 

[sterryfamily]

So you are presuming to speak for St. Iranaeus. I wouldn’t make that presumption.

No. He has said these things before. In harmony with the other ECF’s and the constant witness of the Church.

 

[mozart-250]

It’s possible that you have a vested interest of some kind in remaining Protestant.

Nah…its just a rule of thumb I apply that the greater the claim is the greater the evidence that must be supplied.

If you were simply claiming that Catholicism is simply preferable because you have the lineage, that would be a much less lofty claim and one that just might be credible. However, that is not the claim Catholicism makes for itself so the point is moot.

Fortunately, the Holy Spirit doesn’t actually work like that. The Holy Spirit works through the Catholic Church, and draws all people to Him through the Church.

When the person is opened to the fact that Christ founded the Catholic Church, then, if he is committed to Christ above all, he will become Catholic.

And that is an incredible claim. For what you seem to be saying is that the Holy Spirit does not work through any churches other than the Catholic.

That would seem to counter real life where one can observe the Holy Spirit moving through any number of churches.

 

[jmcrae]

So you are presuming to speak for St. Iranaeus. I wouldn’t make that presumption.

It was Irenaeus himself who first taught us that “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” Why would he not apply his own criteria to the question now?

 

[jmcrae]

For what you seem to be saying is that the Holy Spirit does not work through any churches other than the Catholic.

The Holy Spirit comes into the world through the Catholic Church. Where He goes from there is certainly His business, of course - but insofar as the Holy Spirit is with any other church or indeed any other religion or philosophical system of any kind, it is insofar as that church or system is in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit was given to the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Apostle Peter at Pentecost. (See Acts 2)

Keep in mind, it is God who established the Catholic Church; not human beings.

 

[sterryfamily]

That would seem to counter real life where one can observe the Holy Spirit moving through any number of churches.

Now, let’s apply your own standard here; According to whom and by what criterion?

We’ll stick with the originals and their constant, unchanging teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

Nah…its just a rule of thumb I apply that the greater the claim is the greater the evidence that must be supplied.

Uh - so you’re Protestant because Protestantism doesn’t make any great claims?

If you were simply claiming that Catholicism is simply preferable because you have the lineage, that would be a much less lofty claim and one that just might be credible. However, that is not the claim Catholicism makes for itself so the point is moot.

No kidding. Why wouldn’t you want to be part of the only Church that actually dares claim to be Christ’s own? Why assume that “grandiose claims” have to be false claims?

(After all, you believe Christ’s own “grandiose claim” to be God the Second Person, right? Would you bother to follow Him if He said, “Aw shucks, I ain’t nobody special.” Why not apply the same criteria to His Church, and follow the one that dares to claim to be His?)

 

[mozart-250]

Uh - so you’re Protestant because Protestantism doesn’t make any great claims?

Well let’s put it this way. If my denomination claimed for itself “one true church” status and relegated everyone else to “heretic”, I would be looking for another church.

No kidding. Why wouldn’t you want to be part of the only Church that actually dares claim to be Christ’s own? Why assume that “grandiose claims” have to be false claims?

(After all, you believe Christ’s own “grandiose claim” to be God the Second Person, right? Would you bother to follow Him if He said, “Aw shucks, I ain’t nobody special.” Why not apply the same criteria to His Church, and follow the one that dares to claim to be His?)

Grandiose claims are not necessarily false claims. They just need more substantiation that ordinary claims. Particularly when you are dealing with “ChristianityLand” where there are all sorts of competing grandiose claims out there.

Let’s put it this way…if I claim to be a married man…the father of three children…you would have no reason to disbelieve me. That is an ordinary claim. But if I claim I was healed of terminal lung cancer at a Benny Hinn crusade, you might want to speak with my doctor before buying into that.

And yes, the claims of Christ are grandiose in their own right. Yet they are credible to me. Otherwise I would need a good answer to the question “Well then exactly who was Jesus” that makes sense. I haven’t come up with that alternative explanation yet.

 

[mozart-250]

Now, let’s apply your own standard here; According to whom and by what criterion?

We’ll stick with the originals and their constant, unchanging teachings.

Well when I see lives transformed by the message of Christ delivered through Protestant churches, I would attribute that to the Holy Spirit, particularly given I Corinthians 12:3 that says nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

 

[mozart-250]

The Holy Spirit comes into the world through the Catholic Church. Where He goes from there is certainly His business, of course - but insofar as the Holy Spirit is with any other church or indeed any other religion or philosophical system of any kind, it is insofar as that church or system is in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Holy Spirit was given to the Catholic Church under the leadership of the Apostle Peter at Pentecost. (See Acts 2)

Keep in mind, it is God who established the Catholic Church; not human beings.

Of course this all assumes that when ecclesiastical organization A divides upon itself into organizations A’ and B, that God will continue to favor organization A’ and relegate organization B into some type of second-class citizen status. Now that may indeed be the case if you look into the matter in greater detail, but I don’t know why one would start with that assumption.

 

[mozart-250]

It was Irenaeus himself who first taught us that “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” Why would he not apply his own criteria to the question now?

…and Irenaeus also said:

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures;96 and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support.

What if Irenaeus looked at some Catholic dogma and concluded that it was not what the Lord taught, nor what the apostles delivered, but comes from their boast that beyond all others they have perfect knowledge…and gathered form sources other than Scripture.

 

[mozart-250]

I think what he was trying to point out is the mistake of trying to correlate the teachings of Christ with the behavior of His Chosen People. God always had to discipline His people because they would not follow His commands or they would not trust Him. But because His people would not listen or would not perfectly reflect His love would in no way diminish God’s law, His covenants, nor His love.

To suggest such a correlation should be evident is just a mistake.

But I’m not claiming the correlation factor is not 1.0. But I am claiming that it is not 0.0 either.

Neither do you believe it is 0.0 either. At least you should not if you are logically consistent. If it were 0.0, you would not have no explanation for Mother Theresa, Pope JP, and all the other wonderful Catholic Saints throughout the ages.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course this all assumes that when ecclesiastical organization A divides upon itself into organizations A’ and B, that God will continue to favor organization A’ and relegate organization B into some type of second-class citizen status.

Martin Luther and his followers left the Church, and started up a new one. The Church itself did not split.

A modern analogy would be, if some people who work for a large corporation quit their jobs, and started up a new company of their own. The original company isn’t being “split” - they carry on as normal, after hiring some new people to take the places of those who quit.

They now have some extra competition that they hadn’t had before, but they are still the same company that they were before.

The new company isn’t an “off-shoot” or a “branch office” of the original. It’s a totally new organization that has no affiliation with the original, that just happens to be in the same line of business, and whose founding members have experience working at the original company.

Now that may indeed be the case if you look into the matter in greater detail, but I don’t know why one would start with that assumption.

Have you read Numbers 16, yet?

What happened when Korah decided to set up an alternative religion to that of Moses? Did the Jewish people divide upon themselves into two equally valid religions that were successors to the original?

Did God see each of them as “equal heirs” to His promises?

When Korah elevated himself to be God’s new spokesman, did God feel bound to honour the promises that Korah made to his followers on God’s behalf?

Name three things that Korah and Martin Luther have in common.

Doesn’t that scare the living bejeezes out of you?

 

[mozart-250]

Martin Luther and his followers left the Church, and started up a new one. The Church itself did not split.

An alternative explanation would be that Martin Luther was kicked out of the church (unjustly when he only wanted to reform the church from evil practices) and then anathematized.

You might consider this explanation as spin, but I don’t see why it is any more spin than yours.

A neutral and unbiased reader of reformation might be able to cut through the spin jobs on both sides and figure out that the truth of the matter is a little more nuanced than the spin doctors on both sides would lead him to believe.

Someone who is unbiased would not start with the assumption that any one side is more at fault than the other and would be skeptical of anything he thinks as spin.

Have you read Numbers 16, yet?

Several times as a matter of fact.

As I recall it ended with a pretty swift judgement of folks getting swallowed up alive into the earth.

What gives me (and should give an impartial observer) pause here, is that I see nothing indicative of God’s judgement upon Protestants. In fact if I must say so, I see some evidence of his blessing (now to be fair I see some evidence of his blessing upon Catholicism too).

This would be in contrast to heresies(arianism,gnosticism…) where they are pretty much discredited (you might argue they rear their ugly heads from time to time…but they are discredited amongst orthodox Christians…and we don’t see a first gnostic church or a second arian church around do we).

In fact your own pope (JP) doesn’t even believe we are heretics and the equivalent to Korah. If he did, he never would have said to Billy Graham “We are brothers”. He would be treating us as Iranaeus treated the heretics of his day (read Iranaeus and see how he viewed heresy…none of this separated brethren schmuck).

If its good enough for your pope, its good enough for me.

 

[jmcrae]

An alternative explanation would be that Martin Luther was kicked out of the church (unjustly when he only wanted to reform the church from evil practices) and then anathematized.

Either he quit, or he got fired. Either way, the Church itself didn’t split - he just became not a member of it any more.

As I recall it ended with a pretty swift judgement of folks getting swallowed up alive into the earth.

As a warning to the rest of us, to let us know that God does not approve of this behaviour.

We don’t see people who break their pledges getting zapped, either - only Ananias and Sapphira got zapped - but it’s still bad to break your pledge - and we don’t see sexual perverts getting bombed off the map like Sodom and Gomorrah, either - but it’s still not good.

 

[sterryfamily]

Well when I see lives transformed by the message of Christ delivered through Protestant churches, I would attribute that to the Holy Spirit, particularly given I Corinthians 12:3 that says nobody can say Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

Have you not seen lives transformed by the message of Buddha? Mohamed? Is that the Holy Spirit, too?

 

[sterryfamily]

Of course this all assumes that when ecclesiastical organization A divides upon itself into organizations A’ and B, that God will continue to favor organization A’ and relegate organization B into some type of second-class citizen status. Now that may indeed be the case if you look into the matter in greater detail, but I don’t know why one would start with that assumption.

Again, you ignore history. Does the Church claim apostolic succession as a rule? Does she require unity with the Bishop of Rome? Does she claim this to have been the constant teaching since the time of the apostles?

Yes, yes, and yes.

When someone tells you differently, where you gonna go for corroboration? The only available witness I know of is the writings of the ECF’s. Do they corroborate the church’s claims.

Again, yes. Verily, readily, often and loudly.

 

[sterryfamily]

…and Irenaeus also said:

What if Irenaeus looked at some Catholic dogma and concluded that it was not what the Lord taught, nor what the apostles delivered, but comes from their boast that beyond all others they have perfect knowledge…and gathered form sources other than Scripture.

Dude, Irenaeus was writing against the Gnostics!!! Because they wrote their own gospels and didn’t teach what was delivered to the Church through the apostles - because they were working outside the ONE Church and trying to confuse and misguide others.

 

[mozart-250]

Hello:
As stimulating of a discussion as this is, I am finding I have to take a 2.5 to 3 week hiatus from arguing Christianity over the internet. It was probably poor time management for me to start this thread in the first place.

In two weeks I am competing in the Boston Amateur Piano competition and now I find my time much better served by actually practing the piano instead of arguing over the internet.

Anyway I think the practice of sorting out denominations intellectually and objectively for this new convert would be too daunting to expect one would actually do this. He will probably end up going to the church closest to where he lives (provided it is orthodox) and save on gasoline costs.