N
Nicea325
Guest
elvisman:
Sometimes I get dizzy going in circles repeating the same words over and over to get a point across.:coolinoff:
- Status
Sometimes I get dizzy going in circles repeating the same words over and over to get a point across.:coolinoff:
C
cooterhein
Guest
Can you make the appropriate adjustments for a political analogy?
C
cooterhein
Guest
I have spent a good amount of time in that chapter; I don’t recall that I’ve gone there for reasons having to do with the Holy Spirit, though. In my experience (although I’m just one Protestant), Protestants tend to like this one because it basically says don’t worry about singling out one apostle or teacher and try to get everyone to follow him. Remember whose name you were baptized into (not Paul, Apollos, or Cephas) and that you follow Him, not those guys- even if one of them did bring the message to you. Protestants tend to think of Catholics as people who follow Peter and make that of comparable importance to following Christ, and we tend to see this chapter as one that says “Peter should be a non-factor where it comes to your Christian identity and the way you interact with other Christians.” In our estimation, Catholicism causes Peter to be something of a “factor,” and this chapter’s usually first in line for that conversation.
I actually think 1 Corinthians 2 is one that’s referenced more often for the Holy Spirit, especially at the end where it says…
“Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.”
The part that immediately follows (judging all things, being judged by no one) tends to get downplayed. Which can be a little ironic, especially when a Protestant is proof-texting for Spirit illumination passages and doesn’t know what to make of the verse immediately following it. From this passage, though, I think the main points tend to look like this: There’s sufficient evidence to say the Spirit does this for every Christian who is “spiritual,” it has to do with interpretation of divine revelation rather than new revelation, and the main point of contrast is between the understanding of Scripture for an unreligious/irreligious person vs. a Christian. The entirety of the chapter that precedes this passage is usually of moderate interest, although this can be more or less true depending on the person.
Another chapter that’s of interest is Ephesians 1- again at the end, but this time the rest of the chapter isn’t as useful for this topic. Paul talks about having “the eyes of your heart enlightened,” alludes to something that’s spiritual at least in the general sense leading up to it, and goes on to give more detail about the purpose of this enlightening.
“…that you may know what is the hope to which he has called you, what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.”
Generally speaking, I think Protestants and Catholics have differing notions of what the acceptable level of unity is in doctrine and praxis. (Bit of an understatement). For Catholics, it has to do with your leadership and the boundaries they set. Stay in and you’re in unity with the Church. (Capital C). Step out and you’ve separated yourself from the Body. If you start “out” but never get “in” due to ignorance, you can sometimes be imperfectly joined to the Church. But don’t forget that the Catholic Church is always the agent of salvation, even for non-Catholics.
Protestants don’t have a strong central government, if you will. It can’t really work that way for us. This part of Scripture isn’t a bad place to go in order to get a feel for how it works with us, though. To whatever extent Christians share a knowledge of the hope to which God has called us (basically a Christian knowledge, not really any more specific than that); to whatever extent different Christians are appropriating the same riches of God’s inheritance to us; to whatever extent His power is experienced by different kinds of believers and made known to others (in some specific Christological detail)…
That’s the extent to which the same Holy Spirit doing the same work in Christians who differ from each other in various ways. Where this relates to unity, the extent to which these things are actually carried out in different peoples’ lives is one way to know something about our unity. But the whole thing is couched in a certain kind of knowledge of God, and we’ll use this passage in order to argue that the Holy Spirit causes all Christians to be illuminated in this kind of knowledge. It could even serve as a template for describing the “core doctrine” that tends to be a teensy bit elusive when you’re talking to Protestants.
F
fbl9
Guest
Something of interest:
St.Paul stayed where when he was in Damascus? At a disciple’s home.
What did this disciple believe? Christianity
What did St.Paul preach while in Damascus? Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Where did St.Paul go after he left Damascus? To Jerusalem
Whom took St.Paul into their home? None other than an Apostle.
St.Paul stayed where when he was in Damascus? At a disciple’s home.
What did this disciple believe? Christianity
What did St.Paul preach while in Damascus? Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Where did St.Paul go after he left Damascus? To Jerusalem
Whom took St.Paul into their home? None other than an Apostle.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Nope. Politics…
puts me to
But if you want to make a polical analogy or other analogue I might engage in the dialogue.
F
fbl9
Guest
Sorry cooterhien my mistake i can’t seem to get how to divide a post up and answer it by section. I’ll go back and try to get what we were discussing in reference to these verse.
F
fbl9
Guest
Is not the “job” of the Holy Spirit to guide to all truth not just some of it?
1Cor.3;5-13
not in Catholic teaching do these verse relate to lay persons actions. What seems to be presented by you is a osas, which you do not adhere to.
PRmerger did a good job of the rest.
P
pablope
Guest
If you are talking only in the synagogues…then yes, he went there to argue for Christ as the messiah, not the message of the Gospel, nor does he establish churches yet, and just gains disciples. His missionary journey to evangelize occurs after his ordination.
Let us review it again…
After Paul’s conversion and baptism…hereafter, according to Galatians, Paul went into the Desert of Arabia (Gal 1:17)…to reflect and possibly be further formed in the Christian faith to which he had come so suddenly and unexpectedly…experts speculate a period of at least a year seems tenable and perhaps as many as three years.
After this…he returns to Damascus and joined the Christian community there for a period of almost three years (Gal 1:18)…and there, he took to debating in the synagogues and was so effective in demonstrating that Jesus was the hoped for messiah that some of the Jews there conspired to kill him.
**Note debating, not preaching, teaching about and proving Christ is the messiah. He is not converting anyone to Christianity yet. He just gains disciples.
**
He then flees to Jerusalem and meets with Peter and the apostles (Acts 9:20-25). Paul states that he went there to confer with Cephas (Peter) (Gal 1:18). Paul seems to imply that he thought it was time to confer with Peter since he had begun to teach and even now was gaining disciples. Later he would describe the purpose of another visit to Peter and the other leaders: to present the Gospel that I preach to the Gentiles…so that I might not be running, or have run in vain (Gal 2:2).
After this visit or consultation in Jerusalem, he went home to Tarsus for a period of about three years. What he did during this time is unknown. Barnabas then arrived and asked him to come to Antioch and help him evangelize there (Acts 11:25-26)…so it is Barnabas who is asking for help. After about a year…he made another brief visit to Jerusalem to deliver a collection for the poor and upon his return to Antioch we finally see his ordination as a Bishop. …The leaders of the Church at Antioch were praying and received instruction from the Holy Spirit to Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them (Acts 13:3). Thus, the leaders of the Church there laid hands on Barnabas and Saul and send them forth on Mission. Here we have an ordination and the source of Paul’s status as Apostle (bishop).
Then he goes on his first missionary journey to evangelize, to establish churches…then reports back to the Jerusalem elders.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Aw,
shaw:
P
pablope
Guest
Whether you admit it or not, realize it or not, this is your doctrine…and you are creating your own authority:
And this is how you define ordination according to your doctrine:
Of course, as I have pointed out, the CC has a different view.
Again, you are contradicting yourself…the doctrine you are arguing for and defending is …Paul was adamantly teaching salvation apart from the works of the law and the council at Jerusalem did not have that doctrine.
C
cooterhein
Guest
In earlier posts, I talked a little bit about the overall goals of the Protestant movement in the future, the way we hope to get it done, and why we think Christianity is better off de-centralized. I acknowledged that disunity and factionalism might wind up halting or reversing the progress that we’ve made (and continue to make in ways I assume you’re envious of), but I also mentioned that we have a plan. I even mentioned a Society and the movement with which it’s associated because it is the means by which we hope to prevent this from happening.Nope. Politics…
puts me to
But if you want to make a polical analogy or other analogue I might engage in the dialogue.
I was hoping for some sort of meaningful discussion about what we’re doing, what we hope to do, and how we hope to prevent it from falling apart. Instead, you went back into attack mode. I was a little disappointed.
I eventually wound up wondering if some of your rhetoric has very little to do with me. The way you mix attacks in with certain kinds of questions sometimes makes me think you can’t possibly be looking for anything from me at all. Maybe there’s times when you attack non-Catholics on these forums just for the sake of showing off your attack skills to other Catholics here. Does it work that way sometimes? (This is one of those questions I’d really like an answer to. One that’s substantially more developed that “yes” or “no,” please).
Anyway, the substance of this post is that it’s worth it for me to put time into meaningful dialogue, but I don’t have enough free time that I can spend a good chunk of it as the crash test dummy for largely ineffective polemics. If you’d like to say some meaningful things about the future of Protestantism, what you expect from it, and your response to the idea of worldwide Christianity that is more de-centralized in leadership than it is highly centralized, I will welcome this kind of dialogue. If you want to make a case for why Christian leadership is better when it’s highly centralized, I’d definitely look at that, too. I’m sure that will lead to some good questions from your side as well, and I will answer them when I don’t feel like you’re attacking me.
At times, though- and there were a couple today, though it depends on the day- I did feel like you were in attack mode, and I even thought it may have had more to do with an audience (whether real or imaginary) than it did with you and me. And that finally brings us to a brief political analogy.
I’d prefer not to conduct myself as if I were participating in a political debate. I’d prefer to talk to you as one normal person to another, not as if we’re representatives of political factions who do it more for the benefit of an audience than for the meaningful exchange of ideas.
P
PRmerger
Guest
cooterhein, I have always been a charitable poster here on the CAFs, and receive many comments in that regard, both in PMs and in public posts.
Not to mention I have never received a warning–ever–from a Mod that I have “attacked” anyone, or to be more charitable, or that I may be suspended or banned because of rude and condescending posts. Nuh-uh. Not a one.
Your comment above really tells me that you feel attacked because you understand your arguments have been attacked, sliced, diced and put to rest.
I’m still waiting for a response to this: As it pertains to the indwelling of the HS as a “guest in my soul”, what distinguishing characteristic is there?
And this: And again: what “distinguishable characteristic” tells you this is a “reliable landmark” (and also rules out baptism) and what Scripture verses tell you this?
And this: Where did the idea come from that the Holy Spirit preserved some folks (just in the first century?) from proclaiming error, but that this charism ended at some point in history.
And this: And who decides on what these “core doctrines” are?
Finally, what, in your opinion, are these “core doctrines”? And will the other tens of thousands of Christian denominations agree with you?
So if you’ll stop making issues where none exist, I’d like to see the answers to the above questions.
B
benidict
Guest
with all due respect my dear sister…i thought sunday was the day for kickoffs, punt returns, and wings!
sorry couldnt resist. theres your sports analogie…peace 
J
jericho777
Guest
The same person who ordained Peter, James and John.
C
cooterhein
Guest
This comment helps me understand a little more about you. You’ve been on CAF long enough that there’s very little you haven’t seen, so it’s understandable for you to feel that there’s very little for you to learn from non-Catholics. Nevertheless, you stay quite active in order to attack, slice, dice, and “put to rest” every idea that is not entirely Catholic. You’re like a football fan whose behavior ensures that a fan of any other team will not enjoy talking to you. And somehow, you think that means you win.
I think you do it more for the benefit of other Catholics than for the benefit of any non-Catholic. I’m really doubting that talking to you like this can have any benefit for me, and I think that’s by design. It’s exactly what you intend. So why would I want to talk to you? I’ll do more of it when you demonstrate that there’s any kind of upside for me.
I have answered most of these in great detail on other threads. I obviously can’t answer all these questions in one post, and we both know that. So it’s not going to happen.
Tell you what, PR. I’ll make you a promise. I will answer these questions one at a time via PM, but I’ll only do this if you can convince me that you are worth talking to. You mostly limit yourself to polemics when you’re in a more public forum, so we’ll see if you behave any differently when communicating via PM.
Until then, you’ll keep waiting. I’m sure you’ll pat yourself on the back and say “I sliced and diced your non-Catholic trash so good, I laid all of that to rest!” Well, congratulations PR. You failed to communicate effectively with another Christian via the Internet, and you convinced me that you’re either unwilling to particpate in fruitful dialogue or you’re entirely incapable of it. That’s what just happened. Go ahead, celebrate your win.
You know the conditions. If you really want to see them, you’ll make it happen. And then I’ll get to find out if you do the same things via PM that you do on the public boards.
Now if you don’t mind, I have a couple of questions of my own.
What is your analysis of de-centralized authority in general, and what makes you think it’s a totally non-viable option from an ecclesiastical standpoint, especially when it’s been the more successful option in various governments around the world?
Even though you would not be affiliated with Christian leadership that is less centralized in authority, do you think it can survive and thrive in the long term on a global scale? Why or why not?
With all of this de-centralizing of authority and growth of independent/autonomous groups of Christians, what do you think it means for the future of Catholicism? The situation is becoming and has become quite different from what it was in the 16th-19th centuries, but does this mean the West is any closer to coming back under Roman control? Or is the opposite true? Why or why not?
This can be your first step to getting the answers that you want so badly. Or it could be the last step in affirming that you don’t want answers at all- you just want to slice and dice in a setting where you can get constant praise from other Catholics for your wonderful polemics. You can keep doing it that way if you want, but I won’t be a part of it. Or you can show that you’re willing to do it my way.
It’s your choice. “Slice and dice” words and behavior are not acceptable to me. Are you able to function without them? If so, let’s talk.
J
jericho777
Guest
There were Pharisee believers who were part of the council at Jerusalem. Acts 15:5 But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.
The fact God and not the church taught Paul what doctrines to teach means it is only God he has to answer to. Paul’s apostleship was not by or through men. Gal 1:1 You see the church as an organization where as bible Christians see it as the living body of Christ.
E
elvisman
Guest
**Jericho - **
**First of all, I have explained to you over and over that the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. Where do you get the idea that “Bible christians” see it differently than Christ’s only Church? Remember, the bible was writen and compiled by Catholics, for Catholics, who were the only Christians around at the time.
Secondly - ALL of the Apostles were appointed by God=JESUS. What makes you think that they were appointed by mere men.
Paul - and ALL of the rest were appointed by Jesus. Matthias, of course was appointed by the Holy Spirit - through the Church. you see - that’s the way Jesus set things up before he ascended to heaven. He left the Church in charge and he works through her. When something is mandated or declared by the Church - it is ratified in heaven as well (Matt. 16:19, 18:18, John 20:21-23).
Try as you may - you cannot escape this fact - and neither vould Paul. Nor did he try, as I have illustrated to you ad nauseam.
N
Nicea325
Guest
You see the church as an organization where as bible Christians see it as the living body of Christ
Sorry,but you have misconceptions of what the Catholic Church truly professes,teaches and believes. Catholics are Bible Christians and the first ones to top it off. The Catholic Church has never taught or said the Church is not the Body of Christ. On the contrary,it is the first church to have taught it and declare it.
Peace brother in Christ.
P
PRmerger
Guest
J
jericho777
Guest
That is the gospel; Jesus is the Son of God. That is what the Jews were waiting for, the Messiah as their salvation. That’s the promise of the OT.
Gal 1:16 immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. He did not consult with any people. V17*** neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me***; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. And he did not go to the church either. He went back to Damascus for three years before going to Jerusalem then only to get “acquainted”. V18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days.
Bottom line after Paul was called by God to preach he did. It does not take ordination to do what God has called you to do.
Your story denies Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead. Men did not ordain Paul by his own word.
- Status