I'm not a Catholic because

[krahnicles]

I am not worried about anyone’s salvation. I am only worried about the truth. I am concerned that people that call themselves christian and do not belong to the Catholic Church and appear to be impudent do not realize their roots. Let’s start with the Coptic Church. St. Mark the apostle founded the Coptic Church and Coptics are part of the Catholic Church. Where was your church founded? Tell me…what church do you attend?

I live in America, and the churches I’ve attended were all founded in America.

 

[Roy5]

If I’m not mistaken the large majority of Coptic Christians are not part of Catholicism but more akin to Eastern Orthodoxy. Actually, they are independent and have their own Pope. There are some Coptic Catholics and some Coptic Protestants, but these are small groups when compared to the others who trace their origin back to St, Mark, their first Pope.

 

[krahnicles]

I do not think you are charitable. I base this on your response to this posting on not wanting to go watch Hillsong and wanting to be Catholic.

I’m sorry. I’m not entirely familiar with this “charitable” term, but I get that I’m not coming across as a good forum member and I should try to do better.

You dissented and then mocked the posting. This is not charitable. But above Faith and Hope, Love abides…

I’ll keep that in mind. I was, however, attempting to comment on a juxtaposition that seems generally accurate to me. The juxtaposition: Protestants can generally shop around at a variety of different congregations in their area that all have acceptably sound doctrine, and since all other things (like the doctrine) are pretty much equal, their church home is generally determined by factors like music, preaching style, which people they like best, and the place that lets them get involved with programs that let them serve the church in ways that fit their strengths. Catholic parishes tend to serve a larger number of people per parish while serving a relatively large physical area, and this is not by accident- Catholics are supposed to be Catholic because it’s the One True Church and you can turn nowhere else for the Fullness of Truth, and Catholics are generally supposed to show up out of necessity rather than out of a preference for something like preaching style, the order of the service, or the relative amount of time that’s spent on some part of the service.

If you think this juxtaposition is wrong in some way, I invite your (name removed by moderator)ut. But let me remind you, it wouldn’t be all that unfeasible for Catholic parishes to be a bit more numerous and a bit smaller in numbers per parish. It would improve the ratio of total members to members with meaningful responsibility, it would allow different parishes to divide the labor and focus on different needs in a community, and it would give different kinds of Catholics some slightly different kinds of options based on their differing needs and preferences. I assume there’s some kind of reason why this sort of setup is largely characteristic of Protestant churches while it’s typically quite uncharacteristic of Catholic parishes. I don’t know exactly what that reason is, but I have observed that this seems to be the juxtaposition.

Your comments?

This is what you find enjoyable, I personally think it is a waste of time for me, but not for you…however in your dissention you hypocritically want for yourself what you mock another for.

I didn’t intend to mock. Reading it again, I can see how my questions could have conveyed a mocking tone. However, the reason I asked those questions was because the Catholic convert appeared to have a church preference based on criteria that doesn’t sound very Catholic. To me, at least. I would have thought that criteria would have changed in the course of conversion, but perhaps I assumed wrongly. That was why I asked.

I could tell you that I would never participate in Campus Crusade for the following reason. The sinners prayer as you know is not biblical. You may also not know that the Campus Crusade sinners prayer is copyrighted. Wow…copyrighted christianity…did Jesus have a patent on love and forgiveness…

Is that what passes for charitable on this Catholic forum?

Christians believe that on our own we can do nothing, even respond to God…

That’s been my experience, yes.

many Protestant believe that by hearing words spoken by a Preacher you are moved to a sinners prayer and accept Jesus…

Words spoken by a preacher can be really helpful, but the life-changing transformation part is entirely up to God.

you call a Baptism a cue for God and it does not matter if it is water or words…

I would only call it a cue for God if it’s accompanied by a belief in a guarantee of baptismal regeneration.

you believe that on the cue of the words spoken and the cue of your confession God does something to you…

That’s not what I believe, and it might interest you to know this: That hasn’t been my experience, either.

Paul warned me of people like you…do you who say don’t mock…mock…blind guide…

Really? Can we call each other blind guides on here? I wasn’t aware; I think I need to read through the rules and regs more carefully.

 

[geoformeo]

No, I’m not, unless you believe that all assertions are implicitly infallible. I certainly don’t believe that. The fact that I recognize my own beliefs to be fallible doesn’t make me cease having those beliefs.

Of course all assertions are not implicitly infallible. But do you not agree that some are? In matters of the physical universe, we have the scientific method and mathematics as our authorities to (in some cases) make infallible declarations regarding the natural world. In a similar sense, there are infallible declarations in the realm of faith and morals–we just have a different infallible authority is all. Also, just because you recognize your own fallibility does not mean that there is no such reality as infallibility.

This passage, as translated (Catholic Public Domain Version) is ambiguous. The foundation of truth could be God, or it could be the Church. Either way, there is no implication of infallibility unless you add a lot more theological assumptions.

What does it mean to be the pillar and foundation of truth? Any errors or imperfections in any pillar or foundation will lead to the destruction of the building with time. Just as a chain is only as good as its weakest link, so a structure is only as good as its foundation or pillars. And if Jesus was God (John 10:30), and Jesus was Truth Incarnate (John 14:6), and if God’s Church is the pillar and foundation of such Truth, how can you not clearly see an implied infallibility in this statement?

I don’t know a thing about heaven, or even whether it exists. I also don’t know that these passages are an accurate record of the words of Jesus, or that your interpretation of them is accurate. For example, I don’t know if “binding and loosing” implies that Peter is given the authority to teach in heaven.

This is what I was afraid of. The discussion has started and progressed in the wrong spot. Of course you cannot accept Church authority if you question the very nature of God or heaven or Jesus’ divine Sonship or the reliability of the gospels. That’s not to say that I haven’t enjoyed what we have discussed or that our discussion to this point has been unfruitful, I would be more inclined to cease this discussion and begin a new discussion about these other more fundamental topics first.

But even if he was teaching infallibly, it doesn’t follow that his teaching was recorded, preserved, understood, and transmitted infallibly.

Yes it does, if the authority with which Jesus was able to teach and forgive sins infallibly was infallibly given to the Church (John 20:21-23).

Outside of scripture, you and I don’t have a clue what God would and wouldn’t do, and even within scripture we are reminded that His ways can’t be expected to make sense to us. So we can’t just help ourselves to this premise that God wouldn’t leave us without infallible teachings.

Of course we know what God would and wouldn’t do outside of scripture. That is why Jesus built a Church, and why we have philosophy. He never anywhere commanded that the New Testament be written! Scripture is an aid, it is not the be-all-end-all of Christianity (that is a Protestant notion). The Bible is anything but all-inclusive. And we can help ourselves to the premise that He would leave us infallible teachings because that would be a result of His being omnibenevolent.

Not only that, we have to take into consideration the fact that humanity is much, much older than the Church, and widely dispersed. An inescapable consequence of this fact is that for eons before the Church, and even since the time of Jesus, vast numbers of people have been allowed by God to live and die without a hint of these infallible teachings that God supposedly want his people to be without. A plausible inference from this is that God isn’t all that concerned about infallible teaching after all.

A couple things here. One, God did leave infallible teachings to humanity prior to the Church: in the form of both physical natural laws and the Natural (Moral) Law (again, Lewis’ Mere Christianity is excellent on this point). And two, the vast majority of the Church’s infallible teachings apply to Christ, who obviously wasn’t physically around for the vast eons of humanity prior to His arrival on Earth. So of course these Jesus-specific infallible teachings needn’t be there for the pre-Christ humans.

There’s simply no way to know. And all that does not add up to a case for infallibility.

Nor does that make a case for non-infallibility. It is the same with the arguments for the existence (or lack thereof) of God. Nothing is absolutely conclusive, but there is a whole lot of circumstantial evidence that makes a pretty dang good case for His existence. I argue the same evidence for the infallibility of the Church holds sway over the evidence against.

Well yes, if the Church were granted Christ’s infallibility then it would be infallible. My point is simply that the claim that the Church was granted Christ’s infallibility is itself based on a skein of entirely fallible assumptions.

Yes, if it were only humans who were making the claim. It boils down to was Jesus God or not? If He was, then He could allow for His Church to make infallible proclamations about Himself. If not, then…what are we doing wasting our time talking about Him and His Church?

 

[geoformeo]

Hi Geoformeo—

It’s sister. I’ll step back into this discussion later. I did have a blessed day!—thanks.

Amen, sister! I’ll look forward to it when you have the time!

 

[andrewstx]

Well, I am an evangelical Christian, I do not know how you came to the conclusion that Evangelical Christians think of themselves as the only Christians. I have yet to meet one who thinks that, but I am sure there are at least a few. I believe many Catholics are Christians. However, I have met many Catholics who believe that only their Catholic Church is the only true Church of Jesus Christ.

Well, we are Christians only. We are not muslims, nor Jews, Secular Humanists nor any other religion. How about Catholics. Do not all Catholics also consider themselves Christians."

 Of course Catholics consider oureselves Christians, but not the only Christians.

But tell me, do you believe that there are many genuine non-Catholic Christians?

Yes of course, but we would define Christian differently I would say one who beleives
and has been baptised. You might say "some one who has “been saved” and baptism
has nothing to do with it other than obedience to Christ’s command and is something you
do after “getting saved”.

And I agree with you. There is the receiving of the indwelling Holy Spirit by which we enter into a personal relationship with God, with Whom we talk with Him and walk with Him, daily.

We beleive we are given the Holy Spirit at baptism and is reinforced at confimation.

Yes, we agree with the Catholics that Baptism is very important, for through Baptism we enter into the protections of the New Covenant and the New Laws of Jesus Christ by becoming true Christians.

Let me ask you a question Andrew, if we evangelicals enter Heaven en mass - as evangelicals, would you be disappointed?

No of course.

Well that is good.

I would never be disrespectful toward the woman who was Jesus mother on earth. She was truly blessed to be the one to give birth to Jesus, and for Mary and Joseph to be the earthly parents raising the boy named Jesus, our Messiah…

But I also believe Mary bore many children with Joseph, her husband, as mentioned in the NT, because the Greek words clearly mean that Jesus had male and female - brothers and sisters. I see this as a wonderful thing.

The word brother in Greek can mean any relative,like cousin, It does not have to mean
brother in the literal English sense. The N T was not written in English.

I do not believe that Catholic saints are omniscient and omnipresent

I am not sure, but I beleive that all Christians living and dead are united in the
communion of saints.

I do not believe Peter is the chief cornerstone of the Christian Church. Jesus only called Simon ‘Petros’, meaning a rock. Then Jesus said that on this ROCK (Petra) I will build my Church. That Rock is Jesus, and Jesus used the name Petra to highlight that the Rock is Himself, not Petros, upon whom the church will be built upon. as foretold, and acknowledged by Peter in his first letter. Peter has this honor because he was the apostle who first acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah.

I do believe that we are not save because of our perfect knowledge or deeds.

Nor do I.

So we do have our differences, but both Catholic and and Evangelicals will be saved by simply by accepting that Jesus is the perfect Lamb of God whose Blood has washed away all our sins for all time, and whom enter into a daily fellowship with God, who will transform our very nature that we may do the good that God has always wanted us to do. And by following 1 John 1-10.

And we also have the Laws of Jesus Christ of the New Covenant to guide our walk with God and with each other. It is a joy to be a Christian.

I believe there is more to salvation than a mental “accepting of Jesus as your personal Saviour”. The sacraments commanded by Jesus to me play a vital mandontory part.
Baptism forgives sins and is not just a symbol done after your sins are aLREADY forgiven by “getting saved”. That is biblical, baptism forgiving sins.

I need to further explain what I meant by the generic use of Christian. By using it that way you seem to mean that your “Christian” bookstores, schools, tv and radio startions are the only ones that are Christian, and Catholic, Episopal, and Lutheran schools tv stations are not Christian by using their churches names. It is a fact that we are all Christians, and it is also a fact that we don’t belevie the same things or have the same doctrine.

 

[krahnicles]

Just curious:

How do you think it’s going?

Could be better. I’d like for it to be better. Is that something you’d like as well? Or is it more like a pretext- that is to say, a reason given in justification of a course of action that is the real reason?

Every Christian belonging to the CC believes that it is God Who is ultimately in charge, which is why God is the ONE who holds the key of David. After all, Jesus is the great Davidic King.

Hey, cool! You must have looked up those passages about the Key to the House of David. Tell PJM to look at those too, ok?

Isaiah 22 is referring to the keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household, for the Davidic king. There were actual keys regarding the OT kingdom. The chief steward didn’t walk around with just one key. Agreed?

Are you saying it’s ok to go with “keys to the House of David” even though it consistently says “Key to the House of David”? Is this your way of saying “singular, plural, what difference does it make”?

So Peter was the only one to possess the keys to the kingdom…and upon his demise, all Christians, from the 1st century to the present, now possess the keys to the kingdom,?

No, Peter was not the only one to possess the keys to the kingdom, which are clearly not the same thing as the Key to the House of David. Additionally, these were keys with a purpose. Jesus shared them with all His disciples, and when they went to all the nations making disciples, they were meant to share them with their disciples as Jesus did with them.

Contrast this with the Key to the House of David, which no one but Jesus has ever possessed. That one doesn’t get shared.

For 1000 years all Christ followers were Christians belonging to the Catholic Church,

Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, a few other Oriental Orthodox churches from both Africa and the Mideast that were never in union with Rome…seriously, why do you say things like “for 1000 years all Christ followers”? Have you never heard of the monophysite/miaphysite controversy? Council of Chalcedon sound familiar? Do you know anything at all about the first 1000 years of Christianity? Seriously. Come on.

You do realize there have always been Christians who followed Christ while not being citizens of the Roman Empire, yes? Please tell me you realize this is true.

at which point Jesus’ one church divided into the CC in the east and the CC in the west,

Ok, again, this is just Roman Christianity. You’re talking about Roman Christianity of the East and Roman Christianity of the West, and this did not come close to encompassing the entirety of the Church. Christians within the Empire at that time may have had a small-minded view of the world in which the Roman Empire was all that mattered and everything else was outside the “known world,” but you really need to demonstrate that you’re able to see past that.

until the 16th century, at which point certain Christians belonging to the CC in the west protested and eventually left the CC and started their own unique movements which eventually became established churches, and they couldn’t agree on many things, such as the Eucharist, which was the inevitable cause of more and more division…

Yay for the West! All of these unique movements are rather unique to the West, yes? Why do you think this only happened to the western portion of the Roman Empire and not, say, the East or the Oriental Christians or the African ones? Why did this Protestant phenomenon only happen to churches in communion with Rome?

The following is a scriptural basis for excommunication.

That’s cool. When was the Archbishop of Canterbury excommunicated, what was his name, precisely why was he excommunicated, and what was it that happened exactly?

How does it work in protestantism considering the fact that scripture alone (no church teaching office) - is the Christians final arbiter via individual interpretation?

In my experience, leaders of an individual congregation will make decisions on problematic individuals. In my part of the US, there’s also a group of people that can be called upon to mediate internal discord and help them reach a more impartial decision, along with placing interim or replacement pastors as necessary in order to help stabilize a church and restore it to functionality. That organization is called Bible Related Ministries. It was headed up by Chuck Svoboda for most of its history, but friend of my church and friend of the family Dave Bauer now heads it up. I had lunch with him and his wife (and a few other people) on Sunday. He filled us in on a lot of what they do and the different experiences they’ve had at various churches. It was nice. Not the first time I’ve talked to him about it, but it is the first time since Chuck stepped out of the day-to-day and asked him to take over.

The results depend on the situation and the response of different parties to the attempts at reconciliation. In some cases, reconciliation is achieved and differences are worked out. Others require the board to draw up some kind of agreement, others require legal action where certain parties are banned from the premises. It depends on the degree to which people decide to be reasonable or crazy. Either way, BRM is there to help.

Hypothetically, as a sola scriptura proponent, if I were to start a 21st century church and deny core protestant teachings such as the Trinity, I could still rightfully claim to belong to the One Body?

No, I wouldn’t think so.

I was just curious, if you don’t mind me asking:

Do you defer to a particular church when it comes to, say, the interpretation of scripture, or simply trust your own discernment regarding doctrinal truth?

The short answer: No, and no.

 

[Telestia]

I believe there is more to salvation than a mental “accepting of Jesus as your personal Saviour”. The sacraments commanded by Jesus to me play a vital mandontory part.
Baptism forgives sins and is not just a symbol done after your sins are aLREADY forgiven by “getting saved”. That is biblical, baptism forgiving sins.

I need to further explain what I meant by the generic use of Christian. By using it that way you seem to mean that your “Christian” bookstores, schools, tv and radio startions are the only ones that are Christian, and Catholic, Episopal, and Lutheran schools tv stations are not Christian by using their churches names. It is a fact that we are all Christians, and it is also a fact that we don’t belevie the same things or have the same doctrine.

Hello Andrew.

What you wrote as addressed to me seems to be totally alien to me. It does not seem to relate to anything that I wrote. Perhaps you meant these comments for someone else.

 

[krahnicles]

I am glad that God has moved you to believe in Him.

Thanks. He did a lot more than that, though. There’s more to becoming a Christian than just believing in God. There’s also the thing where you become a Christian.

Is baptism necessary in your opinion?

If you’re asking if regeneration normally coincides with the time at which a person is baptized, I would say it does not. I base this on the fact that regeneration normally doesn’t coincide with the time at which a person’s baptized. That’s how it usually happens, man.

"Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.”

Parallel construction is rather important in this chapter of John. Jesus had to explain Himself multiple times and say the same thing in multiple ways, mostly because Nicodemus didn’t understand what Jesus was telling him. Luckily for us, it also allows us to compare slightly different phrases that clearly mean the exact same thing. Let’s take a look, shall we?

From verse 3: “Unless one is born again [or from above], he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
From verse 5: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
Verse 7: “Do not marvel that I say to you, you must be born again [or from above]”.

Jesus essentially restates the same message in each of these verses. The interpretation that makes the most sense is one in which Jesus mentions water as a reference to the purifying aspect of spiritual rebirth (or birth from above, if that makes you more comfortable…see, there it is again! Slightly different words, but the same meaning). The mention of water gives you a little more information, but it doesn’t mess up the unity of the three separate restatements that all say essentially the same thing. OTOH, if one out of those three includes a requirement for a certain sacrament that needs to coincide with spiritual rebirth, that puts you way off base with the other two parallel explanations. It doesn’t preserve the unity of Jesus’ equivalent re-statements.

Water is one of the main descriptors associated with purification. Fire is another one. This is a lot like when Jesus said John came to baptize for the forgiveness of sins, but He came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire is no different from baptizing with the Holy Spirit; matter of fact, this is another one that give you parallel phrases in different places. There’s a couple of times when the same story is told in two or three different gospels, and Jesus’ words are recorded with the “and fire” addendum in one or more of them while they’re not recorded in the other(s). It’s the same thing here, except water is the optional descriptor of the purifying nature of rebirth instead of fire.

But you know what? If that single phrase was the only thing I had to go on and I didn’t have parallel descriptions immediately surrounding it, yeah, I could see how your thing could make sense. Fortunately, Jesus did have to repeat Himself several times.

 

[joe370]

krahnicles;8498744]Could be better. I’d like for it to be better. Is that something you’d like as well? Or is it more like a pretext- that is to say, a reason given in justification of a course of action that is the real reason?

It’s a pretext. LOL…Just joking around. We are brothers in Christ and should therefore act accordingly.

Hey, cool! You must have looked up those passages about the Key to the House of David. Tell PJM to look at those too, ok?

Nah, he’s well informed…

Are you saying it’s ok to go with “keys to the House of David” even though it consistently says “Key to the House of David”? Is this your way of saying “singular, plural, what difference does it make”?

Both suggest the same thing as I have illustrated on this thread, but hey, I could be wrong, which is why, in the end, I defer to the church I believe to be the church founded by Jesus when it comes to these sort of matters that divide. I’m just not that confident that my understanding of scripture, (when it comes to doctrines that divide, eg the keys) - is the the right one. To each their own…

No, Peter was not the only one to possess the keys to the kingdom, which are clearly not the same thing as the Key to the House of David. Additionally, these were keys with a purpose. Jesus shared them with all His disciples, and when they went to all the nations making disciples, they were meant to share them with their disciples as Jesus did with them.

OK, but I still can’t find the chapter and verse that says: “Jesus shared the keys with all His disciples…”

Contrast this with the Key to the House of David, which no one but Jesus has ever possessed. That one doesn’t get shared.

Of course, the following just makes sense, to me anyway:

If the Davidic kings in the OT had a chief steward to take care of administrative matters in his house, then Jesus, the long awaited Davidic King of kings, would also have a chief steward to take care of administrative matters in His “house of the living God.” Again, if you disagree, that’s OK.

Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, a few other Oriental Orthodox churches from both Africa and the Mideast that were never in union with Rome…seriously, why do you say things like “for 1000 years all Christ followers”?

Agreed. These were distinct communions since the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, due to disputes over the nature of Christ.

Have you never heard of the monophysite/miaphysite controversy? Council of Chalcedon sound familiar? Do you know anything at all about the first 1000 years of Christianity? Seriously. Come on.

Sure I do.

You do realize there have always been Christians who followed Christ while not being citizens of the Roman Empire, yes? Please tell me you realize this is true.

Hmm, I am sensing a tone as I progress…

Ok, again, this is just Roman Christianity. You’re talking about Roman Christianity of the East and Roman Christianity of the West, and this did not come close to encompassing the entirety of the Church. Christians within the Empire at that time may have had a small-minded view of the world in which the Roman Empire was all that mattered and everything else was outside the “known world,” but you really need to demonstrate that you’re able to see past that.

I agreed with you, so as you can see, I am flexible.

Yay for the West! All of these unique movements are rather unique to the West, yes? Why do you think this only happened to the western portion of the Roman Empire and not, say, the East or the Oriental Christians or the African ones? Why did this Protestant phenomenon only happen to churches in communion with Rome?

You seem to be the expert; you tell me.

I guess I was right about said tone. I think were done now. You are a little too defensive/combative for me.

 

[CopticChristian]

I live in America, and the churches I’ve attended were all founded in America.

I live in America, and the churches I’ve attended were all founded in America.

Well then that means you are not Lutheran, Presbyterian/Reformed, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Anabaptist, Waldensian, Swedenborgian, Amish, Menoninite, Old Catholic, Hutterite, Puritan, Moravian or Hugenot.

The Pentacostal movement started in the USA. AOG started in the USA, 7th day Adventist started in USA, 4 Square, Calvary Chapel, Church Nazarene, African Methodist, Jehovah Witness and Mormon.

Now you may belong to one of the non-denominational groups…the denomination of non.

Was I close?

 

[CopticChristian]

If I’m not mistaken the large majority of Coptic Christians are not part of Catholicism but more akin to Eastern Orthodoxy. Actually, they are independent and have their own Pope. There are some Coptic Catholics and some Coptic Protestants, but these are small groups when compared to the others who trace their origin back to St, Mark, their first Pope.

Well, some history is always important. Mark the Apostle founded the Coptic Church. The One Holy Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church were once one…so as you may imagine there is an Orthodox Coptic and Catholic Coptic Church. Mark did not found any Protestant sect. Taking the name Coptic Protestant is akin to saying American Protestant…Irish Protestant…a regional designation…There were no Protestants at the time of St. Mark founding the Church in Egypt.

Now it is possible that Luther, Zwingli, Knox, Calvin transported themselves, however I have not seen that in writing.

 

[CopticChristian]

I believe you are confused.

I have a real relationship with Jesus. I love Him, and He loves me. And His perfect love cast out all fears. I fear not because He who is in me is greater than he who is in the world. If HE is for me, who can harm me, or separate us.

When He takes me in His arms
He speaks to me so low
I see my life en rose

He tells me words of love,
Every Day these words,
And this does something to me.

He has entered my heart,
With a happiness,
Of which I know the cause,

It’s Him for me, and me for Him, in my life,
He tells me this, everyday, of my life,

And these things become apparent,
Then I sense in me, my beating heart.

I thought that love was just a word
They sang about in songs I heard
It took your death to reveal
That I was wrong and love is real

TTFN

Telestia

I am not confused, it was you that stated friends say you appear to be Calvinist. Calvinits are confused, in my opinion.

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay, this one last post.

Again, Judgement requires a verdict of guilty or innocence, and in the case of Guilty, a punishment must be executed on the one convicted of guilty. This is what ‘Judgement’ is.

I merely gave my opinion, a point of view. Which is open to discussion and other point of views, as you just gave and I am replying to your view.

You are confused. I judge this to be true or false. There is no guilt or innocence involved. I believe that you are confused by the declaration of judging a guilty criminal, a sinner, innocent on account of Christ…the confusing understanding of Protestant Justification through a misunderstanding of the letter to the Romans.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m sorry. I’m not entirely familiar with this “charitable” term, but I get that I’m not coming across as a good forum member and I should try to do better.

I’ll keep that in mind. I was, however, attempting to comment on a juxtaposition that seems generally accurate to me. The juxtaposition: Protestants can generally shop around at a variety of different congregations in their area that all have acceptably sound doctrine, and since all other things (like the doctrine) are pretty much equal, their church home is generally determined by factors like music, preaching style, which people they like best, and the place that lets them get involved with programs that let them serve the church in ways that fit their strengths. Catholic parishes tend to serve a larger number of people per parish while serving a relatively large physical area, and this is not by accident- Catholics are supposed to be Catholic because it’s the One True Church and you can turn nowhere else for the Fullness of Truth, and Catholics are generally supposed to show up out of necessity rather than out of a preference for something like preaching style, the order of the service, or the relative amount of time that’s spent on some part of the service.

If you think this juxtaposition is wrong in some way, I invite your (name removed by moderator)ut. But let me remind you, it wouldn’t be all that unfeasible for Catholic parishes to be a bit more numerous and a bit smaller in numbers per parish. It would improve the ratio of total members to members with meaningful responsibility, it would allow different parishes to divide the labor and focus on different needs in a community, and it would give different kinds of Catholics some slightly different kinds of options based on their differing needs and preferences. I assume there’s some kind of reason why this sort of setup is largely characteristic of Protestant churches while it’s typically quite uncharacteristic of Catholic parishes. I don’t know exactly what that reason is, but I have observed that this seems to be the juxtaposition.

Your comments?

I didn’t intend to mock. Reading it again, I can see how my questions could have conveyed a mocking tone. However, the reason I asked those questions was because the Catholic convert appeared to have a church preference based on criteria that doesn’t sound very Catholic. To me, at least. I would have thought that criteria would have changed in the course of conversion, but perhaps I assumed wrongly. That was why I asked.

Is that what passes for charitable on this Catholic forum?

That’s been my experience, yes.

Words spoken by a preacher can be really helpful, but the life-changing transformation part is entirely up to God.

I would only call it a cue for God if it’s accompanied by a belief in a guarantee of baptismal regeneration.

That’s not what I believe, and it might interest you to know this: That hasn’t been my experience, either.

Really? Can we call each other blind guides on here? I wasn’t aware; I think I need to read through the rules and regs more carefully.

If for me my relationship with Christ is living in a monastery is all I need, If for me going to one Church and adoring the Sacrament is all I need, if for me going to one Church, taking care of my family is all I need, if for me going to on Church saying the rosary every night is all I need…I can offer myself on a pyre for Sacrifice and if I have not love then I am as a gong or a clanging symbol. What you need is not a standard to judge what others need.

Do you have a measuring cup for the graces of the Holy Spirit? Maybe you run on empty and that is why you bounce around so much and judge others that do not.

Protestants have no such thing as a Monastery, Ascetic Life, or living their entire life apart from the world for God…this is why you do not understand that we all wish to live like that as we participate in the world…filled with whatever it is the Lord gives us…

 

[krahnicles]

Perhaps the chief steward did in fact actually walk around with just a big key, either on his shoulder or attached to his shoulder by a belt or strap, worn as a sign of authority, but I am not sure why it matters if the word “keys” is used rather than “key”?

It matters because when you use one set of words vs. another set of words, it indicates that you’re talking about two different things. One set of words is “the Key to the House of David,” which Jesus possesses and has never given to anyone. The other set of words is “the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven,” and Jesus gave these keys to all His disciples.

These are different things. That’s why it matters. It also matters because PJM told me the CC possesses the ONE KEY to the Kingdom (he even used all caps), and this is demonstrably false. When there is just one Key to speak of, Jesus possesses it in Isaiah, He still possesses it in Revelation, and there’s no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that He transferred possession of this Key to anyone else.

Both convey the same thing - authority over the king’s house, and Jesus’ kingdom and house on earth ("…in the household of God. This is the church of the living God") - is His church, even if one thinks of that kingdom and house as all of the autonomous churches on earth, as one house.

Let me see if I understand what you’re saying: The key of the chief steward is equivalent to the Key to the House of David, and just so we’re clear, Jesus possesses this Key in both Isaiah and Revelation and He never gives it to anyone. Is that right so far?

The point is:

In Isaiah 22, the key carried by the chief steward of the kingdom was an ensign of authority to open and shut, in other words, to let in or keep out of the king’s house.

This is ok, insofar as the Key to the House of David (always possessed by Jesus and given to no one else) is equivalent to the Key to the Davidic Kingdom.

The same language is used regarding just Peter, and in both cases, God is the ultimate key holder.

No. It’s not the same language. The Key to the House of David is handled with different language than the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and it’s a bigger difference than one being singular and the other plural (although that is more significant than what you’re allowing for). The difference is this: The Key to the House of David is always possessed by Jesus and it’s given to no one else. The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven are given to Peter and they’re also given to the rest of the disciples. (Future reference- you should mention that; the way you handled this made it look like you were trying for deception by omission). Anyway…that’s one of the main differences. The singular Key goes nowhere, whereas the set of Keys is put in the hands of many different people and it goes everywhere.

Jesus holding the key of David, which just makes sense, certainly does not negate the authority of the keys He gave to Simon, renamed Peter, as the chief steward of His church.

I keep saying the Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom. So of course one doesn’t negate the other when completely different language is used to describe what they are and what’s done with them; this actually reinforces my point. Which is, once more with feeling: The Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom. Are you making this connection?

What would be the relevance/point of giving Peter the keys and saying, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” - and then taking them right back?

That would be really silly, and it’s also not what happened. You know why? Because the Key to the House of David is a completely different thing from the Keys to the Kingdom, so when Jesus gave the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Disciples, He wasn’t giving them the Key to the House of David. That one belongs to Him alone.

"These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. I know your deeds. See, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut…

This is just more evidence of different language used for the Key of David as opposed to the Keys to the Kingdom. Here’s that difference.

“What he opens no one shall shut”- that’s the Key to the House of David. Reinforced on multiple occasions, at that.

“What he opens no one shall shut”- words that are not used to describe what is conferred on the recipients of the Keys to the Kingdom of God. Instead, this language is used: " Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ." Put into an accurate English translation, it says this: “Amen/Again, I say to you- what(so)ever you bind upon (the) earth must be what has already been bound in heaven, and what(so)ever you loose upon (the) earth must be what has already been loosed in heaven.” Again, this language is used on several different occasions.

But the important thing is…they’re different keys, and different language is consistently used throughout. The grammatical structure and word selection of ἔσται δεδεμένα/ἔσται λελυμένα is especially interesting for several reasons- one, because it’s so rare; two, because it’s so difficult to translate; and three, because the only time anything of the sort shows up anywhere in the Bible, it’s explicitly associated with the Keys to the Kingdom.

Again, different language. This language is unique to the singular Key (open and no one shall shut), whereas that language is unique to the Keys to the Kingdom (ἔσται δεδεμένα/ἔσται λελυμένα). Different key/s, different language, completely different habits of distribution.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks. He did a lot more than that, though. There’s more to becoming a Christian than just believing in God. There’s also the thing where you become a Christian.

If you’re asking if regeneration normally coincides with the time at which a person is baptized, I would say it does not. I base this on the fact that regeneration normally doesn’t coincide with the time at which a person’s baptized. That’s how it usually happens, man.
Parallel construction is rather important in this chapter of John. Jesus had to explain Himself multiple times and say the same thing in multiple ways, mostly because Nicodemus didn’t understand what Jesus was telling him. Luckily for us, it also allows us to compare slightly different phrases that clearly mean the exact same thing. Let’s take a look, shall we?

From verse 3: “Unless one is born again [or from above], he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
From verse 5: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”
Verse 7: “Do not marvel that I say to you, you must be born again [or from above]”.

Jesus essentially restates the same message in each of these verses. The interpretation that makes the most sense is one in which Jesus mentions water as a reference to the purifying aspect of spiritual rebirth (or birth from above, if that makes you more comfortable…see, there it is again! Slightly different words, but the same meaning). The mention of water gives you a little more information, but it doesn’t mess up the unity of the three separate restatements that all say essentially the same thing. OTOH, if one out of those three includes a requirement for a certain sacrament that needs to coincide with spiritual rebirth, that puts you way off base with the other two parallel explanations. It doesn’t preserve the unity of Jesus’ equivalent re-statements.

Water is one of the main descriptors associated with purification. Fire is another one. This is a lot like when Jesus said John came to baptize for the forgiveness of sins, but He came to baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Baptizing with the Holy Spirit and with fire is no different from baptizing with the Holy Spirit; matter of fact, this is another one that give you parallel phrases in different places. There’s a couple of times when the same story is told in two or three different gospels, and Jesus’ words are recorded with the “and fire” addendum in one or more of them while they’re not recorded in the other(s). It’s the same thing here, except water is the optional descriptor of the purifying nature of rebirth instead of fire.

But you know what? If that single phrase was the only thing I had to go on and I didn’t have parallel descriptions immediately surrounding it, yeah, I could see how your thing could make sense. Fortunately, Jesus did have to repeat Himself several times.

Understand that this is what you learned as to how it happens. What you learned may not be true. I learned something different and I believe it to be true. I believe you are wrong. What you might consider is where this teaching came from and how in time you can trace it backwards to see where it came from…then you might understand and not be so flippant…with your “this is how it happens man”. Arrogance and pride will serve you poorly, particularly when the foundation upon which you put forth ideas is at best shaky.

 

[joe370]

krahnicles
These are different things. That’s why it matters. It also matters because PJM told me the CC possesses the ONE KEY to the Kingdom (he even used all caps), and this is demonstrably false. When there is just one Key to speak of, Jesus possesses it in Isaiah, He still possesses it in Revelation, and there’s no evidence (Biblical or otherwise) that He transferred possession of this Key to anyone else…

I’ll try to follow what you believe to be truth regarding the key of David:

So, the only others to possess the key of David (other than King Jesus) - were the chief stewards of the Davidic kings of old. For example, the key to the House of David was carried by the chief steward Eliakim son of Hilkiah. The “key of the house of David” in this passage represents the office of chief steward or master of the royal household. Like other kings the Davidic monarchs were served by various stewards or ministers empowered to exercise authority in the king’s name. Among these was the one “over the household,” as Shebna is called in 22:15, and as Eliakim is called in Isaiah 36:3.

The NT keys (plural) - given to Peter, by King Jesus, have no correlation with the key of David held by the various stewards, empowered to exercise authority in the Davidic king’s name.

Simon, renamed Peter, since he was not given the key to the house of David, is not King Jesus’ chief steward, empowered to exercise authority in King Jesus’ name.

Is that about it?

 

[krahnicles]

It’s a pretext. LOL…Just joking around. We are brothers in Christ and should therefore act accordingly.

There is a reason I ask that way. I support unity, but at the same time, I accept the reality that some of us are non-Catholic while others are Catholic. But…we should still try to be unified. The general vibe I get from Catholicism is that you guys are in favor of unity, insofar as you’re able to convert all non-Catholics to Catholicism. You see ecumenism without conversion as relatively healthy when compared to fighting, but you don’t really see it as unity. Thus, you favor unity, but not as a goal in and of itself. What you really favor is the universal reign of your Catholic monarch, and unity is used as the pretext for that.

So here’s what I want to ask that I haven’t had a chance to ask a Catholic to this point: If you’re truly in favor of unity among all Christians, both Catholic and non-, what is your fallback option if converting all of Christianity to Catholicism doesn’t work out? (And let’s be honest, it’s not going to work out). You see, if you have a fallback option of some kind, that means you’re truly committed to unity as a goal in and of itself. But if you insist that there is no plan B and universal conversion to the RCC is the only way, that means universal conversion is the real goal and unity is the pretext- that is to say, “unity” is the reason given in justification of a course of action (converting everyone). Also, “unity” is not the real reason- you really just want to convert everyone.

Would you like to demonstrate that unity is truly your goal and you’re not just using it as a pretext? Tell me about your fallback option. If you have one, you’re not guilty of pretexting.

OK, but I still can’t find the chapter and verse that says: “Jesus shared the keys with all His disciples…”

He was speaking to all of His disciples in Matthew 18.

If the Davidic kings in the OT had a chief steward to take care of administrative matters in his house, then Jesus, the long awaited Davidic King of kings, would also have a chief steward to take care of administrative matters in His “house of the living God.” Again, if you disagree, that’s OK.

I think you missed something important in this whole thing: Jesus is the chief steward. He is the one who possesses the Key to the House of David, and He gives it to no one. He has it because His Father gave it to Him. Alone.

The Keys to the Kingdom, on the other hand, represent something completely different. And once again, the Key to the House of David and the Keys to the Kingdom are completely different things.

Agreed. These were distinct communions since the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, due to disputes over the nature of Christ.

I’m glad you know about those. When speaking to Protestants in the future, would you please omit inaccurate statements like the one you initially made? And you could also include distinct communions prior to the Council of Chalcedon.

You seem to be the expert; you tell me.

Really? Ok. How about this. Part of the fallout of the Great Schism was a more-vertical shift in the organization of the CC in the West. It became less conciliar than it had ever been, and the result was a complete lack of transparency on any level that allowed for a uniquely huge amount of abuse that a more conciliar setup would curtail- if not in the short term, at least in the long term. These changes were largely made by popes that were good men and good leaders (ie., Innocent III), but these changes were the kind that further upset an already-kind-of-poor balance of power that allowed for later abuses to go unchecked. There were a number of steps on the way to the breaking point- first, good men (and a few bad men) made some bad changes to how the Magisterial leadership was structured. Then some bad men demonstrated that corruption and abuse could generally go unchecked. Next, this intriguing possibility got the attention of the most corrupt and abusive people on the planet, and they took advantage. Then when the tipping point was nearly reached…the Black Death swept over Europe and turned it into a post-Apocalyptic hellscape. Anything along the lines of a Reformation was tabled in favor of survival. But once Europe bounced back, the abuses were still there and the Reformation was back on. And then it happened. For people like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, doctrinal issues and abuses were the primary concern. For everyone else, it had to do with money, nationalism, consolidating their own power, an urbanizing shift that made the abuses of Catholic leadership more apparent to a larger number and wider range of judging eyes…all kinds of reasons. Usually not doctrinal, for the vast majority of lay dissenters. Although those things were still important to men like Luther- he shared those concerns as well. It’s a really large component of the 95 Theses. But there were also doctrinal issues of importance to him, and this was not true for most of the anti-Rome folks in the HRE.

The main reason this is unique to Western Catholicism is this: It’s structured in the worst possible way and bad people eventually took full advantage of it. No other system of apostolic leadership is structured in such an abuse-friendly way (including Catholicism of the first millennium). Given enough time, that kind of ticking time bomb is eventually going to go off, and trust was broken beyond repair. If you’re looking for one single reason why you never saw a bomb explode anywhere else, it’s because no one else re-structured their leadership that badly. They weren’t perfect, but they didn’t screw themselves up to such a great extent that a Reformation (or Revolt, if you want) was inevitable.

 

[joe370]

krahnicles…

Really? Ok. How about this. Part of the fallout of the Great Schism was a more-vertical shift in the organization of the CC in the West. It became less conciliar than it had ever been, and the result was a complete lack of transparency on any level that allowed for a uniquely huge amount of abuse that a more conciliar setup would curtail- if not in the short term, at least in the long term. These changes were largely made by popes that were good men and good leaders (ie., Innocent III), but these changes were the kind that further upset an already-kind-of-poor balance of power that allowed for later abuses to go unchecked. There were a number of steps on the way to the breaking point- first, good men (and a few bad men) made some bad changes to how the Magisterial leadership was structured. Then some bad men demonstrated that corruption and abuse could generally go unchecked. Next, this intriguing possibility got the attention of the most corrupt and abusive people on the planet, and they took advantage. Then when the tipping point was nearly reached…the Black Death swept over Europe and turned it into a post-Apocalyptic hellscape. Anything along the lines of a Reformation was tabled in favor of survival. But once Europe bounced back, the abuses were still there and the Reformation was back on. And then it happened.

For people like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli, doctrinal issues and abuses were the primary concern. For everyone else, it had to do with money, nationalism, consolidating their own power, an urbanizing shift that made the abuses of Catholic leadership more apparent to a larger number and wider range of judging eyes…all kinds of reasons. Usually not doctrinal, for the vast majority of lay dissenters. Although those things were still important to men like Luther- he shared those concerns as well. It’s a really large component of the 95 Theses. But there were also doctrinal issues of importance to him, and this was not true for most of the anti-Rome folks in the HRE.

The main reason this is unique to Western Catholicism is this: It’s structured in the worst possible way and bad people eventually took full advantage of it. No other system of apostolic leadership is structured in such an abuse-friendly way (including Catholicism of the first millennium). Given enough time, that kind of ticking time bomb is eventually going to go off, and trust was broken beyond repair. If you’re looking for one single reason why you never saw a bomb explode anywhere else, it’s because no one else re-structured their leadership that badly. They weren’t perfect, but they didn’t screw themselves up to such a great extent that a Reformation (or Revolt, if you want) was inevitable.

Gee, tell me how you really feel. LOL…Well, as I am sure you believe, the Catholic Church was never founded by Jesus Christ, on Pentecost, in Jerusalem anyway - correct, so what’s it really matter in the grand scheme of things, regarding protestants like yourself?

From what I can glean from your posts, the autocephalous Byzantine eastern orthodox churches, the non chalcedonian oriental churches, (and any I am missing) - the catholic church, have all failed in major ways including the preservation of doctrinal truth in certain instances.

I guess that just leaves us with protestantism…