S
SteveGC
Guest
…because “To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant” * Cardinal John Newman* That’s just more conjecture on my part, JR
Only michael knows for sure, of course. I’m sure he’ll let us know why.
- Status
Only michael knows for sure, of course. I’m sure he’ll let us know why.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Hi Michael,
You gave me quite a lot to respond to; I’ll tell you what I’ll respond to what I decide and if I have disappointed you maybe you can re:state or re:ask something. Regarding the “binding and loosing”, I’ll leave that alone for now as I was just jumping on the Baptismal Regeneration in an attempt to show you how I believe that your Scripture interpretation is incorrect if you reject Baptismal Regeneration. When I held to “Sola Scriptura”, actually I used Protestant Bible commentaries etc., but anyway, I rejected Baptismal Regeneration. I believe now that my interpretations were incorrect.
A couple of points I want to make;
That being said; there is no contradiction between the ECF’s and the Apostles regarding Baptism; rather a contradiction between your interpretation of the Bible and the ECF’s.
Regarding novel interpretations of Scripture, I believe that this quote by Vincent of Lerins applies:
“Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])”
(catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) (accessed 9/ 10/ 09)
You gave me quite a lot to respond to; I’ll tell you what I’ll respond to what I decide and if I have disappointed you maybe you can re:state or re:ask something. Regarding the “binding and loosing”, I’ll leave that alone for now as I was just jumping on the Baptismal Regeneration in an attempt to show you how I believe that your Scripture interpretation is incorrect if you reject Baptismal Regeneration. When I held to “Sola Scriptura”, actually I used Protestant Bible commentaries etc., but anyway, I rejected Baptismal Regeneration. I believe now that my interpretations were incorrect.
A couple of points I want to make;
- You pit the ECF’s and Apostles against each other as if they disagreed; I don’t believe that they did; at least regarding Baptismal Regeneration. That is not to say that the ECF’s are infallible but I am saying that, at least in this specific case, you appear to be making a false dichotomy; that is when you asked me if I were present in front of Jesus, Paul, Peter, and the ECF’s. I believe that we would all be on the one side whereas you (assuming you reject the teaching of the Apostles and ECF’s on Baptism) would be on another–regarding that Doctrine.
- Unless you are a JW or something, which I don’t believe you are, the people I refer to as ECF’s were early Christians found in the 1 Church established by Christ. If you are a Christian, than I believe that they are your predecessors too (if you’re not comfortable w/ “Fathers.”) Although, I would submit that they do “belong” to the Catholic Church as in they are part of one and the same Catholic Church that you disagree with. Even you too maybe part of this Church , albeit in a different way.
- Regarding your personal interpretation of Scripture about Baptism:
That being said; there is no contradiction between the ECF’s and the Apostles regarding Baptism; rather a contradiction between your interpretation of the Bible and the ECF’s.
Regarding novel interpretations of Scripture, I believe that this quote by Vincent of Lerins applies:
“Therefore, as soon as the corruption of each mischievous error begins to break forth, and to defend itself by filching certain passages of Scripture, and expounding them fraudulently and deceitfully, forthwith the opinions of the ancients in the interpretation of the canon are to be collected, whereby the novelty . . . may be condemned. But the opinions of those Fathers only are to be used for comparison who, living and teaching, holily, wisely, and with constancy, in the Catholic faith and communion, were counted worthy either to die in the faith of Christ or to suffer death happily for Christ. Whom yet we are to believe on this condition, that only is to be accounted indubitable, certain, established, which either all or the most part have supported and confirmed manifestly, frequently, persistently, in one and the same sense, forming, as it were, a consentient council of doctors, all receiving, holding, handing on the same doctrine. But whatsoever a teacher holds, be he a bishop, be he a confessor, be he a martyr, let that be regarded as a private fancy of his own, and [let it] be separated from the authority common, public, general persuasion. (Commonitoria 28:72-23 [A.D. 434])”
(catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1051) (accessed 9/ 10/ 09)
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I can really realte to this quote even though I don’t know if my readings have been "deep
". I just but barely scratched the surface…but scratched far enough:thumbsup:
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Soc in post 37 I got on board this discussion train, this way…
*I’d like to be rescued, but the only way i can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to get me home safely. That’s my goal. The method i’d like to take is to avoid heated debate, have a little fun, and take my time to really think through what each of you have to say.
So, please convince me: Tell me why i should trust the authority of the Catholic Church. *
Hi Soc !
Nice to see you again here . I do appreciate your approach.
For my couple of cents after the valuable advice you received I could propose this simple ( hopefully not too
simplistic ) line-
I’d enjoy reading your own answers ( if this is socratically correct ).
- Where should any Christian authority come from ? My guess: Christ
- Who did legitimately receive authority from the Apostles ? My guess: those they ordained to succeed them
- Where are these successors in the western world ? My guess: _______________
A first probable objection you could read in a protestant forum. “He (or that faith community) is apostolic, who has the same faith as the Apostles. Who cares this so called succession ?”.
That, as you can see, amounts to turning apostolicity into a mere subjective claim of orthodoxy, far from the objective marker it used to and should be. end of quotation
I’d hope I remember pretty well why we’re here.
Around post 400, and again some pages after, I got the perception that you have come to share with the rescuing team the principle of petrine primacy. Which, in itself, would be a great achievement of the thread IMHO.
I guess we have been travelling mainly through Apostolic Succession region since then, and don’t know where we are within that.
Am I more or less right '?
That was the easy part.
What at this point looks to me difficult is… How can I help now ?
Bless you
P7
L
LionHeart777
Guest
To be fair, I re-read what I wrote (above) and I don’t think Sola Scriptura and using commentaries are contradictory. However, I personally go for the commentaries/writings of the ECF’s as I believe that reading Scripture divorced from Tradition can lead to error.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
http://i.ehow.com/images/GlobalPhoto/Articles/2267731/poker-main_Full.jpg
I know nothing of the author’s book, but i’m willing to bet the author is unwise. (And i bet you’re dying to know if i’m bluffing!) But you have to place your bet, or fold, before i lay my cards on the table. I’m putting a thumbs up in the pot. So either see my thumbs up (and give me a thumbs up icon
if my winning hand proves your author unwise) or fold.Only then will i show you my hand. (Never thought of this before, but the Socratic Method is a little like playing poker!)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
And you think it obvious that a man like Peter–after receiving such authority from Jesus Himself–could never speak the will of the Holy Spirit and also the will of Satan?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Thanks for saying so. I hate to admit it, but too often i remind myself of Barney!
funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Thanks, soc. That made my day. I’m a huge Barney Fife fan.
And Andy III, I really like the bridge concept you’ve got going. Great imagination. Good luck with it, I’ll help anyway I can. Looks like Soc is stuck at the infallible and binding/loosing planks
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, Apostolic Succession is a fine whistle stop on the way. But what is the final destination that is printed on my train ticket? To where, did i say, am i trying to get?Dear Soc in post 37 I got on board this discussion train, this way…
*I’d like to be rescued, but the only way i can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority i can trust to get me home safely. That’s my goal. The method i’d like to take is to avoid heated debate, have a little fun, and take my time to really think through what each of you have to say.
So, please convince me: Tell me why i should trust the authority of the Catholic Church. *
Hi Soc !
Nice to see you again here . I do appreciate your approach.
For my couple of cents after the valuable advice you received I could propose this simple ( hopefully not too
simplistic ) line-
I’d enjoy reading your own answers ( if this is socratically correct ).
2)To whom did Christ pass authority ? My guess: the Apostles, constituted by Himself
- Where should any Christian authority come from ? My guess: Christ
4)Where can we find today the legitimate Christian authority ? My guess: in the legitimate successors of the Apostles.
- Who did legitimately receive authority from the Apostles ? My guess: those they ordained to succeed them
Bypassing the Church and her authority, in order to get a seemingly direct contact with Christ, means IMHO, on the contrary, setting aside ( at least severely de-emphasizing) that central tenet of Christianity which is Incarnation, Christ’s own life among human beings, the Apostles’ unique experience alongside Him.
- Where are these successors in the western world ? My guess: _______________
A first probable objection you could read in a protestant forum. “He (or that faith community) is apostolic, who has the same faith as the Apostles. Who cares this so called succession ?”.
That, as you can see, amounts to turning apostolicity into a mere subjective claim of orthodoxy, far from the objective marker it used to and should be. end of quotation
I’d hope I remember pretty well why we’re here.
Around post 400, and again some pages after, I got the perception that you have come to share with the rescuing team the principle of petrine primacy. Which, in itself, would be a great achievement of the thread IMHO.
I guess we have been travelling mainly through Apostolic Succession region since then, and don’t know where we are within that.
Am I more or less right '?
That was the easy part.
What at this point looks to me difficult is… How can I help now ?
Bless you
P7
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
J
JRKH
Guest
I am disappointed in this response as it smacks of insincerity.I know nothing of the author’s book, but i’m willing to bet the author is unwise. (And i bet you’re dying to know if i’m bluffing!) But you have to place your bet, or fold, before i lay my cards on the table. I’m putting a thumbs up in the pot. So either see my thumbs up (and give me a thumbs up icon
Only then will i show you my hand. (Never thought of this before, but the Socratic Method is a little like playing poker!)
I recommended what I consider to be an excellent book. If you do not wish to read it, fro whatever reason, then fine, I accept theat. However I do not wish to play this game of hide and seek with your reasons. So I suppose you could say I will fold my hand on this matter.
Also, I must say that your overuse of images is getting a bit tiresome. Gives me the impression that you are more interested in the appearance of things than their substance.
James
J
JRKH
Guest
No I am not saying that.
However, in matters of faith and morals, or in the selection of another Apostle, He would be protected.
Peace
James
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Verily, verily i say to you that i could not be more sincere. I’m not playing games, James. But even if i’m wrong, and this is a game, it’s so much more than high-stakes poker. For what’s at stake is not the shirt off my back, or my life savings, or suffering bodily harm and death at the hands of a loan shark. No, what’s at stake is greater than these, for Jesus warns us:
What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul?
(Matthew 16:26)
All i’ve asked you to put on the table is a thumbs-up icon. I’ve put my very soul in the pot. And if i’m not taking that seriously, then you must take me for a complete fool, or think me completely insane!
So what’s it going to be, James? Are you going to fold, hold, or walk away? Me–i’ll sit here smoking a stogy, trying to preserve my poker face till you make up your mind.
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.
lyricsfreak.com/k/kenny+rogers/the+gambler_20077886.html
P
paul_c
Guest
Michael Smith,
the reason you can’t explain why Peter would baptize Cornelius household after they had already recieved the Holy Spirit, is that you are interpreting the Bible through a faulty perspective.
You, as a Protestant, have separated yourself from the Chruch. You therefore, must deny the efficacy of the sacraments, since they are not available to you outside the church without the ordained priesthood to administer, and you must believe that you can decipher the Bible better on your own, than we Catholics can with the help of the Church. You are a “go it aloner”
But this was never how Jesus set it up. In Matthew 16, he clearly says he would built his church, does he not? He himself created a hierarchy, naming apostles from among his disciples and giving Peter the keys as the head of the apostles. He chose to spread his word through the Church when being omnipotent, he could certainly have reached out to every individual on earth directly. But he didn’t, did he? He sent men out to convert other men. Apostles, disciples, missionaries. And he sent them out in their weakness, because he knew that would appeal to those who could see the love in others. He did not force people to believe, he allowed them to believe out of their own reason and free will He did this because he is pure love. And he did things in a visible way because that is what we can sense.
He gave us baptism to mark us spiritually with the sign of faith, but the action to be baptized is a visible act, where the faithful must make an outward gesture to gain the graces to be saved, to be forgiven their prior sins and to become a member of the church. Baptism plays a prominent role throughout the New Testament for this reason. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can be saved without being born of Water and Spirit. Jesus had his disciples Baptized and was even baptized himself for this reason.
We all have the Spirit of God within us. It is what gives us life. It speaks to us as our consciences as well. When the Holy Spirit descended on the the Disciples at Pentacost, it was to give them special powers. The power of tongues and of healing among them. And As St. Paul says, not everyone was given the same powers. These powes were conveyed in a very visible way at Pentacost, but it doesn’t mean at all that prior to that, The Holy Spirit was not giving them advice. Afterall, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the Holy Spirit had given Peter the insight that Jesus was Messiah, long before Pentacost. And in fact, we know from the Gospels that The Apostles were able to heal illnesses and drive out demons, prior even to the Ressurection.
I think your main misconception is the nature of the Holy spirit in man. The Holy Spirit guides men to the truth and in some cases, gives them spiritual power, but it does not force men to do things against their will. As I said, every man has the spirit of God within them. The question is, will they heed that spirit and do the will of God, or will they instead, go their own way and fall into sin? Note, The Spirit guides Peter to the truth that Jesus is the Messiah but it doesn’t keep him from Denying Jesus 3 times. But to Peter’s credit, he felt incredible remorse over this weakness and reconciled himself to God, never again denying him. The Power of God, is that he can take weak men and make them an instrument of his work. And so he did with Peter. Peter never sought to hide this weakness. He didn’t strike it from the records, which he could conceivably do as Pope. Instead, he made it a lesson of the mercy of God that would allow a repentent sinner, an self-acknowledged weak man, to become the head of his church, And God protected this weak man, and made him a fisher of men, and the protector of his flocks.
Look, you have set yourself up as an advisary to the Catholic Church and in doing so, you have set yourself up against the truth. Let go of the hatred and explore what the Chruch really teaches. Don’t ignor the Early Church Fathers, see what they have to say about their experiences with the Apostles and then make your conclusions. There are many, many people on this board that have gone through the exact same things you have in terms of their faith. Let them be witnesses to you. Follow your heart and see where it leads. The spirit has led you to these pages. Now its up to you whether you will take advantage of that and learn. The Church has two basic roles: to administer the life giving sacraments and to teach the truths about Jesus Christ and the road to salvation. It is a service organization, where its leaders live lives of poverty, chastity and obedience, emulating Jesus Christ. Take that to heart and let go of all the stereotypes you have been taught about it
the reason you can’t explain why Peter would baptize Cornelius household after they had already recieved the Holy Spirit, is that you are interpreting the Bible through a faulty perspective.
You, as a Protestant, have separated yourself from the Chruch. You therefore, must deny the efficacy of the sacraments, since they are not available to you outside the church without the ordained priesthood to administer, and you must believe that you can decipher the Bible better on your own, than we Catholics can with the help of the Church. You are a “go it aloner”
But this was never how Jesus set it up. In Matthew 16, he clearly says he would built his church, does he not? He himself created a hierarchy, naming apostles from among his disciples and giving Peter the keys as the head of the apostles. He chose to spread his word through the Church when being omnipotent, he could certainly have reached out to every individual on earth directly. But he didn’t, did he? He sent men out to convert other men. Apostles, disciples, missionaries. And he sent them out in their weakness, because he knew that would appeal to those who could see the love in others. He did not force people to believe, he allowed them to believe out of their own reason and free will He did this because he is pure love. And he did things in a visible way because that is what we can sense.
He gave us baptism to mark us spiritually with the sign of faith, but the action to be baptized is a visible act, where the faithful must make an outward gesture to gain the graces to be saved, to be forgiven their prior sins and to become a member of the church. Baptism plays a prominent role throughout the New Testament for this reason. In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that no one can be saved without being born of Water and Spirit. Jesus had his disciples Baptized and was even baptized himself for this reason.
We all have the Spirit of God within us. It is what gives us life. It speaks to us as our consciences as well. When the Holy Spirit descended on the the Disciples at Pentacost, it was to give them special powers. The power of tongues and of healing among them. And As St. Paul says, not everyone was given the same powers. These powes were conveyed in a very visible way at Pentacost, but it doesn’t mean at all that prior to that, The Holy Spirit was not giving them advice. Afterall, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, the Holy Spirit had given Peter the insight that Jesus was Messiah, long before Pentacost. And in fact, we know from the Gospels that The Apostles were able to heal illnesses and drive out demons, prior even to the Ressurection.
I think your main misconception is the nature of the Holy spirit in man. The Holy Spirit guides men to the truth and in some cases, gives them spiritual power, but it does not force men to do things against their will. As I said, every man has the spirit of God within them. The question is, will they heed that spirit and do the will of God, or will they instead, go their own way and fall into sin? Note, The Spirit guides Peter to the truth that Jesus is the Messiah but it doesn’t keep him from Denying Jesus 3 times. But to Peter’s credit, he felt incredible remorse over this weakness and reconciled himself to God, never again denying him. The Power of God, is that he can take weak men and make them an instrument of his work. And so he did with Peter. Peter never sought to hide this weakness. He didn’t strike it from the records, which he could conceivably do as Pope. Instead, he made it a lesson of the mercy of God that would allow a repentent sinner, an self-acknowledged weak man, to become the head of his church, And God protected this weak man, and made him a fisher of men, and the protector of his flocks.
Look, you have set yourself up as an advisary to the Catholic Church and in doing so, you have set yourself up against the truth. Let go of the hatred and explore what the Chruch really teaches. Don’t ignor the Early Church Fathers, see what they have to say about their experiences with the Apostles and then make your conclusions. There are many, many people on this board that have gone through the exact same things you have in terms of their faith. Let them be witnesses to you. Follow your heart and see where it leads. The spirit has led you to these pages. Now its up to you whether you will take advantage of that and learn. The Church has two basic roles: to administer the life giving sacraments and to teach the truths about Jesus Christ and the road to salvation. It is a service organization, where its leaders live lives of poverty, chastity and obedience, emulating Jesus Christ. Take that to heart and let go of all the stereotypes you have been taught about it
P
paul_c
Guest
We’re trying to help you, but you’ve heard from several of us now that you don’t seem to be taking this seriously. Perhaps its just a vestige of your personality. If you really are worried about your soul, start acting like it. Figure out what your real issues are with the Catholic Church , bring them up in respectful fashion, and we will try to help you resolve them. This free floating discussion will not get you anywhere, in my opionion. andy III tried to set up a logical flow for you to understand but really, it has to come from you. Identify what you actually believe and don’t believe . Let us explain where we differ and why and then you should prayerfully contemplate this.
P
Pax
Guest
The power to bind and loose carries with it protection from error when it comes to Church teaching on faith and morals. This is necessitated by the statement in the pertinent passages that says what is “bound on earth will be bound in heaven and what is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Revelation 21:27 indicates that “nothing unclean will enter heaven”. This truth necessitates protection from error in binding and loosing by the Church. The Church cannot bind or loose anything on earth that would be unclean and have such a thing bound or loosed in heaven for nothing unclean can enter heaven. This is the fundamental scriptural plank for the protection from error associated with infallibility. It is important not to misunderstand the teaching on infallibility. It is only protection from error when it comes to matters of faith and morals as they are officially proclaimed and taught as binding on the faithful. Is there a Christian alive today that would proclaim that the teaching on circumcision proclaimed by the first council in Jerusalem is in error? Is there any argument that this is a teaching that came from the Church and not directly from Jesus words in the gospel? This decision is the archetype and pattern of binding and loosing and the establishment of true doctrine under the protection of the Holy Spirit. This is infallibility at work.
I hope this helps.
Revelation 21:27 indicates that “nothing unclean will enter heaven”. This truth necessitates protection from error in binding and loosing by the Church. The Church cannot bind or loose anything on earth that would be unclean and have such a thing bound or loosed in heaven for nothing unclean can enter heaven. This is the fundamental scriptural plank for the protection from error associated with infallibility. It is important not to misunderstand the teaching on infallibility. It is only protection from error when it comes to matters of faith and morals as they are officially proclaimed and taught as binding on the faithful. Is there a Christian alive today that would proclaim that the teaching on circumcision proclaimed by the first council in Jerusalem is in error? Is there any argument that this is a teaching that came from the Church and not directly from Jesus words in the gospel? This decision is the archetype and pattern of binding and loosing and the establishment of true doctrine under the protection of the Holy Spirit. This is infallibility at work.
I hope this helps.
U
utunumsint
Guest
This is a question that we cannot answer since we are not God and we do not know the contents of Peter’s heart at the time of his decision. That being said, I sincerely believe that God would have intervened with Peter if God had been opposed to what Peter was suggesting, as he had done with the erring disciples on the way to Emmaus, and as he did several other times between the time of the resurection and Pentecost.
Lets look at all of Acts 1 so we can get the full context.
So here Luke is describing what he wrote in his previous book up until the Ascension. Notice that Jesus gave them instructions through the holy Spirit.
Here we see that Jesus was clearly instructing them throughout the fourty days, and building them up in the faith.
Again Jesus makes mention of the coming of the Holy Spirit and the power this will give them.
A beautiful description of the Ascension.
Here I think it is interesting that Luke describes them as praying together as a group. The eleven are reunited in hopeful faith and and expectation of the coming of the promised holy spirit. This seems to indicate to me that Peter was not simply acting on purely human motives, but was deep in prayer, as he usually is when some kind of new inspiration hits him. For example, the vision he had before going to Cornelius happened in this very same way.
Note that it was a very prayerful place. There is no hint of an evil influence, or a prideful attitude.
Continued
U
utunumsint
Guest
Peter has obviously been processing what had just happened, Jesus’ betrayal, the crucifixion, Judas’ suicide, the resurection, and the promise of power from above given to the apostles from Christ himself.
Again, notice the place they give to prayer. They appeal to God to govern their joint decision concerning the choice of the two, and then they leave the final decision up to God by using the method of the straws. Because they know themselves that it is only God who judges the hearts of men. Only God can protect and guarantee that their decision to elect a successor to Judas was a good one.
I see nothing wrong with how they did these things. They did these actions in a spirit of humility and prayer. All the apostles did this with one accord. There is no evidence of dicension or politiking or jokying for power. There is every indication that they felt it was necessary to complete the number of the apostles back to 12 before pentacost because they most likely truly believed that God’s restoration of Israel would be according to the old order of the 12 tribes.
Remember that they had not yet had any revelation that this restoration would include the gentiles. The church was still exclusively Jewish. Pentecost involved only Jews. The great missionary push would only come after further revelations to Peter concerning the gentiles. If you look at the dates, Paul’s conversion happened around three or four years after Pentacost, say 34 AD. He doesn’t really do anything for another thirteen or fourteen years 48 BC, and only after he consults with Peter, James, and John. So if Paul was the true choice of the Holy spirit for the replacement position of Judas, he took his time in revelating this fact. And there is no record of the apostles demoting Matthias and replacing him with Paul. (That would be a nasty thing to do after nearly 20 years of service.)
Anyway, I’ll leave the conclusions to you, but I don’t feel I can fault Peter and the Apostles for their joint choice of Matthias.
God bless,
Ut
P.S. I just wanted to make one final point about Peter’s motives. It seems to me that at the heart of it is the assumption that Peter is acting out of worldly motives, still expecting worldly power and dominion. But sometime during those fourty days, before the Apostles were reasembled together, we have this from John 21
Here Jesus is clearly explaining to Peter regarding the nature of his office as shepherd, and the future sacrifice he was called to make. Do you truly think it probable that he was thinking in purely worldly terms after having had this instruction from Christ?
J
JRKH
Guest
Oh but you are my friend. At least that is how it appears to those of us who have been talking with you for some time. Here is the Flow,
I made a book recommendation.
Instead of thanking and accepting or declining said recommendation, you asked a question - seemingly (to me) unrelated to that recommendation.
I answered that question and noted that it seemed unconnected.
You ignored that and asked asecond question which I also answered, again asking what was the connection.
You finally said this when I insisted that you give a reason.
I know nothing of the author’s book, but i’m willing to bet the author is unwise. (And i bet you’re dying to know if i’m bluffing!) But you have to place your bet, or fold, before i lay my cards on the table.
So - Which of us is playing a game?
To this I responded that I was disappointed. whether you read or don’t read the book is relatively unimportant. The only one who loses is you.
You really do seem to love to “Stain the gnat” don’t you. If it is your soul that is “in the pot” then act like it. Speak plainly and honestly. If you wish to ask questions, do so, but also be willing to answer questions posed to you.
Yea - here is a line that helps us to accept that you are serious.
My mind is made up on the matter and I expressed that in my previous post.
You may choose to accept my book recommendation or not.
You may choose to tell me WHY you accept it or not.
Both of these things are entirely up to you by virtue of your God Given Free will.
Me, I will move on to other questions of more significance to your soul than whether you read this book or not.
That’s my hand - “Laid on the table”.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Keep straining the gnats and missing the camels my friend.
I know I am posting twice on this one point but my wife needed me before I could complete my thought in the other post.
Peter was given Authority By Christ. He then shortly after made a comment that was not in accordance with what God had planned for Jesus and Jesus corrected him forcefully. So it is obvious that, should a person with such power have thoughts that are “of Satan”, no matters critical to the Church, they will be corrected by God.
Let’s look at the two instances. in the one, where peter prays Jesus not suffer, Peter is corrected by Christ. In the other, where Peter heads up the selection fo Matthias, there is no such correction. Surely if this action was not of God, or not approved by God, Luke would have, either not recorded the incident at all or would have recorded the correction that God made.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
To Everyone Posting on this thread.
I will say one thing more, in general, about this conversation.
Socrates4Jesus is giving us a prime example of why The Church, after nearly 2000 years, is as complex as she is.
Many Protestants, especially evangelicals and nondenominationals, try to get back to the “Root Church”, to the true “Biblical Church” of the early days. They long for the simplicity of the Gospel and they are right. The Gospel IS simple. Love God - with you rwhole heart mind and soul, Love neighbor as yourself. Believe on Christ, repent and be baptized. Pray to Our Father in Heaven in the words Christ Himslef gave us.
Simple right??
Well it is until you get people such as Socrates4Jesus who ask question after question after question. Now I am not saying this to get down on Soc4Jesus but rather to make the point that, just as we here try to answer these questions and clarify doctrines and issues, so has the Church from the early times on. Even those who form the new church communities based on the “Structure” in acts soon find themselves needing to answer questions that are not entirely clear from Scripture, or find themselves in disagreements over just what the “clear” meaning of scripture is.
For the Church, each question of substance that came up needed an answer, a clarification, based on the teachings of Christ and the Oral Tradition of the Church. Over time these answers formed into the large number of historical church teachings, the catachism, Canon Law and so forth. So today, some look at the Church and say - she is too full of rules, too complicated, to “restrictive” etc.
Well - Socrates4Jesus is giving us a good lesson in how and why such compexity forms.
Thank you Soc for this demonstration.
Peace
James
I will say one thing more, in general, about this conversation.
Socrates4Jesus is giving us a prime example of why The Church, after nearly 2000 years, is as complex as she is.
Many Protestants, especially evangelicals and nondenominationals, try to get back to the “Root Church”, to the true “Biblical Church” of the early days. They long for the simplicity of the Gospel and they are right. The Gospel IS simple. Love God - with you rwhole heart mind and soul, Love neighbor as yourself. Believe on Christ, repent and be baptized. Pray to Our Father in Heaven in the words Christ Himslef gave us.
Simple right??
Well it is until you get people such as Socrates4Jesus who ask question after question after question. Now I am not saying this to get down on Soc4Jesus but rather to make the point that, just as we here try to answer these questions and clarify doctrines and issues, so has the Church from the early times on. Even those who form the new church communities based on the “Structure” in acts soon find themselves needing to answer questions that are not entirely clear from Scripture, or find themselves in disagreements over just what the “clear” meaning of scripture is.
For the Church, each question of substance that came up needed an answer, a clarification, based on the teachings of Christ and the Oral Tradition of the Church. Over time these answers formed into the large number of historical church teachings, the catachism, Canon Law and so forth. So today, some look at the Church and say - she is too full of rules, too complicated, to “restrictive” etc.
Well - Socrates4Jesus is giving us a good lesson in how and why such compexity forms.
Thank you Soc for this demonstration.
Peace
James
- Status