K
Kristina_P
Guest
Lazerlike42 said:
I’d love to, but RealPlayer hates my computer. I’ll attempt to find some other version of it.
- Status
I’d love to, but RealPlayer hates my computer. I’ll attempt to find some other version of it.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Thanks so much for the answers you’ve so graciously given. And thank you for your prayers. I am praying for wisdom in this matter and have faith that God will grant it. I’ll continue to lurk around these forums and occasionally join in the conversation.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Interestingly, he said, “I am the truth,” not “My church is the truth,” or “My teaching is the truth,” or “My way is the truth.” He vests truth entirely in himself, rather than in any representation, including his own.
It is wonderful that you can so very confidently predict the behaviour of Almighty God, who claims that his thoughts are as far above our thoughts as the heavens are above the earth.
As foolish as I am, I suspected that God might be pleased indeed if a Jewish or Muslim convert continued to worship in the synagogue or mosque, where he or she might share a new understanding of God with the other worshippers, dangerous thought that may be.
However, the refusal to define a singular form of worship as the One True Way is not equivalent to a statement of the existence of plural truths, nor to a statement of indifference regarding truth. When an agnostic says that he or she does not know whether there is a God, that is neither a profession of a belief in the simultaneous existence and non-existence of a Deity nor a profession of apathy regarding divine ontology. It is, instead, an honest admission of a lack of certitude.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Interesting points, Mystophilus. In Acts, weren’t the earliest Christians continuing to worship in the Temple?
I recently heard a story about the origins of one of the Protestant denominations. It was founded, not from a division of one church, but from the uniting of two very different churches. These churches laid aside everything but the central pillars of our common faith; in other words, they “resolved to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.” Unfortunately, this unity only lasted a generation or two, and they split again. I think there’s a lesson to be learned here, though. If we could set aside those doctrines which we all agree aren’t strictly necessary for salvation and work from that common ground, making unity a real goal and letting the Spirit be our guide, I don’t think I doubt that we’d all end up believing pretty much the same things. In fact, I’m starting to believe that in such a situation of true conversation in brotherly Christian love, we’d all end up Catholics! We wouldn’t even need the “Roman” distinction.
I recently heard a story about the origins of one of the Protestant denominations. It was founded, not from a division of one church, but from the uniting of two very different churches. These churches laid aside everything but the central pillars of our common faith; in other words, they “resolved to know nothing but Christ and Him crucified.” Unfortunately, this unity only lasted a generation or two, and they split again. I think there’s a lesson to be learned here, though. If we could set aside those doctrines which we all agree aren’t strictly necessary for salvation and work from that common ground, making unity a real goal and letting the Spirit be our guide, I don’t think I doubt that we’d all end up believing pretty much the same things. In fact, I’m starting to believe that in such a situation of true conversation in brotherly Christian love, we’d all end up Catholics! We wouldn’t even need the “Roman” distinction.
P
Pax
Guest
I fail to see how your distinctions might impact Matthew 16:18-19 or any of the following scriptures:
John 1:17
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
John 16:13
When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
1 Cor. 2:13
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit,** interpreting spiritual truths ** to those who possess the Spirit.
Eph 1:13
In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,
Col. 1:5
Of this you have heard before in **the word of the truth, the gospel **
1 Tim. 3:15
if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, **which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. **
2 Peter 2:2
And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
P
Pax
Guest
Kristina P.:
The Roman distinction which you mention is somewhat misleading. Within Catholicism we have the Roman Catholic rite, the Malachite, the Chaldean, the Byzantine rite and others. All of the rites of the Catholic Church are slightly different except in the areas of doctrine and authority. They are all united under the Bishop of Rome.
Ecumenism is alive and well and ecumenical dialogue has been going on for some time. The Catholic/Lutheran accords of recent years would be a great case in point. The dialogues are great and the exploration of common ground essential. This breaks down unnecessary barriers. This is, however, never to be done at the expense of truth in doctrine, faith, or morals.
The Roman distinction which you mention is somewhat misleading. Within Catholicism we have the Roman Catholic rite, the Malachite, the Chaldean, the Byzantine rite and others. All of the rites of the Catholic Church are slightly different except in the areas of doctrine and authority. They are all united under the Bishop of Rome.
P
Pax
Guest
Kristina,
You are a person that sees the similarities and common ground. You see the beauty of Christian love and brotherhood bound together in the love we share for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the divisions are many within Christianity and the reasons and traditions that separate the various denominations are not insignificant.
Go to ten different denominations and you will find ten different teachings on baptism. Pick a topic and you will discover serious differences in the understandings. Religious beliefs are extremely important to people and compromise is impossible because serious believers do not believe in compromising the truth. The Fundamentalist movement was an effort to reduce Christian doctrines to a short list of essentials that everyone could agree on. Although the founders of this movement were well intentioned it failed to produce the desired results. Unity has not been forthcoming.
The dynamics and complexities that are at work in reunification are of no small import. I personally believe that any compromise of the truth would be disastrous. We will never have the unity that Jesus prays for in John chapter 17 if we do not possess the truth in doctrines. The following passages also help us appreciate the importance doctrine.
Romans 6: 17-18
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Romans 16: 17-18
I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
Ephesians 4: 13-14
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
1 Timothy 1: 3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
1Timothy 4: 1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4: 6-8
If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness;
for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
You are a person that sees the similarities and common ground. You see the beauty of Christian love and brotherhood bound together in the love we share for the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the divisions are many within Christianity and the reasons and traditions that separate the various denominations are not insignificant.
Go to ten different denominations and you will find ten different teachings on baptism. Pick a topic and you will discover serious differences in the understandings. Religious beliefs are extremely important to people and compromise is impossible because serious believers do not believe in compromising the truth. The Fundamentalist movement was an effort to reduce Christian doctrines to a short list of essentials that everyone could agree on. Although the founders of this movement were well intentioned it failed to produce the desired results. Unity has not been forthcoming.
The dynamics and complexities that are at work in reunification are of no small import. I personally believe that any compromise of the truth would be disastrous. We will never have the unity that Jesus prays for in John chapter 17 if we do not possess the truth in doctrines. The following passages also help us appreciate the importance doctrine.
Romans 6: 17-18
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Romans 16: 17-18
I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
Ephesians 4: 13-14
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
1 Timothy 1: 3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
1Timothy 4: 1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,
1 Timothy 4: 6-8
If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness;
for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
I apologize. What I said earlier was worded pretty badly. When I said we should set certain points of contention aside, I meant it in the same way as you would say to a friend with whom you disagree, “Let’s set this aside for awhile to concentrate on what we agree on. We’ll come back to it when our friendship is strong enough to handle it in a better way.” While I used that story to illustrate that it’s possible for us to work and worship together as brothers and sisters, it also illustrates that compromise is not fruitful. A foundation of common ground, though, builds love, and love is the basis of submission, which is what Protestantism rejected in the first place. I don’t blame the Church for asking Her children to accept Her teaching. I just get frustrated when any Christian makes full agreement a PRErequisite to dialogue or to working alongside one another. I know this is not the position of the Catholic Church or anyone on this board, but it’s an attitude that’s all too prevalent among Protestants and Catholics alike.
T
Tigerhawk
Guest
Kristina P.:
The difference is subtle but very important, and I have just learned it myself recently so if I don’t get it exactly right I invite others to correct me.
You have the answer. Grace is sufficient for salvation. Faith alone is not.
The reason is free will. God does not override free will. So when you come to a true faith you must also do the work of submitting your will to him as well. God provides us the Grace to do both, but we must submit ourselves.
Grace does not turn us into slaves to God compelled to perform good works. We must perform the work of choosing to become humble servants each and every day i.e. we must take up our crosses daily.
To your overall general pursuit, others have already suggested this, but I would add my personal experience.
I am a so called cradle Catholic, but my faith formation was lacking and I lived a good portion of my life separated from the church and I always had problems with certain teachings of the church.
When I came back I decided I wanted to really do what was right and to do that I had to know the truth. So I began to research each of the teachings I “disagreed with” or didn’t understand and each and everytime so far I have found that without a shadow of a doubt the Catcholic Church has the truth and its reasons are so wide and deep that it was shocking (then not any longer).
Since, then while I have not researched every teaching I have come to a total faith in the Church because I know if I research and dig for the truth (and I mean the whole truth) I will find it and that the Church’s teachings will be inline with it.
Anyway, the suggestion is to look into each of the teachings you disagree with individually and accept only whole truth. If you get stuck bring them here and ask specific questions about individual teachings. I have complete faith you will always end up agreeing with the Catholic teaching.
Never stop searching for the truth.
The difference is subtle but very important, and I have just learned it myself recently so if I don’t get it exactly right I invite others to correct me.
You have the answer. Grace is sufficient for salvation. Faith alone is not.
The reason is free will. God does not override free will. So when you come to a true faith you must also do the work of submitting your will to him as well. God provides us the Grace to do both, but we must submit ourselves.
Grace does not turn us into slaves to God compelled to perform good works. We must perform the work of choosing to become humble servants each and every day i.e. we must take up our crosses daily.
To your overall general pursuit, others have already suggested this, but I would add my personal experience.
I am a so called cradle Catholic, but my faith formation was lacking and I lived a good portion of my life separated from the church and I always had problems with certain teachings of the church.
When I came back I decided I wanted to really do what was right and to do that I had to know the truth. So I began to research each of the teachings I “disagreed with” or didn’t understand and each and everytime so far I have found that without a shadow of a doubt the Catcholic Church has the truth and its reasons are so wide and deep that it was shocking (then not any longer).
Since, then while I have not researched every teaching I have come to a total faith in the Church because I know if I research and dig for the truth (and I mean the whole truth) I will find it and that the Church’s teachings will be inline with it.
Anyway, the suggestion is to look into each of the teachings you disagree with individually and accept only whole truth. If you get stuck bring them here and ask specific questions about individual teachings. I have complete faith you will always end up agreeing with the Catholic teaching.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
Alas, I was raised in the Calvinist “heresy,” and it took me long enough just to understand that! I have a feeling that a full understanding of free will is even more complicated. Seeing that it’s a pretty big part of most orthodox Christianity, though, I have a question that you may be able to answer: Why do some people submit to Christ and others don’t? Doesn’t this simple fact mean that we are, in part, responsible for our own salvation, which means that grace is not sufficient? If there’s something lacking in the person who does not accept Christ, did God create him with that lack? Did God, in fact, damn him in the act of creating him? Wouldn’t this then be Calvinism?
T
Tigerhawk
Guest
Kristina P.:
I admire what you are doing here, and I hope you will keeping digging for the truth. If you are in sincere and open in your search you will find it.
However, classifying dogmas as major and minor is a dangerous business.
Be careful with this kind of thinking.
I admire what you are doing here, and I hope you will keeping digging for the truth. If you are in sincere and open in your search you will find it.
However, classifying dogmas as major and minor is a dangerous business.
T
Tigerhawk
Guest
Kristina P.:
Free Will is a huge subject the following link has a lot of information about it. That site in general is also a very good resource.
newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat
I thank you for asking this question because it has opened up a very big area to which I need to devote time and learning.
However, the following from the above link may help you. It was written in condemnation of the views of Luther and Calvin.
“The Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam’s fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v)”
Good for you. Keep digging.
Free Will is a huge subject the following link has a lot of information about it. That site in general is also a very good resource.
newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat
I thank you for asking this question because it has opened up a very big area to which I need to devote time and learning.
However, the following from the above link may help you. It was written in condemnation of the views of Luther and Calvin.
“The Council of Trent declared that the free will of man, moved and excited by God, can by its consent co-operate with God, Who excites and invites its action; and that it can thereby dispose and prepare itself to obtain the grace of justification. The will can resist grace if it chooses. It is not like a lifeless thing, which remains purely passive. Weakened and diminished by Adam’s fall, free will is yet not destroyed in the race (Sess. VI, cap. i and v)”
P
Pax
Guest
Kristina,
A great book that covers free will, grace, Calvinism, and salvation is James Akins The Salvation Controversy. I’ve read the book three times and occassionally refer to it for a refresher in this area. I highly recommend it.
As far as your question is concerned, I would answer it this way. Scripture tells us that God desires that all men be saved[1 Tim 2:3-4,1 Tim 4:10,1John 2:2, and Rom 11:32]. God gives all men the necessary grace to be saved, but he does not force men to accept Him. In the case of the elect that are “predestined” for heaven, God gives each of them sufficient efficacious grace to enable them to follow His call and to do His will. In the case of the damned, God gives the “necessary” grace for salvation but it is rejected. God’s grace is not irresistable. This is made clear in Acts 7: 51 which says, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.” If grace were irresistable, the gift of free will would be negated and everyone would go to heaven.
I hope this helps.
A great book that covers free will, grace, Calvinism, and salvation is James Akins The Salvation Controversy. I’ve read the book three times and occassionally refer to it for a refresher in this area. I highly recommend it.
As far as your question is concerned, I would answer it this way. Scripture tells us that God desires that all men be saved[1 Tim 2:3-4,1 Tim 4:10,1John 2:2, and Rom 11:32]. God gives all men the necessary grace to be saved, but he does not force men to accept Him. In the case of the elect that are “predestined” for heaven, God gives each of them sufficient efficacious grace to enable them to follow His call and to do His will. In the case of the damned, God gives the “necessary” grace for salvation but it is rejected. God’s grace is not irresistable. This is made clear in Acts 7: 51 which says, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.” If grace were irresistable, the gift of free will would be negated and everyone would go to heaven.
I hope this helps.
J
JohnPaul0
Guest
Kristina P.:
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”
This sufficiency of grace really has nothing to do with with or not we exercise our free will by accepting or rejecting God’s sufficient grace in our lives. So, we are responsible for our salvation only as far as whether or not we accept that grace.
Your search is inspiring and admirable. I have a passage for you from Proverbs 2, verses 1-5. Keep looking, and God promises that you won’t fail!
"*f you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God"
*
Kristina, let me try to clarify. The sense in which grace is sufficient is that it is sufficient to enable our salvation and make up for our deficiencies, which you can see from the full quote of 2 Cor 12:9:
“But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.”
This sufficiency of grace really has nothing to do with with or not we exercise our free will by accepting or rejecting God’s sufficient grace in our lives. So, we are responsible for our salvation only as far as whether or not we accept that grace.
Your search is inspiring and admirable. I have a passage for you from Proverbs 2, verses 1-5. Keep looking, and God promises that you won’t fail!
"*f you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,
and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,
and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God"
*
K
Kristina_P
Guest
This actually sounds like the version of “calvinism” I’ve always subscribed to. I’ll definitely read that book you suggested.
P
Pax
Guest
Five point Calvinists believe in double predestination which teaches that the damned are simply passed over by God and simply have no chance at salvation. Akin’s book shows all of the common ground between Calvinism and Catholicism and points out how close the two views are when it comes to TULIP. Akin does not explore in great depth the differences because his intention is to provide a bridge in understanding. I think you will find it worthwhile for exploring common ground while still respecting the areas of difference.
R
robertaf
Guest
Hi Kristina
Been reading this thread with greatest interest. I also grew up, mostly in Southern Baptist churches, although I visited for short times a variety of other Protestant and Pentecostal types over the years.
The best thing I learned during my conversion and later in my Catholic life is that there is a big difference between Doctrine and Theology. I think this was finally established for the lay folks (and many clergy) to be aware of after Vatican II. I became Catholic in 1955 quite sometime before V II.
At that time, we believed almost all teachings were doctrine and could never be changed and must be believed. For example: all unbaptized babies went to limbo and you must abstain on all Fridays. That is only two but there were others as well.
It was hard, then to accept everything. And… the Church was really teaching “there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church”, with little or no explaination. We were restricted from stepping foot inside a non-Catholic Church.
Later, after Vatican II, the Clergy were required to go back to school and be re-taught about these things. Then the lay folks, especially those of us teaching all the different forms of Catholic Religion were re-taught.
The fact is, very very few CATHOLICS believe or accept all the many theologies and teachings. And…these can and often do change over time.
Doctines are infallible and unchangable. These are the things new converts strive to believe and judging from the fast growth in the Church are experiencing better teaching.
I wish you would try to isolate and question those that are stumbing blocks for you. If you could be very specific, it is quite possible we could help you with them.
In the end, you may still find it hard to accept everything. Address this later. It may not be the stumbling block you think it is.
Been reading this thread with greatest interest. I also grew up, mostly in Southern Baptist churches, although I visited for short times a variety of other Protestant and Pentecostal types over the years.
The best thing I learned during my conversion and later in my Catholic life is that there is a big difference between Doctrine and Theology. I think this was finally established for the lay folks (and many clergy) to be aware of after Vatican II. I became Catholic in 1955 quite sometime before V II.
At that time, we believed almost all teachings were doctrine and could never be changed and must be believed. For example: all unbaptized babies went to limbo and you must abstain on all Fridays. That is only two but there were others as well.
It was hard, then to accept everything. And… the Church was really teaching “there is no Salvation outside of the Catholic Church”, with little or no explaination. We were restricted from stepping foot inside a non-Catholic Church.
Later, after Vatican II, the Clergy were required to go back to school and be re-taught about these things. Then the lay folks, especially those of us teaching all the different forms of Catholic Religion were re-taught.
The fact is, very very few CATHOLICS believe or accept all the many theologies and teachings. And…these can and often do change over time.
Doctines are infallible and unchangable. These are the things new converts strive to believe and judging from the fast growth in the Church are experiencing better teaching.
I wish you would try to isolate and question those that are stumbing blocks for you. If you could be very specific, it is quite possible we could help you with them.
In the end, you may still find it hard to accept everything. Address this later. It may not be the stumbling block you think it is.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
(I am assuming, for the purpose of discussion, that the text is inerrant.)
Perhaps what impacts most upon Mt 16:18-9 is the difference in the Greek text between “petros”, Peter, the pebble or separate piece of rock, and “petra”, the rock on which Jesus will build, the bedrock whence the pebbles come. According to the text, Jesus did not say that he would build the church on Peter.
Of the others, John 1:17 and 16:13 assert the existence of truth, but neither sites that truth within an ideology. 1 Cor. 2:13 refers to an ability to express “truths” (“pneumatika”; ‘spiritual things’), and is, significantly, plural.
Now, Eph 1:13 and Col. 1:5 are the most interesting to me, in that both do make an explicit connection, but that the word of truth, the “logos” (qv John 1:1) is the announcement (“euangelion”) of salvation. Once more, the connection between Jesus and the truth is far closer than that of teacher and doctrine: Jesus is the truth which has been taught.
Regarding 1 Tim. 3:15, there is no definite article before “stulos” (pillar), which does not mean that one cannot be assumed. However, it does raise the question of the uniqueness of that pillar, especially because stuloi are not normally found alone. Again, the truth is not delimited.
2 Peter 2:2, like the verses in John, does not delimit the location of the truth (even without the possibility that “he” could be ‘that’ rather than ‘the’).
So, none of of the verses contradicts that reading of John 14:6. Of course, that does not make the reading correct.
S
StCsDavid
Guest
Kristina P.:
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and encourage you to keep searching for the truth. Look with your heart as much as with your head.
One question I have for you is that you stated you believed in the Nicene creed. Part of that creed says that we believe in an apostolic church. What does that word apostolic mean to a Protestant? I’ve never really asked how it gets interpreted in your faith.
Yours in Christ
David
Hey Kristina,
I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and encourage you to keep searching for the truth. Look with your heart as much as with your head.
One question I have for you is that you stated you believed in the Nicene creed. Part of that creed says that we believe in an apostolic church. What does that word apostolic mean to a Protestant? I’ve never really asked how it gets interpreted in your faith.
Yours in Christ
David
K
Kristina_P
Guest
To tell you the truth, neither have I. I’ve only in the past couple of years become familiar with the creed, and apostolic succession was only briefly mentioned in confirmation class. So, I’ll just quote for you from the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer: “Q: Why is the Church described as apostolic? A: The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent to carry out Christ’s mission to all people.” Now, whether or not you believe that it continues in ALL the teaching of the apostles…
- Status