Stumbling Block for Protestants?

[pocohombre]

Oh noes. The Jewish nation/religion was corrected by the only begotten son of God: Jesus Christ. In turn, He established His Church.

Man does not get to correct Christ’s Church, oh no no no. There is One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and She is with the Rock to which Christ established His Church, to which the Keys of the Kingdom were given, to that Shepherd appointed by Christ to Feed and Tend His sheep.

You, nor me, nor Luther, nor Calvin, nor any other mere human gets to correct that which only Christ can.

http://www.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/vandermeme-oh-no-you-dint.gif

Come on, I was just about to relax and watch my redbox movie (Oblivion). I like your “nooo” video.PR has some good ones too once in awhile.
Actually my point in the past is that the Jewish nation was perfect in it’s mission, despite it’s error(s). It’s how you look at it. They did bring forth the Christ child as promised all the way back to page 9 (Genesis) of our bible. So God was faithful. Same for NT promise. Depends on how you look at it. If church is only Roman Catholic one, then you must stick to your guns to keep God faithful but if you look at church even more universally (CC Orthodox, Protestant etc together) His faithfulness does not require infallibility of any of those three but is fulfilled with all in the mix.Was it Luther,Calvin, Huss,Savanarola, Wycliffe that reformed or was it Christ and the Holy Spirit thru them ? Again it is dependent on how you look at things…Sorry no video.You leave me laughing,(the video).Thanks.Good night.

 

[PRmerger]

On one level but equally or even more because God gave us the faith to do so (come on, Jonah swallowed by a whale ? You bet, yahoo ! Thank you Lord-for the faith to believe it, for once I did not and now I do, all cause of You).

I don’t see what the point of the above statement is.

With or without faith, you cannot know what books belong in the Bible, unless you give your submission to the CC.

Cannon technicalities aside (66 books or 72 or threrabouts.), that was my point, you may be right on one thing but wrong in something else, just like the Jewish nation/religion.

But how do you know the Church was right–let’s stick with the 27 book canon of the NT?

How do you know that the Church didn’t get it wrong in discerning Revelation to be theopneustos and the Didache not?

 

[PRmerger]

PR has some good ones too once in awhile.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

https://imgur.com/jFi4HM3

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Come on, I was just about to relax and watch my redbox movie (Oblivion). I like your “nooo” video.PR has some good ones too once in awhile.
Actually my point in the past is that the Jewish nation was perfect in it’s mission, despite it’s error(s). It’s how you look at it. They did bring forth the Christ child as promised all the way back to page 9 (Genesis) of our bible. So God was faithful. Same for NT promise. Depends on how you look at it. If church is only Roman Catholic one, then you must stick to your guns to keep God faithful but if you look at church even more universally (CC Orthodox, Protestant etc together) His faithfulness does not require infallibility of any of those three but is fulfilled with all in the mix.Was it Luther,Calvin, Huss,Savanarola, Wycliffe that reformed or was it Christ and the Holy Spirit thru them ? Again it is dependent on how you look at things…Sorry no video.You leave me laughing,(the video).Thanks.Good night.

The understanding of the Church is much more profound and part of the Salvific Mystery of Christ. It is not dependent on how we look at it, because that would mean a relativistic view. The Truth cannot contradict itself.

Have you taken a look at Dominus Iesus?

 

[PastorVW]

My evangelical pastor also seemed to believe the church fell off the tracks sometime after Nicea. There is no evidence of this though.

I would disagree. I see the church slowly drifting off course, although never so bad ly as to totally loose the essence of the Gospel. “Falling off of the tracks” is way too strong.

And absolutely no evidence that the early church resembled anything like modern evangelicalism.

And one could accurately say that, for the most part, it did not resemble the modern Catholic Church either. The early church lived and grew in a pagan culture, under persecution. It is not logical to expect it to look anything like a modern church - just as the persecuted church under Communism did not look much like the church in the West.

BTW, nothing like persecution to put our differences into perspective

What is critical, of course is: What was the 1st Century Church like in doctrine. I’m sure we disagree and agree on many points regarding this.

Grace and Peace,

Pastor Vince

 

[PastorVW]

There are 50 quotes from the fathers supporting the Catholic position for every one that seems to support the Evangelical.

Not to hijack the thread, but Catholics, IMHO can be evangelical and still be good Catholics. I have worked with Catholics on Billy Graham events - and if that isn’t evangelical I don’t know what is…

In the same way, one can be Protestant and definitely NOT evangelical. I have much more in common with evangelical Catholics than I do with Protestants who are not evangelical.

To put it another way, one can certainly have a personal and dynamic relationship with Christ and be a “good Catholic” or a “good Protestant”.

Just my .02 worth…

 

[PastorVW]

No it began as a congregational aspect with everyone present, in the presence of a Priest.

Correct. I have often, when dealing with an anti-catholic in my congregation, ask them if the really think that one day in the middle ages the Pope said, “I’ve got a great idea, we are going to make everyone confess to their Priest!” How absurd!

Confession - for lack of a better term - evolved into current practice, IMHO.

Frankly, although I do not fully embrace the Catholic position, I also think the we as Protestant evangelicals have failed to encourage confession as outlined in Scripture. We have thrown the baby out with the bath water. We should encourage confession much more than we do…

 

[zz912]

Amen.

It baffles me that some will expect the Church to be in the exact same state as the first century while typing on a computer keyboard . Really really baffling.

They are looking for the mustard seed that we see described in the NT, instead of looking for the mustard tree that Jesus promised.

 

[zz912]

How come no one does public confession anymore, as the first church did ? Didn’t the puritans do it also ?

As some have noted, the Church was concerned about sins not being confessed b/c of embarrassment, and didn’t want anything standing in the way of salvation of souls.

But another factor we must remember about public confession in the first centuries. The first Christians were terribly persecuted and martyred. They were under the threat of death at all times. So some sins that people would have committed would have been necessary for the congregation to know so as to protect the congregation. If a person who had sinned by exposing the group to the authorities confessed this publicly, the congregation could know to be wary of this person, and to take precautions to protect themselves.

As the threat of persecution was ended, then the need for public confession ended as well.

 

[zz912]

I would disagree. I see the church slowly drifting off course, although never so bad ly as to totally loose the essence of the Gospel. “Falling off of the tracks” is way too strong.

What is critical, of course is: What was the 1st Century Church like in doctrine. I’m sure we disagree and agree on many points regarding this.

Grace and Peace,

Pastor Vince

You are correct, this is very critical. Looking to doctrine in the Church in the 1st century, and today, I see nothing different or changed. Some things may have been understood better, and explained more deeply, but nothing changed.

 

[Mlon]

The authority of the church to settle doctrine and bind followers-

Matt 18

15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Sorry but I do not see how this passage indicates you need to confess to a priest. This passage deals with disputes between each other within the church. Read it, it’s as plan as day. It provides a method to resolve disputes. You first go to your brother or sister and try to settle the dispute. If that doesn’t work, you get others within the church involved until resolved or you turn away from them.
“We must not let trespass rankle in our bosom, by maintaining a sullen silence, nor may we go and publish the matter abroad. We must seek out the offender, and tell him his fault as if he were not aware of it; as perhaps he may not be.” (Spurgeon)

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.

This passage means if the verse 18 is followed it is binding in heaven also.

“Each church has the keys of its own door. When those keys are rightly turned by the assembly below, the act is ratified above.” (Spurgeon)

1 John 1:9

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

(It does not say “in your heart” and the early church practiced Confession with the Apostles and Bishops as is even seen in John 20)

It also does not say it has to be through a human intercessor either. Confession is a personal act between us and God. I gave the example in another post of Luke 18:10-14 is a perfect example. The sinners confession was personal, not to a priest, and he was viewed as forgiven by Jesus Himself.

Acts 19:18

Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

Read all of the verses in their entirety. The people just witnessed a case of demon possession and the casting out of the demon by Paul. They were convicted and believed. As a result, they accepted Jesus and confessed their sins. When one is baptized as an adult they confess their sins and are immersed. This is a public confession and acceptance. However, nothing indicates in this passage it is an ongoing practice.

2 Corinthians 5

All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling[c] the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Please note that “Confession” is called the “Sacrament of Reconciliation”. Here Paul is emploring the people to utilize this ministry. Note that Christ entrusted this message to the Apostles (and successeor bishops)**

As an ambassador Paul is representing the king, Jesus Christ, pleading to the people the message of reconciliation between God and man through Christ. Once again it’s a stretch to link this passage to the practice of repenting in a confessional to a priest. I’m sorry I just don’t see it.

Confess means “to say the same as” meaning we believe the same thing of our sin as God does. Again, it illustrated in the story in Mathew I mentioned above.

 

[pocohombre]

The understanding of the Church is much more profound and part of the Salvific Mystery of Christ. It is not dependent on how we look at it, because that would mean a relativistic view. The Truth cannot contradict itself.

Have you taken a look at Dominus Iesus?

Does it mean it is relativistic or that it must be personally understood (truth)? You can’t avoid the human element, of facing absolute truth thru a glass darkly. Are we not as gods, able to discern (even imperfectly) ? My statement was not relativistic, not contradictory, but it does say it is absolutely one or the other, even somewhere in between. Even you acquiescing to another authority( CC) still leaves personally deciding on a “way to look at things”.

 

[pocohombre]

As some have noted, the Church was concerned about sins not being confessed b/c of embarrassment, and didn’t want anything standing in the way of salvation of souls.

But another factor we must remember about public confession in the first centuries. The first Christians were terribly persecuted and martyred. They were under the threat of death at all times. So some sins that people would have committed would have been necessary for the congregation to know so as to protect the congregation. If a person who had sinned by exposing the group to the authorities confessed this publicly, the congregation could know to be wary of this person, and to take precautions to protect themselves.

As the threat of persecution was ended, then the need for public confession ended as well.

So if a priest hears in the confessional today that there is a bomb in the church or anywhere else he can not warn others ? Is that really why it began with public confession? The real protection that is needed is that of the spiritual health of the congregation. Remember in the OT when one person sinned it affected the entire nation ? I have heard the Puritans may have also had public confession because they were totally dependent upon God for survival in the new world, and understood how sin affected God’s blessing upon them. Thank you for your insight, may have some validity, but I think it is much more. The “embarrassment” factor sounds a bit “seeker friendly”. There is the scripture that love covers sin and that God desires not to air out in public. Public confession certainly is the opposite of the “confessional”. My point about it is that it is just not the method but the dogma that it must be said to priest. Apparently it is not indicated that this was was needed with public confession, although a priest/or president was probably present at meeting.

 

[pocohombre]

The understanding of the Church is much more profound and part of the Salvific Mystery of Christ. It is not dependent on how we look at it, because that would mean a relativistic view. The Truth cannot contradict itself.

Have you taken a look at Dominus Iesus?

yes took brief look at website.Have heard that before.It is why one can say there is no salvation outside the CC, yet if you are Orthodox or Protestant you may still be saved because of or still thru the CC. It would not agree, in fact declares false or wrong, my statement that the church is all of us (CC O, P). It is more O and P being under umbrella of CC. Have I understood right?

 

[pocohombre]

All( church fathers) that talk of Bishops, authority, correction, Eucharistic Real Presence, infant baptism, authority of See of Peter, Sacramental Comfession…on and on.

Deserves some clarification. Early fathers covers centuries. If indeed the church got off track it would only be because she was laying down new track. After so many centuries it would be almost impossible to see the difference. So for sure after centuries there are multitudes of writings to testify of your traditions. In my humble opinion, the first hundred years after the church began her writings could be easily accepted by CC and Orthodox and Protestants alike. The further you travel down the track of time, the more they seem less Orthodox and less Protestant. Remember it took almost two milennia for marian doctrine to solidify and a milennia to fully define “transubstantiation” and 1200 years for the "confessional’ and for indulgences etc… Again, one must differentiate between the earliest fathers than from those that followed centuries later.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Deserves some clarification. Early fathers covers centuries. If indeed the church got off track it would only be because she was laying down new track. After so many centuries it would be almost impossible to see the difference. So for sure after centuries there are multitudes of writings to testify of your traditions. In my humble opinion, the first hundred years after the church began her writings could be easily accepted by CC and Orthodox and Protestants alike. The further you travel down the track of time, the more they seem less Orthodox and less Protestant. Remember it took almost two milennia for marian doctrine to solidify and a milennia to fully define “transubstantiation” and 1200 years for the "confessional’ and for indulgences etc… Again, one must differentiate between the earliest fathers than from those that followed centuries later.

Really???

I will start with this because I am out and about today, but could give you pages from the first centuries!

“Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.”

“Letter to the Smyrnaeans”, paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

“Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ.”

-“Letter to the Ephesians”, paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

“I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.”

-“Letter to the Romans”, paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

“Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”

-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.

 

[pocohombre]

Just don’t want it to seem so robotic that cause the Church says so it must be. I know that in itself is very personal and good, but I like one more step in making it even more personal, so much so so that even if there were no church or anyone else, you would believe it so cause God said so to you personally (ala Peter’s confession-that the Father made possible/revealed).

But how do you know the Church was right–let’s stick with the 27 book canon of the NT?

How do you know that the Church didn’t get it wrong in discerning Revelation to be theopneustos

and the Didache not?Again,not against my foundation.I believe whatever the early believers saw in writings we can also. think both of us could read some of the books rejected from Septuagint and agree they are not canon/as inspired.

 

[stewstew03]

No, whether or not one is forgiven for their sins is by their relationship with Christ. The overall theme in the gospels is salvation takes place when one repents of their sins and accepts Jesus as their savior. Once done they become a new creation, the old is dead and replaced with the new. They then also become representatives of Christ charged with the same mission the original followers where to make disciples throughout the world. The whole purpose of the church is to congregate as a community of believers to enact Jesus’ mission in the world. As the saying goes united we stand divided we fall. As a believer if I try and go it alone my chances of fulfilling that mission stand the chance of failure. However, believing I have to confess my sins to an appointed person to be saved is not scriptural. Yes, people can throw out random verses that, in my opinion, are vague, but the New Testament taken in its entirety salvation is through the one and only moderator Jesus Christ Himself.

Unless I missed it, you haven’t offered an explanation of John 20:23. What if an apostle did not forgive the sins of an individual?

 

[stewstew03]

…I believe whatever the early believers saw in writings we can also. think both of us could read some of the books rejected from Septuagint and agree they are not canon/as inspired.

Are you proposing that, independent of any Council, you can determine the Canon on your own?