C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You and Richard Dawkins seem to have much in common.
- Status
R
Radical
Guest
hmmm, I note that a number of Catholics here have appealed to alleged Eucharistic miracles as evidence of a miraculous validation of their understanding of a real bodily presence. On the other hand, when I propose looking for the one Eucharistic miracle actually speciifed in the scriptures (that being the disciplining through sickness, with the conversion of the elements never being specified), all of a sudden it is not a good idea to explore Eucharistic miracles.
tis odd how quickly you will conclude that it is your observations of current events that are probably incomplete and not your understanding of scripture that might be suspect. It is a little discomforting as to how reluctant Christians (Protestant and Catholics alike) are to measure their claims statistically/empirically). If we really possess the Holy Spirit and if we really have God working in and for us, then this should be something that is actually observable and should differentiate us from the rest of fallen mankind. Our claimed miracles should be like those of Moses and Elijah (and not like those of Pharaoh’s magicians and Baal’s prophets). Our walk should be far more righteous than the non-Christians around us who do not share his Spirit. I think it is both weak and disingenuous for us to call out to the world that we have the key to salvation and then to beg off of any occasion in which our claims could be objectively tested.
well, the immediate context, when it speaks about the wrongful actions of the Corinthians (so as to supply an “in text” explanation of what Paul meant by discerning the body), describes how certain Corinthians were disregarding others within their congregation and the solution Paul provides at verse 33 is to wait for each other (ie wait for all the members the body of Christ to arrive) and does not refer to a real bodily presence.
K
Koineman
Guest
I’m not Catholic; I’m an evangelical exploring Catholicism.
I’m sorry if I gave that impression, but if you go back and read my post again, you’ll see that I am open to being corrected on this. I said, “f I am incorrect because I have failed to do that [interpret Paul’s words in context], please, by all means, point it out.”
I actually find the reverse to be discomforting: the apparent need to measure faith empirically. Faith itself, according to Hebrews 11, “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” The passage goes on to say, “By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” It is by faith we understand, not by empirical measurement. I have a post on my blog that I wrote a long time ago that deals with the issue or empiricism and faith: bereanbailey.org/?m=201003.
I agree.
While I agree that our lives should reflect the claims we make, I take issue with your idea that our claims should be objectively tested by those outside the faith (or at least that’s what you seemed to imply). The idea that the world comes to faith in Christ through observing our holy lives is really not to be found in Scripture. It does say that our sins can give the enemies of the Lord occasion to blaspheme, as David’s sin with Bathsheba did, but that is not the same as the reverse: that living holy lives before the world draws them to Christ. That is a common misunderstanding that pervades evangelicalism. It can be seen, among other things, in the widespread popularity of personal testimonies as a means of evangelism, as though our personal stories carried more weight than the story about Christ. It is the gospel that draws people to the Son of God, not our lives or the testimony about our lives. The fact that evangelicalism is brimming with this sort or misunderstanding is a strong indicator that it is drifting more and more away from the word of God.
Yes, that’s the context, but what, then, does Paul mean when he talks about discerning the body?
C
Contarini
Guest
Indeed. I’m not sure how that relates to the point. The question is “on the whole of what?” “General what?”
Yes, but neither of them think that it means everyone who claims to be a Christian.
Do you?
Are JWs part of the Catholic Church by your definition?
Can anyone just slap the label “Christian” on themselves and thus be considered “Catholic”?
If not, why not?
Are you arguing that all “true Christians” are Catholics? All who maintain certain basic doctrinal beliefs? How do you define the “whole” in question?
Edwin
S
submariner2
Guest
Koineman,
As I explained, the purpose and meaning of communion is explained beforehand. I think you put too much into that verse since the purpose of the context was sincerity and not doctrine as i read it. Also you ignore verse 31. Jesus called all to come to him who are weak and heavy laden and I dont think he has changed his mind. Do you?
Baptists also believe in the presence of Christ at the Lords Supper. I think perhaps you worry too much. There is no evidence in the NT of an approval of turning away christians on the basis of doctrine even though there was much variety in the NT. They are always welcome to communion at my church.
K
Koineman
Guest
I wasn’t addressing the question of whether one should avoid communion being a doctrinal issue. I was addressing your statement that anyone who wants to commune with Christ, should be allowed to receive communion. It was your view of non-closed communion that I disagreed with.
No, I just didn’t see the point in including it, since all I was trying to point out was that communion is not for everyone.
No. Of course, that text has nothing to do with communion, so I’m not sure what bringing it up accomplishes.
Not really. I’ve been to many Baptist churches, and have been baptistic for many years, and there is no belief in any presence of Christ directly tied to the communion bread and wine. Sure, baptists will acknowledge a general presence of Christ during the worship service, but there is nothing sacramental in it in their view. IOW, they don’t believe that the signs of the bread and wine impart anything spiritual. They are simply reminders of what Jesus did, and nothing more.
You missed the point of that citation. You had said that the NT does not speak of rejecting people on doctrinal grounds; I then brought up those passages to show that this was, in fact, commanded in the NT, and now you reply by talking about doctrinal disputes having no place in communion? Honestly, I don’t follow you.
Let’s look at the texts again:
7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. 9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds. (2 John)
Nobody can deny that the apostle John was talking about rejecting fellowship with people who brought wrong doctrine. This is made clear by the boldfaced text above.
*9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. 10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them. 11 You may be sure that such people are warped and sinful; they are self-condemned. (Titus 3)
*
This is another passage that talks about refusing fellowship with someone on doctrinal grounds. It is clear that the issues were doctrinal because the warnings were to be in response to arguments and quarrels about the law.
Okay, fair enough. The verse does seem to be addressing the way a person lives, rather than their doctrinal beliefs. Nevertheless, the other two passages I brought up clearly and indisputably show that rejection of people on doctrinal grounds was commanded.
R
Radical
Guest
noted…you bring an interesting perspectiveI’m not Catholic; I’m an evangelical exploring Catholicism.
I am not suggesting that such is needed……but I am suggesting that in certain instances it would appear that such testing is available and in those instances, if such testing were done, then that testing should validate our claims…and we should not need to find reasons to dismiss the results of such testing when it is properly done.
agreed
it is more of a could than a should….and if such were done properly, then the results should disclose a significant difference. Such testing would be a tool for us to use…not to evangelize, but to show that there is some substance to our claims and our message. It isn’t something that I would lead with. I am not comfortable with, “Hey, look at me.” It should be: “Hey, look at Christ.” Should someone want to employ testing, then good results for Christians should always follow.
Here are some verses to consider (from the NIV):
1 Peter 2:12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
Titus 2: 6-10 Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us. Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.
1 Tim 5: 24-25 The sins of some are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not obvious cannot remain hidden forever.
Our lives should make the gospel more attractive. Our lives should not fuel objections to the gospel. Our righteousness should be obvious. It shouldn’t take an empirical study to demonstrate that Christians excel in good deeds (when compared to non-Christians)…
Protestant heavy hitters such as James Dunn and Ben Witherington suggest that it refers to a sin against the church as the body of Christ. The NIV study notes describe it as failing to note the “nature of the church as the body of Christ, resulting in self-centered actions. This accounts for why, although both eating and drinking are mentioned, only recognition of the body (and not the blood) is mentioned.
K
Koineman
Guest
I expected this verse would be cited. When it says “the day he visits us,” that refers to the day that Christ returns. Are you saying that people will repent and believe in Christ precisely at that time, even though the lives we lived might have expired long before that event?
Also, note that the text does not say “they may see your good deeds and believe in Christ.” It says they will glorify God. That does not necessarily mean conversion. Even the wicked can glorify God when they are judged by Him. It isn’t necessarily praise, though, and it isn’t necessarily voluntary on their part.
This is one of the reasons I don’t always like the NIV. Where it says, “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive,” the text is better translated as “adorn the doctrine of God our Savior.” Although the two meanings are similar, I think the NIV’s rendering caters more to the idea that you are supporting (that our lives can attract people to Christ), whereas the more literal translation (“adorn the doctrine”) doesn’t have to mean that. It could mean simply to make the doctrine of God look good, which gives him glory. The Christian life is first and foremost about giving God glory.
This simply says that our good deeds are obvious, evident to those around us. It says nothing about any spiritual effect they might have on the lost.
How would you reconcile that idea to this:
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. (2 Tim. 3:12)
That I agree with.
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Koineman----
I would add Matthew 5:14-16 to 1 Peter and Titus----“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Rather, they set it on a lamp stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light so shine before men that they see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
Do you see evangelicals as misunderstanding this part of Matthew, 1 Peter 2, etc? If so, please explain.
P
PJM
Guest
Sorry, but I could NOT let this go without exposing a catholic perspective
From the time of Canstantine and the Council of Nicia arounf the first part of the 4th. Century the Church saw EXOLOSIVE GROWTH and influence as it was “free” to begin in earnest the mandate of Mt. 28:16-20 to “Teach the World ALL that I taught you.”
Then politics reared its ugly head and the “Great Eastern Schim” a struggle for power]
took place in 1010 AD. It had been festering for awhile.Not long after that things became "VERY HUMAN [sinful] within the Church and practices of married clerics, clerics with mistresses, buying influence, selling indulgences to {IMO] build a Personal Testament to the reigning Pope, and much more greed and evil were taking place.
BUT EVEN THROUGH ALL THE 'MUCK" GOD INSURRED THAT NO WRONG DOGMA OR DOCTRINES WERE IMPLEMENTED!
Luther’s orginal “95 Thesis” delt heavily with the selling of Indulgences to gain fund and build a church". THIS IS A CHURCH PRACTICE NOT A DOCRINE. FYI: practices CAN be changed; while Doctrine and Dogma CANNOT!
Ego’s’on both sides became heated and Luther JUMPED ship, got married and we know the rest of the story.
So that’s it in VERY brief Form.
God Bless,
pat /PJM
K
Koineman
Guest
Same problem as with using the Titus passage: You are attributing a voluntary act of praise where the text does not necessarily call for that. Most translations that I know of render the verb as “glorify,” not “praise.”
Yes, I do, for the reasons I’ve pointed out. “Glorify” does not necessarily mean “praise.”
R
Radical
Guest
I am not sure about that
are you saying that the verse has had no application for 2000 years b/c it doesn’t apply until the second coming?
please recall that this started with me saying that if your interpretation of 1 Cor 11 is correct, and if God continues to act in the same way, then we should see this…that also has nothing to do with conversion. Righteousness should adorn the gospel message, not BE the gospel message. I would compare this to the miracles used by God in the NT to validate the gospel message. The miracles were not the gospel message, but the miracles did point out that God’s hand was on the messenger. Likewise today, our righteousness should be obvious (evident to those around us) and it should clearly point out that there is something special that we have…a new creation has occurred…the Spirit of God has been given…or in other words, God’s hand is on the messenger.
how are you defining glorify?
I am not sure what needs reconciling…the gospel message carries with it the promise of eternal life. Salvation is worth being persecuted for…As such, good works make the gospel message more attractive b/c they give substance to the claim that we have the HS as a deposit for eternal life. With that assurance one can even rejoice in trials b/c we know that God is with us and we know what reward we will eventually receive.
S
submariner2
Guest
koineman,
I saw nothing like that at all.
Obviously a dialoge agains Gnostics. So what?
Obviously only discusses Gnostics.
Simply says to avoid controversy about doctrines. Just the opposite of what you assert as I see it. I see nothing in your quotes to suggest turning sincere christians away from communion. Besides we know that Catholics have a multiplicity of views on many Catholic doctrines yet all are welcome in spite of those differences.
Scholars say the early church had a variety of doctrines yet were in communion with each other. Here is Father Raymond E. Brown on that.
“Most of the NT was written before the major breaks in ‘koinia’. detectable in the second century, and so NT diversity cannot be used to justify Christian division today. We modern Christians have broken ‘koinonia’ with each other, for, explicitly or implicitly, we have excommunicated and/or stated that other christians are disloyal to the will of Christ in major issues. Such a divided situation does not have NT approbation.”
Raymond Brown, The Churches The Apostles Left Behind, p 148. Approved with the Imprimatur.
I am very thankful that my church turns away no sincere christian from the Lords Table.
Rob
P
PJM
Guest
*And that dear friend because what you clelbrate is ONLY a “symbol” or a “sign” or a “rememerance” and is a worthy sediment. *
*But we Catholics actually HAVE Jesus Christ Christ Himself: “Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity -the Entire Christ”
That is like wishing for a Billion dollars and having it in your hand
THERE IS NO BETTER; NO MORE PROFOUND OR GREATER TRUTH AND REASON TO BE AN INFORMED AND FULLY PRACTICING CATHOLIC*"the Imprimatur" is only as Good as the person issuing it:blush: While normally a healthy faith sing; it too can be in GRAVE ERROR.
If what "is approved approved does not match FULLY In content and teaching with ROMES Teachings; it is invalid and meaningless.
God Bless you,
pat /PJM
S
submariner2
Guest
PJM,*And that dear friend because what you clelbrate is ONLY a “symbol” or a “sign” or a “rememerance” and is a worthy sediment. *
*But we Catholics actually HAVE Jesus Christ Christ Himself: “Glorified Body; Blood; Soul and Divinity -the Entire Christ”
That is like wishing for a Billion dollars and having it in your hand
"the Imprimatur" is only as Good as the person issuing it:blush: While normally a healthy faith sing; it too can be in GRAVE ERROR.
If what "is approved approved does not match FULLY In content and teaching with ROMES Teachings; it is invalid and meaningless.
God Bless you,
pat /PJM
You make presumptions about my church but they are not correct. My church accepts the real presence and the exact words of Jesus are cited to each person as they take the elements.
The Imprimatur plainly means the staments in the book do NOT vioate Catholic teachings on faith and morals.
My point simply was that some Catholic scholars eplain that the NT does not provide approval for excommunication for doctrinal reasons. . I agree with Fr Brown on that. My church invites all sincere Christians to the Lords Table and I am very thankful for that. I think Jesus would approve.
Rob
P
PJM
Guest
Hi Rob, I certainly did not intend any personal affront. SORRY!
I am aware that you believe in the Real Presence. My position ought to have been more specific:blush: Beleif is one thing; but the reality resides only within the CC.
When Luther left he was in Schism and I believe excommunicated.
As to what the “Imprimatur.” I agree that is WHAT it is supposed to mean. BUT it is valid ONLY if and when in total conformity what ROME teachers.
Otherwise every Bishop in the world** could ** didctate to the Universal church what IT; the Universal church MUST believe. That my friend is NOT how the systeme works.
Sadly there are still a great Bishops; not unlike our Protestant brethern, who formulate there your form of “catholism,” based on there own views of what ought to be.
The times we live ABSOLUTELY require viglance and prudence.
Mt. 7: 13-21 "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.”
THANKS again for pointing out my error.
God Bless you,
Pat
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus you will know them by their fruits.
[21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
S
submariner2
Guest
pjm,
No problem. I dont take things personally.
He had no intent to leave his church so the schism was caused by the excommunication. Most Catholics do not really know the reason why he was excommunicated. Do you really think he would have been excommunicated today? Interesting subject to research.
Otherwise every Bishop in the world** could ** didctate to the Universal church what IT; the Universal church MUST believe. That my friend is NOT how the systeme works.
Fr. Brown wrote over 30 books all approved with the Imprimature by an Archbishop.
30 Archbishops is hard to argue with. Perhaps the people who think 30 Archbishops are out of step should rethink their position?
We all accept this.
You too. Thanks,
Rob
P
Prosmith
Guest
Mine too my friend. I surely don’t think that Jesus intended his sacrifice for a private club of select members.
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
That is hardly charitable way of describing this. The Mass - the greatest celebration of the Lord’s sacrifice - is always open to all to participate. However, it is Communion that is restricted only to baptised Christians in communion with the Church. It is the same in all apostolic churches, be it Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, or Assyrian. This is the tradition as handed down to us by the Apostles. There are certain standards set in place to ensure that those who receive are sincere and true believers. What is the point of receiving communion if you are ignorant of the church and the faith with which you are communing?
From our perspective, as God-fearing Christians, we are morally obligated to ensure that the Real Presence is not unwittingly defiled by unbelievers. Remember, God has given us his Real Presence in the Eucharist, and as his servants, we must take every care to ensure it is respected and honoured to the greatest degree. This is why we limit it to only baptised Catholics received into the Church. To give an extreme example, how can we knowingly give the Body and Blood of Christ to a Satanist who only wishes to defile and profane it? We do not want this precious gift to be defiled by those who do not appreciate its significance. This is why we have programs such as RCIA and catechesis to ensure that believers sincerely understand the entirety of the Christian faith, including the Real Presence, before they are received into the Church.
By the way, we have digressed a great deal from the OP.
- Status