The Protestant invisible church

[ephesians2]

How do Protestants back up the idea of an invisible church it was a major point in me being catholic since I could only find a visible church in the bible

Any passages Protestants use would be helpful I am meeting with a friend that believes in a invisible church

You asked for passages, so here is one that explains what a Protestant (safe to say the ones who adhere to SolaScriptura) believes as far as the Visible and Invisible Church is concerned-

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

From the Gospel of John

 

[ephesians2]

And there is no need for a magesterium…

Or is focus on the family the magesterium of “true” evangelicals.

Of course the great thing about Evangelical churches, and particularly Evangelical Free churches is their only authority is within their four walls. So they can and do say what they want and preach what they want.

And if the church your attending seems “too traditional” the skies the limit, and you can find a dozen other churches in your area that will more conform to your style of theology.

(Tongue in cheek joke)
Church Shopping Checklist for the Evangelical

Does it have

1. coffee bar rivaling Starbucks so I can hold my prayer group at the church.
2. stadium Seats and super trick light shows with epic sounds
3. you confuse the worship pastor for Bono
4. you here the 10 piece praise band and realize he really was Bono!
5. Pastor wears shorts and flip flops(but not with socks…eww)
6. you ask for a church Calendar and they give you something showing the “fellowship opportunities”
7. there must be at least 25 fellowship opportunities per week.
8. what’s required of me? “Come, enjoy, and if you can help us build our new building with a donation that would be great!”

Hmmm…these would deter my friends and me quite a bit if I found them in a “church”. And I am quite young. Most “Protestants” in my area would say this is not the worship style for them. I will have to bring up the fact that there is a Catholic Church near me that is implementing some of the above into a Children’s Service each week. I believe they do it once during the week and on Friday or Saturday nights before Mass? Their sign says, “…Roman Catholic Church”. I don’t know if there are different versions of the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

I’d have to add, I do not find anything wrong with your #6 “joke”. How sad it would be if your church did not give you ample opportunity to fellowship with other believers and even evangelize to unbelievers during the month. It’s Communion of the Saints…and the Great Commission.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Hmmm…these would deter my friends and me quite a bit if I found them in a “church”. And I am quite young. Most “Protestants” in my area would say this is not the worship style for them. I will have to bring up the fact that there is a Catholic Church near me that is implementing some of the above into a Children’s Service each week. I believe they do it once during the week and on Friday or Saturday nights before Mass? Their sign says, “…Roman Catholic Church”. I don’t know if there are different versions of the Roman Catholic Church, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

I’d have to add, I do not find anything wrong with your #6 “joke”. How sad it would be if your church did not give you ample opportunity to fellowship with other believers and even evangelize to unbelievers during the month. It’s Communion of the Saints…and the Great Commission.

Don’t take my jokes the wrong way or too serious. It’s just a play on the stereotypes of Evangelical Mega Churches like the one I grew up in.

I don’t have a problem with praise music in the liturgy or special youth events before or after mass.

But in many Evangelical mega churches they make the music the focus and pour money into making the best entertainment experience.

As for number 6, It was more of a joke that they don’t fall a liturgical calendar in any way as the focus is bringing people in via activities.

God Bless your discernment.

 

[JustaServant]

Don’t take my jokes the wrong way or too serious. It’s just a play on the stereotypes of Evangelical Mega Churches like the one I grew up in.

I don’t have a problem with praise music in the liturgy or special youth events before or after mass.

But in many Evangelical mega churches they make the music the focus and pour money into making the best entertainment experience.

As for number 6, It was more of a joke that they don’t fall a liturgical calendar in any way as the focus is bringing people in via activities.

God Bless your discernment.

Bold mine.
This is very true, and not a stereotype. I overheard one evangelical brag about his “mega-church” having a “million dollar sound system”.
They basically become concert centers.
Oh…and there might be a little preaching, but don’t worry, the deacon board told him to keep it short.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Bold mine.
This is very true, and not a stereotype. I overheard one evangelical brag about his “mega-church” having a “million dollar sound system”.
They basically become concert centers.
Oh…and there might be a little preaching, but don’t worry, the deacon board told him to keep it short.

Yeah my old church just spent millions putting in stadium seating Giant Big Screens, upgraded computer controlled lights, stage redesign, and “million dollar” Audio Visual System.

The worse part is the old impressive system was “outdated” being 10 years old.

No doubt it was all impressive and they put on a good show.

They just miss the point that church is not about entertainment.

 

[JustaServant]

Yeah my old church just spent millions putting in stadium seating Giant Big Screens, upgraded computer controlled lights, stage redesign, and “million dollar” Audio Visual System.

The worse part is the old impressive system was “outdated” being 10 years old.

No doubt it was all impressive and they put on a good show.

They just miss the point that church is not about entertainment.

It’s anathema even to the old line Protestant model of preaching being the center of worship. With short attention spans, preaching is boring, opening my Bible is boring. Why not a show?!?
Preaching forces people to look inwardly and change their lives.
Music just makes my toe tap.

 

[ephesians2]

Don’t take my jokes the wrong way or too serious. It’s just a play on the stereotypes of Evangelical Mega Churches like the one I grew up in.

I don’t have a problem with praise music in the liturgy or special youth events before or after mass.

But in many Evangelical mega churches they make the music the focus and pour money into making the best entertainment experience.

As for number 6, It was more of a joke that they don’t fall a liturgical calendar in any way as the focus is bringing people in via activities.

God Bless your discernment.

“…many Evangelical churches…”, but not all. I do not attend a “megachurch”, but the handful that I am familiar with use “praise music” and traditional hymns and psalms accompanied by a band or a simple piano. They have Bibles and by George they even use them and the one I follow online just finished a series on the 10 Commandments. The M.C. near my house had a series on Sin within Marriage and the one my extended family attends had a series on The Church and Family. All of them use the Bible and preach about our sin, God’s wrath and our forgiveness through our Savior Jesus Christ. The one I follow regularly (besides the Christ- centered preaching I am privileged to listen to on Sundays) wears a suit or GASP a sport coat and EEEEK sometimes JEANS with the sport coat! A heresy I tell you! (Joking) I understand what you are saying in your list of jokes and would agree to a certain extent. I think too many use entertainment and shove the Bible and God’s wrath under the rug. But not ALL mega churches are irresponsible and out for people’s money so they can have a million dollar sound system. I live near a Catholic Church that completely renovated their building and the grounds around it with lavish gardens and enormous stained glass windows. They just completed the renovation and let me put it this way, it gets noticed from the freeway and possibly from an airplane. It was a multimillion dollar renovation of what wasn’t a small or unattractive building to begin with. What is the difference between putting a sound system in and the multimillion dollar church renovation? Both draw peoples attention. Both claim to be doing it for the glory of God. Who is the better man here?

(I have succeeded in getting way off the OP’s question/comments. Whoops.)

 

[Jon_S_1]

“…many Evangelical churches…”, but not all. I do not attend a “megachurch”, but the handful that I am familiar with use “praise music” and traditional hymns and psalms accompanied by a band or a simple piano. They have Bibles and by George they even use them and the one I follow online just finished a series on the 10 Commandments. The M.C. near my house had a series on Sin within Marriage and the one my extended family attends had a series on The Church and Family. All of them use the Bible and preach about our sin, God’s wrath and our forgiveness through our Savior Jesus Christ. The one I follow regularly (besides the Christ- centered preaching I am privileged to listen to on Sundays) wears a suit or GASP a sport coat and EEEEK sometimes JEANS with the sport coat! A heresy I tell you! (Joking) I understand what you are saying in your list of jokes and would agree to a certain extent. I think too many use entertainment and shove the Bible and God’s wrath under the rug. But not ALL mega churches are irresponsible and out for people’s money so they can have a million dollar sound system. I live near a Catholic Church that completely renovated their building and the grounds around it with lavish gardens and enormous stained glass windows. They just completed the renovation and let me put it this way, it gets noticed from the freeway and possibly from an airplane. It was a multimillion dollar renovation of what wasn’t a small or unattractive building to begin with. What is the difference between putting a sound system in and the multimillion dollar church renovation? Both draw peoples attention. Both claim to be doing it for the glory of God. Who is the better man here?

(I have succeeded in getting way off the OP’s question/comments. Whoops.)

To me it all comes down to intent. I was naive enough to believe my mega churches built it all for God’s glory, but after many years there from my personal experience I found it to be about putting dollars in the plate as the priority. It even went to the point of firing about 8 pastors including the head pastor by the elders to get “fresh blood” in their to “get the attendance up” in order to “sustain the budget”

My personal experience.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Here are couple of examples of the showmanship (Relatively mild, compared to some I have experienced personally) I am talking about that is prevalent here on the West Coast (California), perhaps some of this is “surf culture” type of stuff and not as common in the rest of the US.

youtu.be/jltHnpXbrmw

youtu.be/Bz5vSYXAC1w (This song sounds beautiful, but I cannot stand the bad theology of the lyrics…“You make all things work together for my Good” Thats another topic is bad theology in praise songs. There’s a lot of it even by protestant standards.

Now dont get me wrong, I love a lot of these songs and this type of worship and praise music. I listen to it on the radio, I went to see Hillsong play and Third Day. But that is more the appropriate venue. In church, these churches as much as they deny it, end up having the focus be the artists and singers and presentation, which evokes an emotional response, but distracts from the true worship of God in the way he has called us to worship him.

You see in Catholic Churches, even the ones where they do more praise songs. The musicians are off to the side or in the loft, so that we keep our focus on God and not on the show on the stage. This is also the reason that the priest speaks from the ambo off to the side, so that The altar of God, and the Tabernacle and the Sacred space of the church remain that way.

So its not like this huge heretical problem to me. Its not a “salvation” issue. But coupled with the generally shallow presentations of the gospel, it just adds to the whole watering down of Christianity.

I have heard from a lot on these boards that this is not the case in all, perhaps the majority of Evangelical Churches, so I wont say that all or most are like this. My experience in Southern California has led me to see this as a fast growing movement and something that Evangelicals should take care to make sure their priorities are kept in the right place. In fact that can be said for all Christians. The arts can bring us closer to God in all of their forms, but the temptation for glorifying ourselves is very great.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Quote:
Originally Posted by believerdoc

So Jesus says

You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my church. And the second rock doesn’t refer to the first?

Who is reading his theology into the text?
Per Crucem;11261806:

Jon S;11261802:

St John Chrysostom, apparently.

“Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Also, in 1 Peter 2:5-6 - Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1. Wherefore also it is contained in the Scripture (Isa. 28:16), “Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.”

To me, this not only says Peter himself is not ‘The Rock’ but also addresses the ‘invisible (spiritual) church’ as being each one of us who is cleansed and made a temple of the Indwelling Holy Spirit. Faith is the continuous experience of the Holy Spirit/Christ, not ‘belief in’ or an ‘opinon’ that Christ is True. 1Cor 12:3 - “…no man can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Ghost.”

Religion does not have the power to Redeem.

“It is possible that some who belong to the invisible Church never become members of the visible organization… On the other hand there may be unregenerate (people) who, while professing Christ, have no true faith in Him…and these, as long as they are in that condition, do not belong to the invisible Church.”

Louis Berkhof - Systematic Theology, by permission of Banner of Truth, Carlisle, PA. 1998, p. 566.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hi JonNC.

Haven’t been avoiding you or your question but I just first saw it tonight. I changed your red lettering and crossing out to a parenthesis because I don’t know how to do the text insertion.

JonNC, you stated:

Cathoholic

And I asked what about when two different people who follow sola Scriptura (Tradition) and Scripture, come to opposite conclusions on matters of faith and morals.

My point is, with your belief system, you have to assert relativism. There is no absolute answer for you in this world.

You will say “Scripture (Tradition)”, but I will ask, “Who’s interpretation of Scripture (Tradition)” and who has the authority to correct someone in error.?

You will be forced to say: “My interpretation” or “My pastor’s” or “everybody” or “nobody” or some such thing.

And I am saying this system of belief does not fit in to Matthew 18.

All the red insertions are mine, and not Cathoholic’s.

Then you stated:

Curious. when one inserts the word Tradition, or Tradition and scripture, the same problem exists, and has existed for a thousand years.

Ignoring your false “thousand years” jab against the Catholic Church JonNC, that’s right. the same problem DOES exist IF . . . . that’s ALL you had was Scripture and Tradition.

But the Church does not teach that we only have Scripture and Tradition JonNC so your color change and text crossing out example is a non sequitur.

We also have a teaching office or “Magisterium” that can issue correction when She (Holy Mother Church) sees the faithful threatened on a substantial scale to various heresies (and that is exactly what we have seen in history).

VATICAN II (Dei Verbum 10:4) It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Scripture? Check.
Oral Tradition? Check.
Magisterium? Check.

Now you can deny that the Church possesses these gifts (it doesn’t, but you can and do apparently deny it), but it is inaccurate to say or imply the Catholic Church and Protestant ecclesial communities are operating on the same methodology.

As I asked earlier in this thread JonNC,

WHO has the God-given, God-protected authority to authentically interpret doctrine in a definitive manner and definitively correct someone in error?

• Nobody?
• You?
• Everybody?
• The Church.

MATTHEW 18:15-18 15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Who is this type of authority concerning Matthew 18:15-18 JonNC?

 

[Cathoholic]

Jeanne1184,

You quoted:

“Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; . . .

And seemed to assert Jesus in Matthew 16 was referring to “the Rock” as being St. Peter’s confession of faith ALONE.

Then you also seemed to be denying that Peter himself is the Rock (despite Jesus saying so).

Do you know the Church affirms BOTH (and more)? If you want I can find this for you in the Catechism but if you already know it, there will be no need for me to do that.

Or possibly I missed your point.

The foundation upon “lively stones” that you mentioned; I as a Catholic affirm this too.

The Church sees different foundational senses or layers. So when the Bible talks about the Church’s foundation on Christ, upon Peter, upon Peter’s confession, upon on The Apostles, and upon us as “lively stones” we affirm ALL of the verses.

You seem to be denying the sense that the Church is founded upon Peter.

This is NOT the way to “defend Scripture” Jeanne1184 (“I’ll affirm this verse, but I get to DENY that verse”). You want to affirm ALL the verses and DENY NONE of them.

Why not just affirm ALL the Scripture verses Jeanne1184?

“You are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church.”—Jesus the Messiah to Simon Peter.

 

[Cathoholic]

Jeanne1184,

You also said:

Religion does not have the power to Redeem.

This irreligious outlook would be true if “religion” was isolated apart from Jesus Christ.

But since true religion is NOT divorced from Jesus Christ, this (“Religion does not have the power to Redeem” thesis) is a form of home-cooked religion that is sometimes seen on cute and well scripted Youtube videos, but not in the Bible.

This “Religion does not have the power to Redeem” thesis is a sneaky partial truth and is thought up in the pride of men who are ungrateful to Jesus for giving us Himself AND His Church, who are disobedient to their spiritual patrimony of the Church.

That’s WHY St. Cyprian (who died in the 200’s A.D.) didn’t say:

NOT St. Cyprian For people who have God as their Father, it doesn’t really matter if they have the Church for their Mother or not because religion doesn’t factor into how we are redeemed.

Here is what St. Cyprian really said concerning Holy Mother Church:

ST. CYPRIAN He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the Church for his Mother.

But if “religion” is associated with “the Church” and “the Church” is coupled to Jesus Christ in such a way that you are not going to be able to separate them (and this is the case), then your statement denying the power of religion is only a partial truth at best.

Jesus Christ does not divorce His bride the Church, for people who want to deny the power of religion.

That’s WHY St. Paul can say:

2nd TIMOTHY 3:1-5 1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

And notice it is the very “grace of God” that trains us to renounce IRReligion! Yet some people insist upon renouncing “religion”. Why do this when St. Paul says the opposite?

TITUS 2:11-14 11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Would you assert that “great indeed is the mystery of our religion” and it is to be seen in the context of “the Church” and this “Church” should be described as “the pillar and foundation (or bulwark) of the truth”?

Probably not from what you have said earlier. Yet that’s exactly what St. Paul teaches us.

1st TIMOTHY 3:14-16 14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 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. 16 Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

You might object and say: “Well 1st Timothy 3 16 is talking about Jesus (“manifested in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit. etc.”).

I would agree. But to say this would be making my point, not refuting it. Why? Because Jesus has united Himself to the Church this way.

Now I know that won’t be your “interpretation”. But that brings us right back to, WHO gets to say what is correct and incorrect interpretation? ANYBODY? Nobody? Everybody? YOU? Do I have the “correct interpretation as long as I agree with you and incorrect interpretation if I disagree with you?"

There are reasons WHY when we were children, the Protestant teachers trying to get us to “memorize Scripture” would heavily emphasize Ephesians 2:8-9 (but ignore 10), Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:15, (and imply we should add the word “alone” in our minds to these verses) and ignore other verses. This is WHY as kids we were never urged specifically to memorize 1st Timothy 3:15-16, 2nd Timothy 3:5, **and many many other verses **that did not fit into the many Protestant traditions.

Whether it was “sword drills” in your Sunday School, Awana, Young Life, Bible Camp, or whatever. Ask yourself if you were ever challenged to memorize verses that Catholics often cite? Maybe your group leaders DID do this, but I can think of many instances when these group leaders did NOT.

 

[ceeme62]

No. I attend a church right now

I feel the like God wrote Ichabod on the door post 10 years ago.

hello-- i like the fact that you pointed out that there are some churches that – the preachers don’;t bring the anointing presence of the Spirit–

because this is one of the critical aspects of attending a christian fellowship 4 me

because regardless of the “message” if the anointing is not there- then i am not - recharged–

by the presence of the Holy Spirit-- and it is just an intellegent lecture–

just like in a catholic mass-- the homily- may be boring- and un meaningful–

but catholics are taught – to endure that – for the communion service,

and we are not allowed to make any spiritual evaluation

 

[bsroufek]

One thing I have is Jesus in the Gospel John 10:16, “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

You asked for passages, so here is one that explains what a Protestant (safe to say the ones who adhere to SolaScriptura) believes as far as the Visible and Invisible Church is concerned-

“I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me. I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours. All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth.

From the Gospel of John

But that is not all Jesus said!

John 17:11
I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one.

John 17:20-23
My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. **May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. **

The Church is supposed to be one just as the Father and the Son are one. Do Jesus and His Father disagree on the slightest bit of any doctrine?

Are you in complete unity with the Church that Jesus built upon the rock, Peter, and his successors, the popes?

If not, can this be part of the reason why the world does NOT know that the Father sent Jesus?

 

[Jeanne1184]

It has never occurred to me to defend Scripture. Scripture just is. Many defend membership in a particular religion and its doctrines, but the only thing to do with Scripture, to me, is to seek to Understand. One cannot hope to Understand the underbelly of Scripture without questioning in a climate of free exchange of ideas/inspirations.

Contrary to your approach to the New Testament, I am not bound to accept that all Scripture is written by the Saints, (some is pseudo-Scripture, to me) nor that all interpretations are equally sound - including my own. I seek Truth as others do and sometimes clarity doesn’t come until we look at things outside of our heads, whether in speech or writing.

By questioning “Upon this rock…”, no one was attacking St. Peter or the Church. We simply picked up a verse that appeared have more than one side to it, and went exploring.

St. Peter has been an enigma, for me. On one hand, he appears to be the weakest link in the chain: slow to comprehend, married, impulsive/rash, quarrelsome, rebellious, stubborn, conflicted… And yet, without his admitting his ignorance and asking for explanations, without his willingness to get out of the boat and ‘test’, without his denying Christ in such a spectacular way (and not committing suicide) which taught us about God’s Mercy and depth of Forgivness and Love… Without being able to watch the scales fall from his eyes - Scripture would have lost much richness and edifiying material. Paul was dramatic conversion; Peter the slow but steady plodding; one foot in Christ and the other in the Deity/traditions of the Jews. God of Christ eventually used Peter to heal the sick and raise the dead which says a lot, to me.

Today, when I listen to Messianic Jewish programs, I think of St. Peter and his inability (for a long while, at least) to drop the constricting past of Judaism and fully embrace the freedom Christ offers. It is psychologically painful to listen to Messianic Jews try to squeeze all of Jewish thought and traditons into the simplicity of Christ.

The closest identification I’ve been able to make with their plight is when I had to give up my sexual identity to follow Christ. I had no idea how strongly attached the power of sexual expression was to my idea of proof of existence. Sexual power was the only power I had. Men have brains and brawn to pick up the slack if they embrace the spiritual path; I felt like I would disappear completely. First I had to let go; then I began to Understand. “Do. Then Understand.”

Christ’s primary objective was/is to have His Chosen Ones home again. I don’t know, but I think of the Jews as having been usurped at the Fall by the Archon of this world and then were kept so busy obeying 600 plus laws that they forgot their Origin. I no longer think of their actions as abject disobedience; more like rebellion against that Archon, but they couldn’t see the True God to put in place of. Whatever the real story is, I doubt it is anything like is commonly believed.

Perhaps choosing Peter over Paul was Christ’s beacon to the Jews, “Peter struggled, too, against the long history, but if you will but seek the Holy Spirit for yourself, you will See and Know.” Christians lost the way to the personal Indwelling of the Holy Spirit along the passage of time and the wiles of the devil; maybe it will be the Jews who lead the Christians back to Christ Within, eh? I wish that for them. T’would be perfect the ending to a very troubled and convoluted story.

 

[Jeanne1184]

When I wrote, “The Church does not have the power to Redeem”, I was referring to the very prevalent notions that being baptized into a particular faith equals Salvation or that ‘good works’ bring Redemption. Or the religious idea that everyone is automatically Redeemed because of Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. But I’m sure there have been other discussions about this before on CAF. My reason for including the remark had to do with the ‘invisible and visible’ church - that the Invisible Church could not be ignored.

Cathoholic wrote: 2nd TIMOTHY 3:1-5 1 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.

And notice it is the very “grace of God” that trains us to renounce IRReligion! Yet some people insist upon renouncing “religion”. Why do this when St. Paul says the opposite?

You and I read the bolded words differently. To me, it says that having the structure of religion while members no longer have access to the Holy Spirit through diversion/ignorance, makes a church a shell wherein sin abounds and the Power is not present.

Whether it was “sword drills” in your Sunday School, Awana, Young Life, Bible Camp, or whatever. Ask yourself if you were ever challenged to memorize verses that Catholics often cite? Maybe your group leaders DID do this, but I can think of many instances when these group leaders did NOT.

I don’t know if anything has changed or not, but I went through twelve years of parochial school memorizing only catechism in grade school and never opening a Bible in any religion class, even in high school. There was no Sunday school and the only Bible passages read were those selected for the missals at Mass.

They stopped teaching Latin to males and females the year I entered 9th grade. Why in the world we all aren’t given *at least *a year of Hebrew and Greek in religious schools in conjunction with reading the Bible, I still can’t fathom. At almost 60 years of age, I’m trying to teach myself enough Hebrew to appreciate the rich, amazing gems in the Old Testament. I thank the Holy Spirit almost daily for the generosity of the Jewish people in sharing their wisdom from lifetimes of study - and for the searchable interlinear Bible.

 

[Cathoholic]

Hello Jeanne1184.

I saw on my android your response (so I’m here at my computer now).

Some of what you said? Fair enough.

Some other things? I think I might possibly be able to add to or fill out some of the things you stated.

The fact that you went to parochial school? Thanks for correcting me. I assumed because your theological perspectives have deep Protestant overtones, that you had been brought up in one of the Protestant ecclesial communities (with Sunday Bible School, sword drills, etc.).

I come from a very diverse religious background (in my extended family) and trust me, a lot of the points are fairly standard Protestant talking points. Kids get these drilled into them as youngsters (much of it is good by the way–not all of it, but much).

I’ll get back to you on this thread later (God willing). Just finished a course of chemo earlier today (I know, it’s after midnight, but you know what I mean when I say earlier “today”) and it will probably be several days before I can sit up long enough to do justice to the points raised.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut though.

God bless.

Cathoholic.

 

[Jeanne1184]

Hello Jeanne1184.

I saw on my android your response (so I’m here at my computer now).

Some of what you said? Fair enough.

Some other things? I think I might possibly be able to add to or fill out some of the things you stated.

The fact that you went to parochial school? Thanks for correcting me. I assumed because your theological perspectives have deep Protestant overtones, that you had been brought up in one of the Protestant ecclesial communities (with Sunday Bible School, sword drills, etc.).

I come from a very diverse religious background (in my extended family) and trust me, a lot of the points are fairly standard Protestant talking points. Kids get these drilled into them as youngsters (much of it is good by the way–not all of it, but much).

I’ll get back to you on this thread later (God willing). Just finished a course of chemo earlier today (I know, it’s after midnight, but you know what I mean when I say earlier “today”) and it will probably be several days before I can sit up long enough to do justice to the points raised.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut though.

God bless.

Cathoholic.

As grateful as we are to have modern medicine, the ‘incomplete power’ that fuels that service sure falls short of Christ as Physician: “Rise and walk,” and “Lazarus, come out!” I feed Hope that soon someone will re-learn the path to being Filled with the Holy Spirit like the Saints so that what Christ said below will one day be true for many in our time:

John 14:12 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believes on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
.
I assume that Christ could only show so much at the level of understanding in those days; however, it would be interesting to see just what ‘greater works’ are possible. It would be a drag for the world to end without seeing that promise come to pass, or even not to reclaim what the apostles (through Christ) could do.

I’m interested in your thoughts about whatever areas stood out for you but no worries if the ‘pull’ gets lost during your period of readjustment.

Heart hugs from the love of Christ to us all,

Jeanne1184