# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear Soc,
Code:
i vote for 3 :).   Assuming you stick to a definition of omniportence which excludes logical impossibilities.
Your general point is taken.
P7:

Taken, and also *accepted *as true? I was thinking of this passage:… it is impossible for God to lie …

(Hebrews 16:18)

Interesting that it happens to be the 18th verse of the 16th chapter. Coincidence?

😉

Thus there is apparent harmony among the three premises i mentioned. Yet premise (3) is proven false by Sacred Scripture, if we are to believe the author of Hebrews. This is one reason why i think that an apparent harmony is not, in and of itself, proof of the truth of the premises believed to be harmonious. One of the three might appear to be harmonious, yet be false.
Let us anyway keep focus. The set of the ECFs do not tell us merely “A, B and C are in harmony”. A, B and C, are each stated. None of them is ever denied.

You could even say that the single father, by affirming A and C and by not challenging his “colleagues” affirming explicitly B, does affirm the three of them.

You may say the argument ( at least in my exposition 🙂 )is a little convoluted. But if you more or less agree that it holds water, we’ve moved very far from the protestant sides:

Modern protestant view : ( B or C) AND ( not A)

The set of the ECFs : A, B and C

The Catholic Church: A, B and C.
Well, as Socrates said,A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.

(Theaetetus, 152)

So let’s try to understand what the early Church Fathers believed, for they are not likely to talk nonsense. Do you have a particular quote you’d like to share with me (perhaps where an early Church Father quotes Jesus’ words to Peter) so that we might think through it the wise man’s thoughts together?

I remember we already reached a very important agreement on the second point you mention. 👍

To further prop up the catholic position, I simply mentioned more specifically, that you can find fathers who, at the same time, would teach petra=Peter’s confession, or petra=Christ, and petrine primacy.

Bless you
Yes, i do believe that Matthew 16:19 appears clearer than verse 18 of the same chapter. And i’d like to continue the discussion of the verse where we left off before having the door so rudely shut in our faces by the Moderator.

😛

(That tongue is for him, not you!)

If you are willing, i’d like to ask you another question about Jesus meaning when He said:“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

(Matthew 16:19)

You and i agreed that Christ was speaking only to Peter in verse 19. So please tell me, IYHO, was He giving the keys to the kingdom of heaven only to Peter, or to the other Apostles who were following Him, too?
 
The question is too vague, the notion of “gospel” too vague. Anybody can use this passage against anybody else. I’m asking if there is some Catholic teaching that, according to scripture, clearly and unambiguously condemns the believer to hell.
Are you asking what i know to be true, or what Evangelicals say is the truth?
 
PC:

Well, i’m not here to preach a gospel that i’m no longer certain is the truth. However, i think it’s important to not mislead you into thinking the Evangelical gospel is essentially the same as the Catholic gospel. Ask an Evangelical pastor if they are the same, and you won’t find one who says they are. So i fear i’ve failed to adequately communicate to you what i used to believe. Perhaps this will help you appreciate the difference and see that Evangelical Christianity is actually a different religion that teaches a different gospel than that of Catholicism:

Would you say that the good things you do, such as participating in the sacraments, are causes of your being saved from hell?
No. I think that any good thing I do is through Grace and demonstates my faith. But I also think that if I don’t do good works, I am not being faithful. Works fulfills faith and faith generates works. The two can not be separated.
 
The question is too vague, the notion of “gospel” too vague. Anybody can use this passage against anybody else. I’m asking if there is some Catholic teaching that, according to scripture, clearly and unambiguously condemns the believer to hell.
Immaculate Conception
 
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

(1 Corinthians 3:12-15)
PC:

What do these words of the Apostle mean to you?

🤷
you know, you need to go a little deeper into the chapter to find out what he’s really talking about:
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul is talking about how he set up the Corinthian Church and others (like Apollos) are building on it. He’s cautioning that those that follow him must do it right and will be judged based on how they do so. But he seems to indicate, that even if they do a poor job, they will still find their way to heaven but only after spending time in Purgatory, probably because they are at least trying to spread God’s word.
 
No. I think that any good thing I do is through Grace and demonstates my faith. But I also think that if I don’t do good works, I am not being faithful. Works fulfills faith and faith generates works. The two can not be separated.
You appear to be saying faith is the same as faithfulness, but it’s not the same, is it? It seems to me that
Faith = Trusting someone

Faithfulness = Being trustworthy

For example, i could be a lousy to my dog, and not very trustworthy dog owner. Yet, i might trust my dog implicitly to protect me should someone try to break into my home and harm me. My lack of faithfulness to my dog does not diminish my trust in my dog.
 
Immaculate Conception
Amazing!

So if I believe everything you do, but I also believe in the Immaculate Conception, I go to hell? In that case, why isn’t that in the Sinner’s Prayer?

What about those Christians who don’t even believe in original sin? For that matter, is there a single Protestant view on original sin?
 
you know, you need to go a little deeper into the chapter to find out what he’s really talking about:
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work.
14 If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage.
15 But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul is talking about how he set up the Corinthian Church and others (like Apollos) are building on it. He’s cautioning that those that follow him must do it right and will be judged based on how they do so. But he seems to indicate, that even if they do a poor job, they will still find their way to heaven but only after spending time in Purgatory, probably because they are at least trying to spread God’s word.
Do you think, then, that there are degrees of reward after death? Or do you think that the one whose deeds are like valuable gold will be rewarded the same as the one whose deeds are like worthless straw?
 
How about both?
Me? I don’t know what to believe any more. It’s like i’m living that song: Oh, Life is bigger
It’s bigger than you
And you are not me
The lengths that I will go to
The distance in your eyes
Oh no I’ve said too much,
I set it up

That’s me in the corner
That’s me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep an eye on you
And I don’t know if I can do it
Oh no I’ve said too much
I haven’t said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

Every whisper
Of every waking hour I’m
Choosing my confessions
Trying to keep an eye on you
Like a hurt lost and blinded fool, fool
Oh no I’ve said too much,
I set it up

Consider this, consider this
The hint of the century
Consider this
The slip, it brought me
to my knees, failed
What if all these fantasies
Come flailing aground
Now I’ve said too much

I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
That was just a dream

That’s me in the corner
That’s me in the spotlight
Losing my religion
Trying to keep an eye on you
And I don’t know if I can do it
Oh no I’ve said too much
I hadn’t said enough
I thought that I heard you laughing
I thought that I heard you sing
I think I thought I saw you try

But that was just a dream
To Try, Cry, Fly, Try
That was just a dream
Just a dream
Just a dream, dream

Rankopedia - Find the best online casinos
 
How about both?
Them?

They’d begin by drawing attention to Paul’s words. If Socrates4Evangelicals was here, he’d ask you, “What does Paul, in the passage quoted from Galatians, say will condemn a person to hell?”

How would you answer S4E?
 
Amazing!

So if I believe everything you do, but I also believe in the Immaculate Conception, I go to hell? In that case, why isn’t that in the Sinner’s Prayer?

What about those Christians who don’t even believe in original sin? For that matter, is there a single Protestant view on original sin?
Christians that dont believe in the original sin. Now lets narrow that definition down to those that has received the HS = Christians and I believe there are 0, that don’t believe in the original sin.

I see you know must know the message about those that deny Jesus came in the flesh.
And how it relates to the Immaculate Conception, the sinless ever virgin perfect new Eve that the CC teaches.
 
Christians that dont believe in the original sin. Now lets narrow that definition down to those that has received the HS = Christians and I believe there are 0, that don’t believe in the original sin.
The Orthodox, all hundreds of millions of them, don’t believe in original sin, which is why they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception (they do, however, believe Mary was without sin her entire life).
 
Them?

They’d begin by drawing attention to Paul’s words. If Socrates4Evangelicals was here, he’d ask you, “What does Paul, in the passage quoted from Galatians, say will condemn a person to hell?”

How would you answer S4E?
In the first place, the scripture doesn’t say they will be condemned to hell. Paul does not have that power.

Beyond that, since the entire discussion hinges on what “the gospel” is and what “another gospel” is, and since that’s the crux of the disagreement anyway, I think it’s a dead end.

As I said, the argument could just as easily be used against the free church down the street as against Catholicism.
 
In the first place, the scripture doesn’t say they will be condemned to hell. Paul does not have that power.
Perhaps. But, Paul does say *eternally *condemned. That’s kind of, well, permanent; don’t you think?
But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:8)
But are you saying Saint Paul had not the power to bring about such a curse? or are you saying that the Apostle was not speaking for God in when He wrote this?
Beyond that, since the entire discussion hinges on what “the gospel” is and what “another gospel” is, and since that’s the crux of the disagreement anyway, I think it’s a dead end.

As I said, the argument could just as easily be used against the free church down the street as against Catholicism.
Socrates said,A wise man is not likely to talk nonsense. Let us try to understand him.

(Theaetetus, 152)

And if Paul is indeed wise, it seems a wise move to try to understand him. Do you agree? Since he says someone who teaches a different gospel should be condemned forever, we ought to try to figure out just what gospel Paul taught, i think. Otherwise, we might find ourselves under his curse! IYHO, how do you think Paul defined the word gospel?
 
The Orthodox, all hundreds of millions of them, don’t believe in original sin, which is why they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception (they do, however, believe Mary was without sin her entire life).
As the worm turns, you certainly have taken on a new demeanor the last few pages.
If they dont believe in original sin, the fall of man then why bother with Jesus?
 
Do you think, then, that there are degrees of reward after death? Or do you think that the one whose deeds are like valuable gold will be rewarded the same as the one whose deeds are like worthless straw?
I don’t know. But I’m also not worried about it. I don’t think its a competition. I think the reward of being in heaven is to be with God.
 
I have a problem with the HS teaching men solely threw other men. Is the individual being lead by the HS greater than the HS? Is the HS prohibited from ministering to men besides the CC priest? I dont have a problem at all with the HS working threw the church I have a problem with the church teaching that it is the HS. The clearest example of this is baptism. There are 2 types one of water and the baptism of the HS. The church teaches they are one in the same. Now why would a church teach such a thing about the most important gift from God.

6 Now John was clothed with camel’s hair and with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. 7 And he preached, saying, “There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. 8 I indeed baptized you with water Type 1, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” and type 2.

Type one is repentance and turning to Jesus. Type 2 is the Father and Jesus sending the HS after they have inspected your heart and mind, not by any action or good works you preform. A repentant mind and heart will in itself lead to good works but good works themselves are not the means of the result. You cant fool God, good works can be counterfeited before men that is why men dont have control over sending the HS, or its anointing gift can not be passed from one man to another man.
Michaelsmth in Christ,

The Catholic Church does not claim that the Holy Spirit teaches men solely through other men.

Catholics do not believe that individuals are greater than the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Church does not teach or practice anything that says that the Holy Spirit is prohibited from ministering to men besides a Catholic priest.

The Catholic Church does not claim that it is the Holy Spirit.

You have not been reading the posts that have been addressed to you concerning baptism on this forum. The Catholic Church does not claim that water baptism and baptism in the Holy Spirit as described in reference to Pentecost are one in the same. The Catholic Church teaches what scripture teaches which is different from your point of view.

You deny a person receives the Holy Spirit in Christian water baptism and that is simply false. I have already explained to you before the difference between the water baptism of John and Christian water baptism instituted by Jesus. I’ll say it again: The former does not bring with it the gift of the Holy Spirit whereas the latter does.

I am going spend time on my next post on the issue of Christian water baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit by way of scripture.
 
Michaelsmth in Christ,

In order to object to water baptism as being regenerative you must refuse to take literally many passages of scripture including the words of Jesus in John 3:5 which say, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” In an attempt to explain this verse away some will make the claim that the water spoken of in this passage refers to the bag of waters/amniotic fluid of a mother’s womb. They then say that the first half of Jesus statement merely refers to a person’s natural birth.

This view does violence to the passage in which Jesus tells Nicodemus that a man must be born anew in baptism. Clearly, the bag of waters interpretation cannot be true. First of all, those who make the case for the interpretation do not offer any evidence that the Jews described childbirth in terms of the bag of waters. We know that Jesus was talking about the water of baptism because the scriptures that immediately follow the meeting with Nicodemus say that, “After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea: there he remained with them and baptized” (John 3:22). The subsequent verses also mention that John the Baptist was nearby baptizing because there was an abundance of water. The entire context is about water baptism. Baptism has always been associated with water, whereas childbirth in Jewish usage was more likely associated with blood. A biblical foundation for this latter point is found in John 1:12-13 where we read, “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God: who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”

More scripture showing the regenerative nature of baptism.

OT-- Baptism prefigured
Ezk 36:25-28
I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.

Compare this to:
ACTS 2:37-39
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

Going statement for statement we see an unmistakable pattern and prefiguring in Ezekiel with a corresponding fulfillment in the NT. The Book of Acts makes the connections abundantly clear. In Ezekiel we are told that God will use water to cleanse you of your uncleannesses (i.e sins). In the book of Acts it says to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins. God says in Ezekiel that he will “give you a new heart and remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.” In the book of Acts we are told that they were cut to the heart. In Ezekiel God says, “I will put a new spirit within you.” and in the book of Acts we are told that we will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then finally in Ezekiel God says, “…and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” And in the book of Acts we are told that “the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.” Clearly, all those that the Lord our God calls to himself are rightly called “his people.”

Beyond this we read the following NT scriptures.

Matthew 3:15-17
But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

In this passage we see Jesus receiving baptism. Obviously, Jesus did not need baptism as we do. Nevertheless, Jesus is baptized for two reasons. One is to “fulfill all righteousness” This makes holy and efficacious baptism for all Christians of all times. Secondly, we see that Jesus receives the Holy Spirit. Thus we are shown what takes place for us in water baptism. We receive the Holy Spirit and we become adopted sons and daughters and we are made righteous before the Lord.

Returning to the book of Acts we read the following:

ACTS 19:1-7
“While Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have never even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.” This passage of scripture clearly shows that John’s baptism of forgiveness did not have the gift of the Holy Spirit attached to it. These disciples were therefore baptized again in the name of Jesus and thereby received the gift of the Holy Spirit. The following passages of scripture further attest to the necessity and efficacy of baptism.

ACTS 22:16
And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

MARK 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

ROMANS 6: 3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

cont. on next post
 
cont from prior post:

GALATIANS 3:27
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

COLOSSIANS 2:11-12
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ; and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead

EPHESIANS 4:5
one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

TITUS 3:4-8
but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit,

1 PETER 3:20-21
when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

I hope these passages begin to help you see what I’m getting at. Moreover, you must make some effort to convince me why your interpretation on baptism is superior to the apostolic teaching of the Church since the day of Pentecost. Likewise, you have a difficult up hill pull trying to explain away the fact that Christian water baptism was always taught as remitting sin and giving the gift of the Holy Spirit just as stated in scripture. It wasn’t until the Reformation that some Christians began arguing against this truth. Please explain that to me.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top