# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[fhansen]

I get in trouble every time I C/P something. And I did indicate that. Hmm I wonder. I did like the story, and its indication that God is unchanging, had I realized the direction the Spirit was to follow I certainly would have paraphrased the C/P I would not have used the word precepts. Precepts is not a term I apply to the word. Its very shaky ground. Precepts is a close cousin to ambiguous when used in scripture as I have pointed out.

I have answered your question, it simply not the answer you want. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. The problem is not that people dont agree the problem is that you dont know what you believe. You will decide the meaning of Gods word, just as everyone else will give an account for that which he has done. It really doesn’t matter what others think when you stand alone with God, He’s only concerned with what you think.

Well that kinda begs the question, doesn’t it? Are we to know Gods will without any kind of (name removed by moderator)ut at all? If not, then what (name removed by moderator)ut/revelation do we need and how do we know it’s the real thing? As a Protestant I would’ve said that, as one of His sheep, I hear Gods voice in scripture and the HS helps me to understand and guides me. As a Catholic I say that, as one of His sheep, I hear Gods voice in scripture and the teachings of the CC and the HS helps me to understand and guides me.

My story is somewhat different from yours-and somewhat alike. I was a cradle Catholic who left the Church for over 25 years, began to seek God and read the bible on my own at some point and came to embrace and cling to it’s truths in a world which seems to operate on lies and arrogance. I became quite anti-Catholic and thought I was slaying the dragon every time I spoke against her. I was very surprised when, years later, through a series of circumstances, God led me back to the CC and I gradually came to find there never was a valid reason for me-or the Reformers before me-to leave. I also found that, while I had correctly recognized Gods voice in the bible, my Protestant theology was not something I had so purely distilled straight from scripture but rather was a mix of Reformed thought, modern American evangelical thought, pop-theology, the ideas of local pastors, and even Catholic thought.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

That’s the great thing about Jesus’ humor: It is as a deep well, and you must use the bucket of reflection to draw forth from it the water of humor and truth.

Perhaps you are right. I can certainly understand the humor in Jesus saying,“Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

(Matthew 19:24)
I’m sure what Jesus said was so shocking that it made people laugh (shocking because popular opinion was that the rich were rich because God favored them).

I can also see humor in Christ saying,“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?”

(Matthew 7:2-4)
For the idea of someone offering to remove a splinter from your eye without first putting down the pile of wood in his arms is a humorous way of making the point that the one attempting to be helpful will do more harm than good!

I can even see the humor in Him saying to Simon,“And I tell you that you are [a Rock], and on this rock I will build my church …”

(Matthew 16:18)
for it’s ironic that the one called Rock would melt like butter and run away a coward when faced with a little girl who accused him of being one of Jesus’ followers!



But do you really think He would crack jokes when speaking of His death (at the Last Supper) or when speaking of His weeping mother, as she watched her only child suffer?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I don’t belong to ether. I do believe that out of these Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism I am in the historicism group, I’m curtain that is where your presumption about sda comes from. To condense my testimony, threw circumstances not under my control, I found self knowing Jesus was true but not having a strong biblical knowledge of Him. That Spirit at work in me as a young man placed me in Calvary chapel riverside cal. …

I have a great deal of respect for Calvary Chapel churches and the Jesus movement that saved so many drug addicts and made them pastors of churches that now have thousands of members. One of my favorite pastors is David Rosalis, pastor of the church in the Chino Valley:

calvaryccv.org/

 

[michaelsmth626]

Yes, pesky Catholics and their troublesome theology.

I like your shipwrecked analogy, and I’m going to use a similar one. Many times in pirate stories the treasure map is torn in two, and both halves must be possessed to find the treasure. With scripture alone you only had one half of the map, so of course it is not surprising that you found your one half “ambiguous”. But the Catholic Church, by the grace and design of God, has both halves of the map, and furthermore has a lifetime how-to-read-the-map-correctly guarantee. It just doesn’t get any better than that, and it is a reflection of God’s love for us that he has given us everything we need.

God cares too much about our salvation to mess with us by being ambiguous. He is God, the author of truth and clarity, not ambiguity and confusion. So if we encounter ambiguity and confusion, we cannot conclude that God just wasn’t up to the task of being clear and concise. We must rather conclude that we don’t have the entire map, and we must seek the remainder of the map. And God has not hidden the map, unless you think a Church with over a billion members, spread across the globe, with a 2000 year history, is hidden.

The complete map is waiting for you. All you need to do is reach out for it.

We have to ignore a lot of key scripture to accept your parable.

Jer 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD.

“If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”
John 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

Mat 11-27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Mt 5.14-16 You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand. And it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in Heaven.

Mt 13.18-23 Therefore hear the parable of the sower…

* **When anyone hears the Word of the kingdom and does not understand it**, then the wicked one comes and catches away that which was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown by the wayside.

Need I say more Your hidden treasurer map parable does not add up to well.
In fact you seem rather pleased with sowing ambiguity and confusion,
“Yes, pesky Catholics and their troublesome theology.
I like your shipwrecked analogy”,

Scripture clearly states that salvation is available. This is from one of those pesky lamps that was lite by Jesus and not hidden.
Gal 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ.

Just what verse do you site to support you alone posses the hidden or lost half of the map? Now that wouldn’t be mat 16 would it?

 

[VociMike]

We have to ignore a lot of key scripture to accept your parable.

No, you have to ignore the fact that “bible-believing” Christians cannot agree on nearly any fundamental aspect of the truth as revealed in scripture.

Give me a list of those things that every person who believes that the bible is the written word of God agrees on. It will be a very short list, I can assure you.

There is one Catholic faith, one set of Catholic beliefs. There are thousands of Protestant faiths, thousands of sets of Protestant beliefs. Now you tell me where the confusion lies.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, pesky Catholics and their troublesome theology.
I like your shipwrecked analogy, and I’m going to use a similar one. Many times in pirate stories the treasure map is torn in two, and both halves must be possessed to find the treasure. With scripture alone you only had one half of the map, so of course it is not surprising that you found your one half “ambiguous”. But the Catholic Church, by the grace and design of God, has both halves of the map, and furthermore has a lifetime how-to-read-the-map-correctly guarantee. It just doesn’t get any better than that, and it is a reflection of God’s love for us that he has given us everything we need.

Thanks, but i should give credit where it is due. The Apostle Paul used the shipwreck analogy. I suppose the other half of the map will do me some good if i can first find a new ship to get me there. It’s as though i’m treading water, and two lifeboats have come along side me. Some urge me to just make a choice and stop floundering. But my fear is that i’ll make the wrong choice. I don’t want to be shipwrecked again, or taken captive by pirates. I want to be rescued by a ship that will get me safely home.

God cares too much about our salvation to mess with us by being ambiguous. He is God, the author of truth and clarity, not ambiguity and confusion. So if we encounter ambiguity and confusion, we cannot conclude that God just wasn’t up to the task of being clear and concise. We must rather conclude that we don’t have the entire map, and we must seek the remainder of the map. And God has not hidden the map, unless you think a Church with over a billion members, spread across the globe, with a 2000 year history, is hidden.

The complete map is waiting for you. All you need to do is reach out for it.

Well, there’s much trembling on my part. And it’s not just because the water up to my nose is icy cold; it’s for fear i tremble. Protestants tell me yours is a map, all right–and it will lead me straight to hell! If you look at this quick diagram i put together, you will see my dilemma.

Let’s say i have no idea whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true, but i decide to trust Her just the same. The best for which i could hope as the outcome is to win by making it to heaven. The worst is to lose, by ending up in hell. But if i continue to trust the Protestant gospel, the worst for which i could hope is to break even, by ending up in Purgatory. But the best would be to win heaven. It seems, then, that if i remain in ignorance, the most logical choice is to not trust the Catholic Church, for in doing so i risk losing all for all eternity. If i cannot figure this thing out and get the wisdom i need to lose my ignorance, i’ll have to play the odds and make the less risky gamble. And since the stakes are high (my eternal destiny is at stake!) i must make the safer bet.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[fhansen]

Thanks, but i should give credit where it is due. The Apostle Paul used the shipwreck analogy. I suppose the other half of the map will do me some good if i can first find a new ship to get me there. It’s as though i’m treading water, and two lifeboats have come along side me. Some urge me to just make a choice and stop floundering. But my fear is that i’ll make the wrong choice. I don’t want to be shipwrecked again, or taken captive by pirates. I want to be rescued by a ship that will get me safely home.

Well, there’s much trembling on my part. And it’s not just because the water up to my nose is icy cold; it’s for fear i tremble. Protestants tell me yours is a map, all right–and it will lead me straight to hell! If you look at this quick diagram i put together, you will see my dilemma.

Let’s say i have no idea whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true, but i decide to trust Her just the same. The best for which i could hope as the outcome is to win by making it to heaven. The worst is to lose, by ending up in hell. But if i continue to trust the Protestant gospel, the worst for which i could hope is to break even, by ending up in Purgatory. But the best would be to win heaven. It seems, then, that if i remain in ignorance, the most logical choice is to not trust the Catholic Church, for in doing so i risk losing all for all eternity. If i cannot figure this thing out and get the wisdom i need to lose my ignorance, i’ll have to play the odds and make the less risky gamble. And since the stakes are high (my eternal destiny is at stake!) i must make the safer bet.

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae242/socraticaddict/choose_catholic_or_protestant_75.jpg

Soc, do you pray about this-I mean ask God to help you know the truth? In Catholic thought, as we discovered in your great thread “Hope”, faith is a supernatural virtue given by God to enable us to believe in truths proposed. In the end, it can take time. Becoming Catholic is like getting married. You don’t know everything about your spouse when you wed and will presumably continue to learn more as time goes on but they’ve obviously earned enough of your trust and love to compel you to unite and to believe that your union should last-and with continued faith in them and in God the relationship should make even more sense to you down the road. Or not.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

HI Soc !

  First of all thanks for putting such good and profound  and difficult questions.

And igniting this new beautiful thread.

If it’s not too late, I’d offer my first :twocents:

Never too late for you, my new Italian friend!

I’d begin with comparing the present question on the supposed ambiguity with the parallel one about the supposed contradictoriness.
Such matters have been under examination for at least16 centuries, if we remember that S. Augustine left us the great work “The harmony of the Gospels”.Since that great mind spent so many pages to show the point of the title, we can get it is not immediately evident.

Many of the seeming contradictions can confidently be harmonized.
In some cases, we just have two or three tales adding something to each other, like:
I went to the cinema.
I went to the cinema with my wife.
I went to the cinema with my wife and some friends of ours.

In some cases minor contradictions appear to resist examination. Did the people
around Saul hear the voice calling him on the road to Damascus ? See Acts 9:7, versus
22:9 . Maybe we shouldn’t bother.

I guess most of us here would settle saying that Scripture is seemingly contradictory, stressing both is and seemingly. This contributes to make Scripture a seriously difficult reading. Which Scripture itself states in 2 Peter 3:16 .
And if anybody is ready to show that the mentioned verse does not tell us that Scripture is difficult, he just would show that this is ……a difficult verse.
I do wonder sometimes about how difficult and seemingly contradictory does appear soteriology, as it is so unsystematically explained in Scripture. . But then it can be very subjective.

---

Now being difficult, even obscure somewhere, does not negate the inspired nature of Scripture, does it Soc ?

No sir, i find no reason to believe it does.

What about the proposed case of ambiguity ? Can that in your opinion be compatible with inspiration ?
I guess it isn’t.

If truth and error are communicated together, and mixed with each other, and undiscernibly so, we simply are not told the truth. Revelation cannot propose truth and error on equal terms, and without giving tools to discern. Jesus, aka the Truth, cannot IMHO speak truth and error on equal terms.

Therefore, when a pericope offers two or three interpretations, and we appear just unable to exclude one or the other, isn’t it wise just …. not excluding them ourselves ?

In other words the truth, or the best approach to it, can be conveyed by taking the two possibilities together.

There is no contradiction, for example in considering the petra in Matthew 16 as Simon and as his confession, and naturally Christ Himself is the ultimate petra.
Why have to exclude any of these possibilities, if they do not exclude each other ?

Jesus can tell us that He is the Rock and that Simon is the rocky one, being thus in a unique relationship with the Master, and therefore the prince of the apostles.

I’d agree that Jesus can believe that Peter is like Himself in that Peter, when He speaks the rock of truth, is a rock like Himself. That being said, this is not what Jesus says; is it? If He was speaking of not one rock, but two or three, why would He not say this?
**c7. **And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [these rocks] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(Matthew 16:18)
Since He is speaking of a rock, instead of rocks, He can only mean one.

What I mean is that

• excluding one or two of the possibilities looks arbitrary.

Yes, it *looks *arbitrary to one who knows all three to be true. Yet it actually is necessary if one of the three is false.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

• Whatever option, be it c5, c6 or so, is inserted into the pericope 16:17-19, it gives you anyway the strong message of a special role for Simon.
  Excluding petra=Petros is not only very arbitrary, it cannot even fulfill the original task of this arbitrariness, ie rejecting Peter’s primacy.

If we pass from a strictly “aut …aut” mindset, to a “Both…and”, or “et…et” mindset, we have in general, IMHO, a substantial hint to the solution of the great question you put.

So, in the words of the Institution the Church does not exclude the foundation for symbolic dimensions of the Holy Eucharist. On the contrary, this Sacrament is very rich in symbolism.

It seems that if one is ignorant (as i am) as to whether Peter is the rock of which Jesus spoke, then i cannot accept that he is one of the three rocks on which Jesus’ Church is built. What i need is to lose my ignorance either by (1) finding some proof that that teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church is true, or by (2) finding some other scriptural proof that Peter is one of the rocks on which Christ’s Church is built.

But how can many protestant brothers exclude from the truth conveyed at the Institution the Real Presence of our Lord ?
You put it so well Soc: it’s not one of us speaking, it’s Jesus who says “This is my body”. How then can we consider that it is obvious, or that it was obvious for the Apostles, that He was speaking about a mere symbolism ? They definitely could understand the realist way. Then , if they did not ask for explanations, I’d bet they did get somehow that He was teaching what the following centuries would come to call Real Presence.
In any case, consider BTW that even writing “This actually is my actual body”, as in your proposal, would not be enough to prevent the IS from being interpreted as “represents”, if i do want it.

Yes, i’ve spent much time discussing John, chapter 6 with both Protestants and Catholics and have come to the conclusion that either might have the truth, but how can i know which side that is?

There are other pericopes, less “hot” than these ones, which could show the case for keeping it “et …et”.

At this point, Soc, you could observe that Jesus did foresee the explosion in the XVI century of an “aut…aut” mindset. He certainly did permit it.

Ambiguity is relative to the mindset. We should carefully examine a mindset which seems to make Jesus speaking ambiguity, rather than Truth.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying an ambiguous statement is a deception. If anyone would care to consider Jesus’ words carefully, i’m sure he’d discover the same ambiguity i have. So if people are deceived, they cannot necessarily be blamed for it, unless they refuse to consider the meaning of Jesus’ words. It seems to me that those Protestants (or Catholics) who think they know the truth but actually don’t will not be judged as sternly as those who know that what they believe might not be true and do nothing to investigate the matter.

They can tell you that their individual interpretations
are, each of them, the obvious one, and that settles the whole problem. But I guess you do not accept such a quick fix.

Scripture has been in any case object of disputations in the first centuries too. Jesus did permit that too. Is that surprising ?
A written witness is per se less clear than oral teaching. What was the voice stressing, where is to be put punctuation ? So many aspects get lost. Moreover, many expressions were meaningful and perspicuous for jewish-background believers, and not so for Gentiles, even in the first century.

Maybe we need a common living visible guide, to get reliable sound meanings from Scriptures, rather than claiming to be so specially Spirit-filled as to be able to see as obvious what for another brother, not seldom claiming to be Spirit-filled as well in his turn, is not obvious at all, or is even obviously wrong.

…

My conclusion (or beginning ) is that:

Scripture, and a fortiori Jesus, cannot speak ambiguity, ie present error and truth on equal terms.
We have to be very doubtful about the “aut …aut” mindset.

I hope this can help.

Well, a conclusion is only as good as it’s weakest link (the weakest premise that supports it’s weight). Your chain has two weak links: (1) you have not demonstrated that Jesus spoke of all three rocks, or (2) you have not demonstrated that the Church is correct about all three rocks. The same two apply to the Eucharist. I need stronger premises to accept your conclusion, otherwise the chain might break and seen me plummeting into the Abyss!

 

[VociMike]

S4J, it is certainly not a universal Protestant belief that Catholics will go to hell. I’m sure you know that. In fact, given the Protestant roadmap to salvation, it is very hard for them to make a case that a devout, believing Catholic is any less saved than a devout, believing Protestant. It’s another one of the Protestant contradictions that so abound.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

C5 fits the body of scripture.

Agreed! Interpretation (c5) of Jesus’ words fits the wider context of the entire Bible. Often God speaks of Himself as the Rock on which we rely.

C6 is too narrow. We see the rock indicating much more than just the truth. Salvation, water for Israel in the desert “living water” to the woman at the well. To destroying the kingdoms of the world in Nebakanezer’s Dream. From salvation to Justice

Perhaps you are correct. However, interpretation (c6) of Jesus’ words does fit the immediate context of the passage, for in the same passage Jesus also says:

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
(Matthew 16:15-17)
Thus, the rick might (though not necessarily is) the truth Peter spoke in verse 16.

Good question and example.
My notion or leading this evening has been indicating that answers to such questions can only be answered by the individual. To me it all depends on who is “we”. Are battle is not against flesh and blood but against spirits and principalities.

Maybe you are right. So how do you know when you are right? Maybe if you tell me, then i can discover the same.

 

[michaelsmth626]

No, you have to ignore the fact that “bible-believing” Christians cannot agree on nearly any fundamental aspect of the truth as revealed in scripture.

Give me a list of those things that every person who believes that the bible is the written word of God agrees on. It will be a very short list, I can assure you.

There is one Catholic faith, one set of Catholic beliefs. There are thousands of Protestant faiths, thousands of sets of Protestant beliefs. Now you tell me where the confusion lies.

That would be the basic tenets of salvation.
There are some that would disagree but most protestants follow the same fudemental line as it is called.
Its in some details other than questioning each others salvation that lies the most differences. Catholics also speak of large pieces of scripture that are not specifically interpreted by church officials that afford personal reflection. Catholics venture into different areas of faith that are not held out in the same esteem as others, you do not call this being divided but acknowledge it as different members of the same body. Do you get the point Im trying to make?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

Ephesians2:8: “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God . not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works.” From faith proceeds our works.

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

The above is not a licensees to continue sinning but rather a covering as we mature in Christ.

We are all a work in progress. Catholic and protestant alike.

Phil 1:3 I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, 4 always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, 5 for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ;

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, do you pray about this-I mean ask God to help you know the truth?

FH:

I try to daily follow James advice:If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.

(James 1:5)

In Catholic thought, as we discovered in your great thread “Hope”, faith is a supernatural virtue given by God to enable us to believe in truths proposed. In the end, it can take time. Becoming Catholic is like getting married. You don’t know everything about your spouse when you wed and will presumably continue to learn more as time goes on but they’ve obviously earned enough of your trust and love to compel you to unite and to believe that your union should last-and with continued faith in them and in God the relationship should make even more sense to you down the road. Or not.

Yes, but it is unwise to marry a woman before one is sure she is the one! I mean, becoming a Catholic before i’m sure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is like getting married just because i’m in love with the idea of getting married but unsure i love the one to whom i’m going to be married. I have to make up my mind about the Catholic Church before i betroth myself to her. Don’t you think?



(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

S4J, it is certainly not a universal Protestant belief that Catholics will go to hell. I’m sure you know that.

Voci:

I was speaking of the Protestants i know–Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, mostly. And it’s not that they say becoming a Catholic will send me straight to hell without passing Go and without collecting $200.00. It’s that believing a different gospel other than the one the Bible teaches will land me there. Many Evangelicals would agree that a Catholic will make it to heaven if she believes the true gospel, despite what the Catholic Church teaches. But their idea appears to have Apostolic support, for Paul wrote:
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:9)
I’m not saying they are right, mind you. I’m just saying it’s unwise to take the risk of becoming Catholic until i know they are wrong. I’m looking to avoid the Lose-Lose scenario (i.e., the possibility of hell) at all costs. It’s the rational and reasonable thing to do if i cannot escape my ignorance of the truth; don’t you agree?

 

[Pax]

I’ve been all threw this in socks old thread. I was and still will argue the point about their were only 12 but the catholic church now seats what? the 265th Peter. Does not the pope claim authority over all churches threw the susesion of Peter? Or rather Jesus building His church on Peter. A simple yes or no will suffice, that the church is acting as an Apostle today, defining doctrine and holding the door to salvation. Not building on the message of Christ but ruling as Peters successor of the church that was established threw Peter.

michaelsmth in Christ,

A simple yes or no would be nice for your purposes just as a simple yes or no would be nice for the person asking, “Do you still beat your wife?”

The Church is not in any kind of either or situation as you attempt to paint it. First of all, succession is indeed present, but that does not necessitate that successors be apostles or that they must be called apostles. It is my understanding that an apostle was an eye witness to Jesus life and ministry.

Bishops are the successors to the apostles and there is no necessity for them to be eye witnesses in order to have authority, let alone to govern and to define doctrine by way of the protection of the Holy Spirit just as it was in the first council of Jerusalem. What gives you the idea that the Church is not building on the message of Christ? And how is it that this would be different from including Peter per Christ’s own words and work in establishing the Church? You are simply setting up a false dichotomy here, and are ignoring the fact that the Church has authority granted to her by Jesus himself.

I find it perplexing that you fail to grasp that a person cannot understand and know Christian teaching and truth by simply reading scripture without the Church. Your view would lead one to believe that they can teach themselves and discern doctrine on their own by simply reading scripture. There must be an authoritative source and scripture clearly indicates that there is such a source. Moreover, scripture identifies the Church as that source and even refers to the Church as the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

Scripture even says the following:

Rom 16:17
I

appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.

Gal 6:6

Let him who is taught the word share all good things with him who teaches.

Eph 4:20-21

You did not so learn Christ!–assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus.

Col 2:6-7

As therefore you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so live in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught…

2 Thess 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Titus 1:7-9

For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled; he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.

All of these passage speak of the word of God and doctrine being “taught.” Moreover, it is the “true word as taught.” It is not the “true word according to my own interpretation.” Furthermore, it is important to look at what scripture says about bishops. This is scripture. This is the word of God and it cannot be ignored. Elsewhere scripture talks further about authority.

The Catholic Church makes claims about herself based on scripture, Christ’s commission, and based upon her apostolic authority and succession. Apostolic authority is the authority of the apostles handed on to their successors, the bishops. We need a teaching authority today every bit as much as the early Church needed the apostles, and every bit as much as the early Church needed a teaching authority in the immediate successors to the apostles.

God bless.

 

[VociMike]

Voci:

I was speaking of the Protestants i know–Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, mostly. And it’s not that they say becoming a Catholic will send me straight to hell without passing Go and without collecting $200.00. It’s that believing a different gospel other than the one the Bible teaches will land me there. Many Evangelicals would agree that a Catholic will make it to heaven if she believes the true gospel, despite what the Catholic Church teaches. But their idea appears to have Apostolic support, for Paul wrote:
As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

(Galatians 1:9)
I’m not saying they are right, mind you. I’m just saying it’s unwise to take the risk of becoming Catholic until i know they are wrong. I’m looking to avoid the Lose-Lose scenario (i.e., the possibility of hell) at all costs. It’s the rational and reasonable thing to do if i cannot escape my ignorance of the truth; don’t you agree?

And yet there is also Mk 9:38-41, where Jesus not only seems to tell us that the Christian tent is large, but also, interestingly, lays the focus on the man’s works. Just more of that darned ambiguity!

Besides, I wonder how a non-Catholic Christian could make Gal 1:9 apply to Catholics but not to any other Christians. That would be an interesting task, don’t you agree? For as you must know, many nCCs will acknowledge that just about any Christian group, regardless of their differences, is preaching the true gospel, just not the Catholics.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, but it is unwise to marry a woman before one is sure she is the one! I mean, becoming a Catholic before i’m sure the Catholic Church teaches the truth is like getting married just because i’m in love with the idea of getting married but unsure i love the one to whom i’m going to be married. I have to make up my mind about the Catholic Church before i betroth myself to her. Don’t you think?

Yes, I wouldn’t wed before I was sure- at least as sure as one can reasonably be.

 

[VociMike]

That would be the basic tenets of salvation.
There are some that would disagree but most protestants follow the same fudemental line as it is called.

So people who read the bible outside the light of the Church can’t even agree on the fundamentals of salvation found therein? They can’t even agree on the essentials? And this doesn’t bother you greatly?

 

[Eucharisted]

But do you really think He would crack jokes when speaking of His death (at the Last Supper) or when speaking of His weeping mother, as she watched her only child suffer?

I could be wrong, of course.

I suppose, then, that these wise men are correct, and i should finally have the full wisdom i see when i see Wisdom face to face.

That is what Saint Augustine thinks of Heaven, too.

 

[michaelsmth626]

So people who read the bible outside the light of the Church can’t even agree on the fundamentals of salvation found therein? They can’t even agree on the essentials? And this doesn’t bother you greatly?

You know as well as I do thats not what I said.
Your little ministry of spreading ambiguity never ends does it.