# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[paul_c]

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

I don’t think you understand the odds correctly.
What does the Protestant Gospel require for Salvation? Isn’t it Faith Alone? This can be interpreted many ways by the various denominations. Some will say all you need to do is to believe in Jesus’s sacrifice in your heart and you will be saved. Some believe you need to be baptized, Some will add on that you need to make a public statement. Some will say that you have to demonstrate your Faith through works to be truly saved.

To be a Catholic, you will believe that you need to do everything the most Stringent Protestant group believes. You need to have Faith, You need to be Baptized, you need to pronounce your Faith in Public during Confirmation, You need to act out your faith through acts of love toward God and neighbor and if you fail to do so, you must be sacramentally reconciled through confession.

So if you lead a Good Catholic life, I fail to see how you would not meet all the obligations of the Protestant Gospel for salvation and then some. If you don’t agree, please tell me what you think the Catholic would lack in terms of salvation if even the most stingent protestants gospel is correct.

Can you reach heaven according to the Catholic Gospel if you are Protestant. Well, in some denominations, you can be validly baptized. And you can stay in the state of Grace from that point on if you don’t sin and you live out your faith, loving God and neighbor. So, we would say it is possible, but made more difficult by the absence of sacramental grace, particularly of the eucharist and reconciliation. Because it would be very hard to stay perfect without those aids.

 

[VociMike]

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

No need to be hostile because you didn’t like my understanding of your words.

Now, let me ask again for that list of all the teachings that all people who accept the bible as the written word of God find in the bible. How many teachings are agreed upon by every person who reads the bible? Zero? One? Five? How many and what are they?

If the bible is not ambiguous then the answer should be clear. You seem to be reluctant to provide that answer.

 

[michaelsmth626]

No need to be hostile because you didn’t like my understanding of your words.

Now, let me ask again for that list of all the teachings that all people who accept the bible as the written word of God find in the bible. How many teachings are agreed upon by every person who reads the bible? Zero? One? Five? How many and what are they?

If the bible is not ambiguous then the answer should be clear. You seem to be reluctant to provide that answer.

You appear to be trying proding me into some kind of confrontation.
Your post was this

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.

To which I replied to and provided a few fundamental points that most every protestant would agree with. You then ignored the main body of my statement and injected something you know very well I never intended to convey.

Im not reluctant to reply but see little to be gained with someone who’s intent appears to be spreading ambiguity rather than examining what was said then replying with a rebuttal. Which I replied to like such>>>>Your little ministry of spreading ambiguity never ends does it.

I’ll condense my statement in reply to your accusation that protestants dont agree but catholics are some how in complete unison. Protestants agree in the very same way catholics do, catholics all have a common fundamental belief also, that is the Church, Pope and Apostolic succession from Peter. Regardless of all the sacraments and required attendance and faith in dogmas taught, the body of believers are all over the board as well. But they quickly round the wagons in unison under the church, pope and Peter. The same can be said for protestants. As Socrates is aware of, is this draws a larger picture that the 2 foundational beliefs differ greatly. In essence and nature they are 2 different gospels.

I believe you are the one thats upset because I lifted your skirt to Socrites and pointed out the under current in your post for the last several pages, that is you are spreading ambiguity.

 

[VociMike]

You appear to be trying proding me into some kind of confrontation.
Your post was this

No, I’m trying to get you to tell what the bible teaches unambiguously to everyone who accepts it as the written word of God.

To which I replied to and provided a few fundamental points that most every protestant would agree with. You then ignored the main body of my statement and injected something you know very well I never intended to convey.

“Most every protestant” isn’t good enough. If the bible is unambiguous, how can any protestant (or rather, any person who believes the bible is the written word of God, since I know you would not even label some of those people as protestants), how can any protestant ever be mistaken on any of these points?

I keep asking you for a list and you keep not providing one. So I will ask an even simpler question. Is there a list (you don’t even have to provide it) of truths that all who read the bible, and acknowledge that it is the written word of God, will agree on?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Actually, they are not prejudice. Their condemnation applies equally to Catholics as well as all Protestants who hold to a different Gospel than the one they believe. And don’t think they’ll tell you so with frowns or a sneers. Instead, if you look close, you’ll see tears in their eyes. There are only two kinds of people in this world, they’ll tearfully tell you–saints and ain’ts. And if you don’t become a saint, you ain’t going to make it to heaven, nor Purgatory (which they say does not exist). If you don’t believe as they believe, it’s a one way ticket to hell.

 

[steve_b]

The catholic church became a state sanctioned church enforced by law.

The Catholic Church became legal. That means killing Catholics just because one was Catholic was no longer allowed. That’s completely different from your characterization.
m:

That has little to do with Christians from Jesus to this time. Do you suppose that Christ and the HS were behind forcing the catholic church on the Roman empire by law?

The Catholic Church Christianized the Roman empire and the pagan empire collapsed as the Catholic Church Christianized the world. Just as Jesus wanted.
m:

Why is it do you think that the CC was the only church threw the centuries?

Because it’s the only Church Jesus started and made His promises to, wouldn’t it make sense it’s the ONLY Church throughout the centuries? :yup:
m:

Because it was sanctioned by the state or kingdom of the region. It was literally illegal to deny it the CC. The very things you teach today were law denial or opposition to it was punishable. You and paul c make it sound as though this was the hand of God, sustaining it. I disagree it was the enforcement of the kings and their army’s that sustained it, beginning with the Romans. I am hesitant of any religious origination that wants to legislate law to support its faith. I believe that if the CC had its way as it did with the kings of old Europe today that all other churches would be closed and we would all hail the pope or suffer the consequences of the law. At least the founding fathers of this country understood this and made a provision it would never acure here.

You’re chimney seems to be clogged.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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

Yes, i agree. It would be a tragedy to marry Her only to later change my mind and seek a divorce. For the the Bible tells us,

“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.

(Malachi 2:16)

So how should i decide if the Catholic Church is the one, FH?

 

[michaelsmth626]

**No, I’m trying to get you to tell what the bible teaches unambiguously to everyone who accepts it as the written word of God.

**
“Most every protestant” isn’t good enough. If the bible is unambiguous, how can any protestant (or rather, any person who believes the bible is the written word of God, since I know you would not even label some of those people as protestants), how can any protestant ever be mistaken on any of these points?

I keep asking you for a list and you keep not providing one. So I will ask an even simpler question. Is there a list (you don’t even have to provide it) of truths that all who read the bible, and acknowledge that it is the written word of God, will agree on?

I guess that I dont understand what it is that you are trying to get me to commit to.

I will simply repose what I posted before. With an addition

Jesus is the Son of God that shared in the same weakness of the flesh as all men have.
Another differing point between catholic and protestants.

Heb 2:14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.

Rom 10:17 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;

 

[fhansen]

Yes, i agree. It would be a tragedy to marry Her only to later change my mind and seek a divorce. For the the Bible tells us,

“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty.

(Malachi 2:16)

So how should i decide if the Catholic Church is the one, FH?

Well, I can tell you what I did. I don’t believe in leaps of faith-whether in God, the CC, or a potential spouse. I do believe that one must be comfortable-not that comfort is the reason for marriage-but I certainly wouldn’t wed someone who I’m awkward with or who seems particularly foreign to me. Trust and love must be earned-they must grow. I didn’t date a great deal before I married but I did check out quite a few faiths-over years, inside and outside of Christianity-before I came to believe in its basic tenets and would go on to eventually become a quite conservative Protestant. It was years later, however, before I re-entered the CC, to my own surprise. Meanwhile I had to learn a few things along the way-one happened to be that Sola Scriptura was illogical-an unsupportable doctrine. However, this didn’t leave many churches standing when it came to choosing one.

But it all kind of happened simultaneously. I happened to come in contact with some serious Catholics and came to realize that their faith was genuine-simpler and less intellectual than mine usually. And I began to see that I didn’t know as much as I thought I knew. And little by little I came to no longer mistrust the Church and her authority but gradually to cherish it-I came to agree with her on so many things. And this is how it should be and how she teaches it should work.

I never shied away from reading “apostate literature” as the JWs call it-literature from “other” faiths. I even studied JW stuff for awhile to give it a fair shake-they had some admirable and attractive qualities to my mind. I always figured that if my faith couldn’t endure a challenge then it wasn’t very strong to begin with. It took a little longer to actually read Catholic material seriously, however, being quite anti-Catholic and all, but since I began, I’ve rarely been unimpressed-whether counciliar decrees (through Vat II), encyclicals, histories, theology/dogma treatises, ECFs, Augustine, Aquinas, mystics, lives of saints, the catechism, etc. And her understanding of original sin and the fall of human nature fits my observations of the world around me better than other perspectives. I love the Church more everyday. Never thought I’d ever say that.

Lastly, it seems humans are stubbornly slow when it comes to achieving high levels of humility-or even low levels of it-but it’s an invaluable key in our initial conversion-and our on-going conversion for that matter.

Sorry, I’ve been striving for conciseness but got a little wordy this time.

 

[pneuma07]

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.

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?

!

Dear Soc,

  it looks wise  being certain about what  the sides say.

IMHO most protestants declare they adhere to one between petra=Peter’s confession or faith and petra=Christ Himself.
They do not look particularly upset by the solution other than the preferred one in these two, yet there can be minor disagreements on this.
At scholarly level you have protestants who plainly accept petra=Petros.
Outside scholars most protestants are nevertheless united in strongly excluding this solution, whatever their choice between the other two.

This for the “protestant sides”.

The catholic side tells you not only that petra=Petros is a correct identification, but that
the other exegetical possibilities are not to be rejected, that they rather contribute to the picture. There is one side here, even if we could add that many in the pews can be unaware that the Church accepts all three of them, so as many protestants ignore that a number of their scholars do accept petra=Petros.

IMHO the post-Reformation situation has created a new rigid alternative: Petros or not Petros. Protestants felt a deep necessity to exclude Petros as possible petra.
Catholics de-emphasized the other two traditional readings, which , this or that, protestants enthusiastically espoused to the rigid exclusion of Petros.

At this point a question is: does

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ( faith of yours) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

negate petrine primacy ?

TBC

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, I can tell you what I did. I don’t believe in leaps of faith-whether in God, the CC, or a potential spouse. I do believe that one must be comfortable-not that comfort is the reason for marriage-but I certainly wouldn’t wed someone who I’m awkward with or who seems particularly foreign to me. Trust and love must be earned-they must grow. I didn’t date a great deal before I married but I did check out quite a few faiths-over years, inside and outside of Christianity-before I came to believe in its basic tenets and would go on to eventually become a quite conservative Protestant. It was years later, however, before I re-entered the CC, to my own surprise. Meanwhile I had to learn a few things along the way-one happened to be that Sola Scriptura was illogical-an unsupportable doctrine. However, this didn’t leave many churches standing when it came to choosing one.

But it all kind of happened simultaneously. I happened to come in contact with some serious Catholics and came to realize that their faith was genuine-simpler and less intellectual than mine usually. And I began to see that I didn’t know as much as I thought I knew. And little by little I came to no longer mistrust the Church and her authority but gradually to cherish it-I came to agree with her on so many things. And this is how it should be and how she teaches it should work.

I never shied away from reading “apostate literature” as the JWs call it-literature from “other” faiths. I even studied JW stuff for awhile to give it a fair shake-they had some admirable and attractive qualities to my mind. I always figured that if my faith couldn’t endure a challenge then it wasn’t very strong to begin with. It took a little longer to actually read Catholic material seriously, however, being quite anti-Catholic and all, but since I began, I’ve rarely been unimpressed-whether counciliar decrees (through Vat II), encyclicals, histories, theology/dogma treatises, ECFs, Augustine, Aquinas, mystics, lives of saints, the catechism, etc. And her understanding of original sin and the fall of human nature fits my observations of the world around me better than other perspectives. I love the Church more everyday. Never thought I’d ever say that.

Lastly, it seems humans are stubbornly slow when it comes to achieving high levels of humility-or even low levels of it-but it’s an invaluable key in our initial conversion-and our on-going conversion for that matter.

Sorry, I’ve been striving for conciseness but got a little wordy this time.

No need to apologize. Great testimony (as an Evangelical might say). What i did not hear was something like, “And it’s not just that i like the sound of what the Catholic Church teaches; it’s that i know what it teaches is true because …”

For me, even if i preferred to be a Catholic, i could not become one unless i had objective proof of its truth.

 

[paul_c]

No need to apologize. Great testimony (as an Evangelical might say). What i did not hear was something like, “And it’s not just that i like the sound of what the Catholic Church teaches; it’s that i know what it teaches is true because …”

For me, even if i preferred to be a Catholic, i could not become one unless i had objective proof of its truth.

What would constitute objective proof to you?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

  it looks wise  being certain about what  the sides say.

IMHO most protestants declare they adhere to one between petra=Peter’s confession or faith and petra=Christ Himself.
They do not look particularly upset by the solution other than the preferred one in these two, yet there can be minor disagreements on this.
At scholarly level you have protestants who plainly accept petra=Petros.
Outside scholars most protestants are nevertheless united in strongly excluding this solution, whatever their choice between the other two.

This for the “protestant sides”.

The catholic side tells you not only that petra=Petros is a correct identification, but that
the other exegetical possibilities are not to be rejected, that they rather contribute to the picture. There is one side here, even if we could add that many in the pews can be unaware that the Church accepts all three of them, so as many protestants ignore that a number of their scholars do accept petra=Petros.

IMHO the post-Reformation situation has created a new rigid alternative: Petros or not Petros. Protestants felt a deep necessity to exclude Petros as possible petra.
Catholics de-emphasized the other two traditional readings, which , this or that, protestants enthusiastically espoused to the rigid exclusion of Petros.

At this point a question is: does

17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this ( faith of yours) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

negate petrine primacy ?

TBC

Well, as i said in the other discussion, i do not believe it does. Verse 19 appears to indicate that Peter is the primary leader of the early Church. But do you think i should consider only the immediate context of this passage to decide the matter, or do you think it would be wise to consider the wider context of the entire New Testament?

 

[paul_c]

Well, as i said in the other discussion, i do not believe it does. Verse 19 appears to indicate that Peter is the primary leader of the early Church. But do you think i should consider only the immediate context of this passage to decide the matter, or do you think it would be wise to consider the wider context of the entire New Testament?

If Peter’s Primacy is accepted, then the only impediment I can see to accepting the authority of the Catholic Church is the question about whether that Primacy was transferable.

Obviously, since Scripture ends at the end of the Apostolic era, it does not include the successors of the Apostles, including Peter. So if you believe in sola scriptura, you are bound to be making an argument from silence if you are lookking for a statement of Peter’s replacement.

However, it is clear from Acts 1, that Apostles were replaced in their positions and it is obvious that any organization needs a succession plan or else it would stop with the death of its leader. Since we are told by Jesus that he would be with the church until the end of the Age, it seems equally clear that he did not design the church to end after one generation. Since Scripture only covers that first generation, you need to look to church history for the rest of the story. In that, there is abundant proof that the office of St. Peter has been past own through the ages and the succession itself is well documents, particualry considering the 2000 year timeframe it covers and the fact that for the first 300 years, the Church was persecuted by Rome.

I simply don’t know what more proof there is or could be. To those that are meant to believe, this evidence is sufficient. To those that are not, no level of evidence would be enough.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

I could be wrong, of course.

I’m sure i’ve been wrong more times than you!

That is what Saint Augustine thinks of Heaven, too.

Fascinating! Did he write about it in his Confessions?

 

[pneuma07]

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!

You’re certainly right that I did not corroborate those propositions and that you need stronger premises.

The task of the present post:
underpinning the weakest part of my first one, as per your kind request.

In His treaty De Trinitate (On Trinity) St. Hilary of Poitiers, about AD 370 , says
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, You are the Son of the living God. Matthew 16:16 On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth. ( II, 23)

“All right” some protestant sisters could tell you “just what we’re taught by our pastors”.

If not for the fact that in the same work ( VI,20) he tells us:

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven”

We can assume Hilary was no crazy. And, to be noted, he does not feel he has to explain why he teaches “both” foundations. It is given for granted.

Let’s listen to St. Augustine:

*Petra est Christus: Bibebant enim de spiritali sequente petra, petra autem erat Christus: etiam discipulo suo huius vocabuli gratiam non negavit; ut et ipse sit Petrus, quod de petra habeat soliditatem constantiae, fidei firmitatem. Expositio EvangeliiI Secundum Lucam ( 6, 97) *]“Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be ‘Peter,’ in that he has from the Rock a solid consistency of firm faith.”

Again Peter as the petra, together with another identification. IN PERFECT HARMONY.

If we do not consider just single authors, but the whole of the ECFs, we have many
mentions of each of the three identifications. And there exist no three fields against each other !
On the contrary, not only can the same author quote two of them in fully natural way, but … you could ask a protestant friend to offer patristic quotations where … the identification Petros-petra, is excluded, or attacked. To my poor knowledge he will not be able to produce any father supporting this.

But this, we should remember, is the very gist of the protestant sides: that Petros should be excluded as a false identificiation, because Christ or Peter’s faith are to be understood. (please do not listen to the “complete destruction of evidence theory” one could appeal to at this point ).

The protestant “aut …aut” appears simply alien to the ancient church.
The three identifications were together, in harmony.
That is the thrust of the ECFs, IMHO.

On top of that, nobody, to my poor knowledge, would teach that from identifications other than Petros we should understand that no petrine primacy was intended by the Lord.
On the contrary, we could see, if you are interested, beautiful expositions of this primacy in passages where the identification with Christ or Peter’s confession is proposed.

I hope this can help.

 

[pneuma07]

Well, as i said in the other discussion, i do not believe it does. Verse 19 appears to indicate that Peter is the primary leader of the early Church. But do you think i should consider only the immediate context of this passage to decide the matter, or do you think it would be wise to consider the wider context of the entire New Testament?

I do think It would be wise to consider the wider context of the entire New Testament, and more.

About which I ask: was it necessary such a solemn and Simon-centered immediate context, just to teach us that which the wider context clearly tells us, ie that Christ is the ultimate foundation ?

Shouldn’t we see there, with St. Ambrose, the message of a unique association of a man to the ultimate foundation Who is our Lord ?

In Christ
P7

 

[michaelsmth626]

I do think It would be wise to consider the wider context of the entire New Testament, and more.

About which I ask: was it necessary such a solemn and Simon-centered immediate context, just to teach us that which the wider context clearly tells us, ie that Christ is the ultimate foundation ?

Shouldn’t we see there, with St. Ambrose, the message of a unique association of a man to the ultimate foundation Who is our Lord ?

In Christ
P7

What we do see is 12 that taught the foundation and warned that any another including themselves or an angel taught another than what they did, that we should reject it. The CC teaches that it has always and still does to this day have the power to alter what was said right down to your personal interaction with reading scripture, so where does that leave the ministry of the HS? right in the hands of the men of the CC I would say. IMO the whole CC is based not on preserving what was taught but controlling what is taught.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

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.

Voci:

Sorry for the delay, but i suppose it could not be helped as the forums server was down over the weekend. Yes, what you say is true about many Protestant denominations, which have more in common with Catholicism than Fundamentalist or Evangelical Christians. But i’m comparing what i know (Evangelical Christianity) to what i hope to know (Catholicism). So allow me to paint a different diagram:



The Evangelical gospel is one where a person is rescued from hell based on who he trusts, not on what good things he does. The requirements for such salvation are repentance and faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. A person who trusts in what he does (even in what God does through him) is trusting in a different gospel that will not save him from hell. Trusting in God to do good works through one is a good thing to do, but trusting in those good works to rescue one from hell will, they say, have the opposite effect. The Catholic gospel appears to be one that requires a repentance and a kind of faith infused with good works (works done not in one’s own power, but by the power and grade of God). These good works merit salvation, but one cannot be said to earn the reward of purgatory or heaven, for the good works are caused by God, not by himself.

My dilemma, then, is this: If i cannot determine which gospel is the real deal, i must choose one. The logical choice is to choose the gospel that is likely to do the most *good *or the least harm. Which, then, promises the most good? The Evangelical gospel. For this good news is that salvation is an absolutely free gift to anyone who repents and believes. If i believe the Evangelical gospel, and it turns out to be the truth, i win heaven (4). By comparison, if i believe the the Catholic gospel, the best for which i can hope (barring some miracle of God that makes me a martyr and a saint) is only Purgatory, which is better than hell, but much worse than heaven (1).

But which promises the least harm? It’s not the Catholic gospel, for if i trust in the Evangelical gospel, and the Catholic gospel is the truth, the worst that can happen to me is Purgatory (3). Compare this to trusting the Catholic gospel when it turns out to not be true–in this case i get hell, (2) which is far worse than Purgatory.

So it’s a lose-break even situation if i trust the Catholic gospel–i lose with hell if i make the wrong choice (2), and i break even with Purgatory if make the right choice (1). But it’s a break even-win situation if i choose the Evangelical gospel–i break even with Purgatory if i’m wrong (3), but i win with heaven if i’m right (4)!

Therefore, if i cannot determine which is the truth, isn’t the smart thing to do to go back to being an Evangelical? I’m not much of a gambler, especially with my eternal destiny! If i remain ignorant, i should play the odds, i think. I mean, why risk hell when i might win heaven, or at worst break even with Purgatory?

 

[Pax]

What we do see is 12 that taught the foundation and warned that any another including themselves or an angel taught another than what they did, that we should reject it. The CC teaches that it has always and still does to this day have the power to alter what was said right down to your personal interaction with reading scripture, so where does that leave the ministry of the HS? right in the hands of the men of the CC I would say. IMO the whole CC is based not on preserving what was taught but controlling what is taught.

michaelsmth in Christ,

Where do you get the notion that “the Catholic Church teaches that it has always and still does to this day have the power to alter what was said”?

Do you have a problem with the Holy Spirit operating through the Church? Is the individual claiming to operate by way of the Holy Spirit greater than the Church? What tools do you use to determine if the Church is preserving what was taught? How do you distinguish between what was taught and controlling what was taught? Once again, is the individual greater than the Church?

Did you happen to read my post #164?

God bless.