# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 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.
You and the catholic faith agilate from one non dogma to the next depending on your defense. Everything you just wrote above seems to contradict.
“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
But more recently we have some fine print to add.
Dominus Iesus - on the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church - Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - Joseph Card. Ratzinger, August 6, 2000
  1. It must therefore be firmly believed as a truth of Catholic faith that the universal salvific will of the One and Triune God is offered and accomplished once for all in the mystery of the incarnation, death, and resurrection of the Son of God.
Note: the words “for all” - did not include the qualification “for all Catholics”
In correcting Fr. Feeney in 1949, the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office (now the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a document entitled Suprema Haec Sacra, which stated that “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (outside the Church, no salvation) is “an infallible statement.” But, it added, "this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it."
Sooo in spit of all the double talk you just pick a point and I’ll be glad to converse with you on the subject.

This little jewel is the perfect defense, it effectively counters all understanding of anything that is stated by the church, now how handy is that. 😃
"this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.
 
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?
What, by simply repeating what hundreds of millions of Orthodox Christians believe, and have always believed? Why not learn how their theology differs from Western Christianity in regard to the Fall and original sin before you wave your rhetorical hand so dismissively?
 
Soc in Christ,

I’ve been thinking about the question you posed in starting this thread and can’t help but think that Jesus was not speaking ambiguously. Most of us are capable of speaking plainly and clearly enough that over time our friends know what it is we mean in the declaration and articulation of our beliefs.

Unfortunately, if an attorney got a hold of our spoken or written words, we would quickly discover that even our most straight forward speech could be twisted to mean something that we never intended. Likewise, those that knew us and had an appreciation for our views would know that the attorney was either deliberately twisting our words or was at best deluded in his own misunderstandings.

There can be many reasons for misunderstanding the written or spoken word, but I believe that all of the blame/responsibility for misinterpretation is with the individual and not with scripture. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly to his disciples and explained the parables to them even though those parables were not clear to the scribes and pharisees. The friends of Jesus, his apostles, knew the “true word as taught.”

Likewise, the apostles continued to teach the “true word as taught.” Moreover, they commissioned others to do the same. Scripture says a great deal about teachers in the NT.

Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:11-14
And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so **that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
**
1 Tim 2:7-8
For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

1 Tim 3: 2-3
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

2 Tim 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

2 Tim 2:24-25
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

2 Tim 4:1-4
I CHARGE you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

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. **

2 Peter 2:1
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

It is clear that we need teachers. It is clear that we need teachers that will teach and hold to the “true word as taught.” It is also clear that there will be false teachers.

Clearly there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, but the friends of Jesus and those that were handed on the “true word as taught” would understand and would teach it correctly. Peter even says that some of Paul’s letters contain things in them that are hard to understand and that some twist them as they do the other scriptures[2 Peter 3:16].

Surely the apostles would know the “true word as taught” and so would their successors in positions of leadership within the early Church. It would seem that there would also be those that deviated from the “true word as taught”. These would be the heretics that emerged beginning with the Gnostics.

Perhaps getting some idea how the heretics such as the Gnostics deviated from the “true word as taught” would help us out in our discussion. Likewise, how would someone at the time know if the Gnostics were deviating from the truth? Moreover, how would someone know if later heretics were heretics or if they were teaching "the true word as taught?"Any ideas?

God bless.
 
Thats to bad Pax michael frances banned me I suppose he doesn’t want me to deliberate with you. You know save the catholic faith further embarrassment by burning another user name at the stake. AKA fryertuk ,Jonh one one, ect ect ect. I just love the Spiritual workout you all give me. Getting stronger every day. I had a nice rebuttal about Ezk and your baptism, but I lost it in a C/P. I will say where is the Peter and the catholic church teaching the Word of God in the text though? It says the same thing Jer 31:31 says.
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. <<<<Johns ministry<<<>>> **Jesus and the Fathers miniistry sending the HS>>>>>> 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. Wheres the Pope???>>>>>>>>>>**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.
 
Soc in Christ,

I’ve been thinking about the question you posed in starting this thread and can’t help but think that Jesus was not speaking ambiguously. Most of us are capable of speaking plainly and clearly enough that over time our friends know what it is we mean in the declaration and articulation of our beliefs.

Unfortunately, if an attorney got a hold of our spoken or written words, we would quickly discover that even our most straight forward speech could be twisted to mean something that we never intended. Likewise, those that knew us and had an appreciation for our views would know that the attorney was either deliberately twisting our words or was at best deluded in his own misunderstandings.

There can be many reasons for misunderstanding the written or spoken word, but I believe that all of the blame/responsibility for misinterpretation is with the individual and not with scripture. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly to his disciples and explained the parables to them even though those parables were not clear to the scribes and pharisees. The friends of Jesus, his apostles, knew the “true word as taught.”

Likewise, the apostles continued to teach the “true word as taught.” Moreover, they commissioned others to do the same. Scripture says a great deal about teachers in the NT.

Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:11-14
And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so **that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
**
1 Tim 2:7-8
For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

1 Tim 3: 2-3
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

2 Tim 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

2 Tim 2:24-25
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

2 Tim 4:1-4
I CHARGE you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

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.

2 Peter 2:1
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

It is clear that we need teachers. It is clear that we need teachers that will teach and hold to the “true word as taught.” It is also clear that there will be false teachers.

Clearly there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, but the friends of Jesus and those that were handed on the “true word as taught” would understand and would teach it correctly. Peter even says that some of Paul’s letters contain things in them that are hard to understand and that some twist them as they do the other scriptures[2 Peter 3:16].

Surely the apostles would know the “true word as taught” and so would their successors in positions of leadership within the early Church. It would seem that there would also be those that deviated from the “true word as taught”. These would be the heretics that emerged beginning with the Gnostics.

**Perhaps getting some idea how the heretics such as the Gnostics deviated from the “true word as taught” would help us out in our discussion. Likewise, how would someone at the time know if the Gnostics were deviating from the truth? Moreover, how would someone know if later heretics were heretics or if they were teaching "the true word as taught?"Any ideas? **

God bless.
I think that the Gnostics were right at home in the CC. I mean you do have the mary mother goddess sinless and perfect just like Jesus. Which means that Jesus was not brought into the world by the same flesh and blood that everyone else had.
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that[a] Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
4 You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. 5 They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them. 6 We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.
Spirit of ambiguity my be the modern equivalent
 
This little jewel is the perfect defense, it effectively counters all understanding of anything that is stated by the church, now how handy is that. 😃

Quote:
"this dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church itself understands it.
Would it make more sense for a Catholic dogma to be understood in the way, say, a Hindu understands it- when Protestants all the while can’t even agree on whether or not Jesus is to be understood as teaching Baptismal regeneration?
 
Thats to bad Pax michael frances banned me I suppose he doesn’t want me to deliberate with you. You know save the catholic faith further embarrassment by burning another user name at the stake. AKA fryertuk ,Jonh one one, ect ect ect. I just love the Spiritual workout you all give me. Getting stronger every day. I had a nice rebuttal about Ezk and your baptism, but I lost it in a C/P. I will say where is the Peter and the catholic church teaching the Word of God in the text though? It says the same thing Jer 31:31 says.
Jer 31:31 is the heart of the New Covenant, according to Catholic theology. The Pope’s job is in helping see to it that we receive hearts of flesh, and God becomes our God.
 
Would it make more sense for a Catholic dogma to be understood in the way, say, a Hindu understands it- when Protestants all the while can’t even agree on whether or not Jesus is to be understood as teaching Baptismal regeneration?
Hey fhansen your debating a band man, but you know, in that case you may actually win your point.😃

It would seem that catholics dont like to defend their faith before their own brethren.
You would think that would be a useful learning tool, but it just doesn’t always come out on the side that favors the CC.

The truth about the CCC is it reads like a dime store lawyer wrote it. Its so full of ambiguity and double talk no one can discern its real meaning. Which explains all the different views catholics have.
 
Jer 31:31 is the heart of the New Covenant, according to Catholic theology. The Pope’s job is in helping see to it that we receive hearts of flesh, and God becomes our God.
I guess God just forgot to mention that He was going to place an oracle named the Pope in office under Peter for 2000 years. It was prolly just a typo, you now those things happen in Gods world, it takes a bit of tradition to get everyone back on track.
 
I guess God just forgot to mention that He was going to place an oracle named the Pope in office under Peter for 2000 years. It was prolly just a typo, you now those things happen in Gods world, it takes a bit of tradition to get everyone back on track.
Maybe He just thought people wouldn’t be credulous enough to bother picking up a Catholic book and think they could tell His Church what it meant.
 
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.
PC:

Perhaps it’s not a competition; or maybe it is, but those who win are those who think of the needs of others and give little thought to the reward they will received. But you wondered what reason Evangelicals might have for doing good works if they don’t believe these works are a cause of their salvation. One reason they give is that there is a reward for such–although they would agree with you that love, not reward, should be their primary motivation for loving others.

That there is in fact a reward in heaven is something Jesus taught. For example, during His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5 - 7), He kept repeating the words:"… great is your reward in heaven …"

The question is whether the reward is arbitrary (that is, the same for everyone who makes it to heaven) or whether it is one of degrees (that is, greater for some than for others). Reason tells me that Jesus is just, and it would be a great injustice if, for example, i were to receive the same reward as Saint Peter! But reason aside, Jesus gives us this insight:For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

(Matthew 16:27)How shall Jesus reward each person? “according to what he has done,” He says. It makes sense to me, then, that those who do more good will be rewarded in heaven with a greater reward than those who do comparitively little good. So, rather than being a *trivial *thing, the faithfulness that you try to uphold is of primary importance, for Jesus will reward you according to what you have done. Don’t you see?
 
Soc in Christ,

I’ve been thinking about the question you posed in starting this thread and can’t help but think that Jesus was not speaking ambiguously. Most of us are capable of speaking plainly and clearly enough that over time our friends know what it is we mean in the declaration and articulation of our beliefs.
Pax:

Thank you for stepping away from the duel with the other poster to give me some help. I usually find value in your insights. Although it sometimes takes a few questions to draw the most helpful thoughts out of you.

My thought is that maybe you are correct in that Jesus’ disciples came to understand His true meaning. However, at first they likely misunderstood. The gospels have frequent instances indicating that they were, for Jesus said this,“You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand?”

(Matthew 16:9)
and thisHow is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread?

(Matthew 16:11)and also this,Jesus used this figure of speech, but they did not understand what he was telling them.

(John 10:6)
and this,At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.

(John 12:16)
and also this,Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later you will understand.”

(John 13:7)
and this,They still did not understand from Scripture that Jesus had to rise from the dead.

(John 20:9)
and finally, this, Then Jesus’ disciples said, “Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.”

(John 16:29-30)
Unfortunately, if an attorney got a hold of our spoken or written words, we would quickly discover that even our most straight forward speech could be twisted to mean something that we never intended. Likewise, those that knew us and had an appreciation for our views would know that the attorney was either deliberately twisting our words or was at best deluded in his own misunderstandings.
True. That’s why i’m trying to figure out who is making pretzels out of Sacred Scripture–Catholics of Evangelicals.

😃
 
There can be many reasons for misunderstanding the written or spoken word, but I believe that all of the blame/responsibility for misinterpretation is with the individual and not with scripture. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly to his disciples and explained the parables to them even though those parables were not clear to the scribes and pharisees. The friends of Jesus, his apostles, knew the “true word as taught.”
But it seems there are times when the blame is on the speaker. For example, we read this:

Likewise, the apostles continued to teach the “true word as taught.” Moreover, they commissioned others to do the same. Scripture says a great deal about teachers in the NT.

Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:11-14
And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so **that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
**
1 Tim 2:7-8
For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

1 Tim 3: 2-3
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

2 Tim 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

2 Tim 2:24-25
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

2 Tim 4:1-4
I CHARGE you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

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. **

2 Peter 2:1
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

It is clear that we need teachers. It is clear that we need teachers that will teach and hold to the “true word as taught.” It is also clear that there will be false teachers.

Clearly there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, but the friends of Jesus and those that were handed on the “true word as taught” would understand and would teach it correctly. Peter even says that some of Paul’s letters contain things in them that are hard to understand and that some twist them as they do the other scriptures[2 Peter 3:16].

Surely the apostles would know the “true word as taught” and so would their successors in positions of leadership within the early Church. It would seem that there would also be those that deviated from the “true word as taught”. These would be the heretics that emerged beginning with the Gnostics.

Perhaps getting some idea how the heretics such as the Gnostics deviated from the “true word as taught” would help us out in our discussion. Likewise, how would someone at the time know if the Gnostics were deviating from the truth? Moreover, how would someone know if later heretics were heretics or if they were teaching "the true word as taught?"Any ideas?

God bless.
 
Oops! Spent to much time editing that last post! Here is the actual reply:

There can be many reasons for misunderstanding the written or spoken word, but I believe that all of the blame/responsibility for misinterpretation is with the individual and not with scripture. Jesus spoke plainly and clearly to his disciples and explained the parables to them even though those parables were not clear to the scribes and pharisees. The friends of Jesus, his apostles, knew the “true word as taught.”
But it seems there are times when the blame is on the speaker. For example, we read this:While everyone was marveling at all that Jesus did, he said to his disciples, “Listen carefully to what I am about to tell you: The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.” But they did not understand what this meant. It was hidden from them, so that they did not grasp it, and they were afraid to ask him about it.

(Luke 9:43-45)
and later this,
Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.” The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.
(Luke 18:31-34)

So it appears God, at times, chose to make His meaning unclear to even the Apostles. What i wonder is whether He is doing the same, today, with either Catholics or Evangelicals. And i also wonder what His reason for hiding the truth from one group might be. And perhaps the greatest wonder of all is why has He chosen to show me the ambiguity that no one else seems to see? Why me?
Likewise, the apostles continued to teach the “true word as taught.” Moreover, they commissioned others to do the same. Scripture says a great deal about teachers in the NT.

Acts 13:1
Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Mana-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

1 Cor 12:28
And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.

Eph 4:11-14
And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; so **that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
**
1 Tim 2:7-8
For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

1 Tim 3: 2-3
Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money.

2 Tim 1:11
For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher,

2 Tim 2:24-25
And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness.

2 Tim 4:1-4
I CHARGE you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

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.

2 Peter 2:1
BUT FALSE prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
True. And Paul writes that not all are teachers, nor should all desire to be.
It is clear that we need teachers. It is clear that we need teachers that will teach and hold to the “true word as taught.” It is also clear that there will be false teachers.
But isn’t a teacher able to teach only what he knows, but not what he does not know? A teacher genuinely chosen by God should be able to know that there are ambiguities in what Jesus said. He should either recognize them as mysteries that cannot be solved, or give rational reasons to show that Christ’s words are only apparent, but not real, ambiguities.
 
And part three:

😃

Clearly there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, but the friends of Jesus and those that were handed on the “true word as taught” would understand and would teach it correctly. Peter even says that some of Paul’s letters contain things in them that are hard to understand and that some twist them as they do the other scriptures (2 Peter 3:16).
But if Matthew understood, then why did He not explain Jesus’ meaning in the 16th chapter of his gospel? John, when writing his gospel, was more sympathetic to his reader’s inability to understand. For example, he writes:Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

(John 2:18-22)

So that the reader would not misunderstand, John explained that the Temple of which Jesus spoke was His body, not the Temple that the Roman General Titus had destroyed in AD 70.

Why did Matthew not add such helpful explanation of Jesus’ words in his gospel? For that matter, why did Luke not add such helpful explanation of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper? Did the Holy Spirit prompt John to explain what Christ meant but prompt Matthew and Luke to keep the explanations to themselves?
Surely the apostles would know the “true word as taught” and so would their successors in positions of leadership within the early Church. It would seem that there would also be those that deviated from the “true word as taught”. These would be the heretics that emerged beginning with the Gnostics.
So Matthew and Luke knew, but chose to hide, Jesus’ true meaning? or do you think they were unaware of the ambiguity of Christ’s words, and so failed to provide explanation out of their own ignorance of their readers’ ignorance?
Perhaps getting some idea how the heretics such as the Gnostics deviated from the “true word as taught” would help us out in our discussion. Likewise, how would someone at the time know if the Gnostics were deviating from the truth? Moreover, how would someone know if later heretics were heretics or if they were teaching “the true word as taught?” Any ideas?

God bless.
I think the Gnostics had additional gospels (such as the Gospel of Thomas, which suggests Jesus had sexual intercourse with His disciple named Mary). Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have their additional religious writings, as well. However, i can imagine that ambiguous passages of the New Testament might also lead to their deception.

At this point in the discussion, then, there are still two questions still unanswered for me: (a) Why did God allow His words to be ambiguous? Is He trying to hide the truth, or perhaps allow some to be ignorant that they are believing lies?

(b) How can i know what the true meaning of Christ’s words are when i find instances where He is ambiguous? Is there some authority i can trust, and how can i know without any doubt that i can trust that authority?
 
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.
Well, I was speaking in general terms but now you’re forcing me to get wordier yet!

Much of it is experiential-like the experienced gained by arguing with JWs or various Christians over the meaning of Scripture- each side coming up with quite plausible, and often contradictory, interpretations- until you finally realize the futility in trying to arrive at the full truth of the gospel by reading scripture alone. But this creates a dilemma. How does one know the truth-where would authority lie? At this point in time the arguments for a historical connection to a visible institution established by God-a place where the doctrinal buck could stop-begins to make a lot of sense.

Other experiences revolved around my objection to the Church’s misbehavior at various times in history. Every time a new Protestant church spins off another Protestant church, the idea is that the new church is going to do things right while the old one wasn’t. Something like this also applies to various “holiness” movements, both within or without the Catholic Church. Now, holiness is a good thing to desire but it’s another thing to think one has actually arrived there. At a meeting in a Pentecostal church I once attended, I remember the pastor telling us that after he was born again, he was a “new creation in Christ” and never wanted to sin again. Later his infidelity was to cause his church to split-right after constructing a new multimillion dollar sanctuary. This type of experience, combined with an increasing awareness of, and admission to, my own failings, caused me to understand that the Church’s people, including her leaders, are not impeccable. And Jesus’ teaching in Matt 23:1-3 spells out the principle that, while teachings can be correct, the teachers may not be heeding it themselves. So, the doctrine that says that the CC is right only on matters of faith and morals begins to make sense.

I didn’t see much value in the Sacraments until later either. For example, while I always thought the admonition in scripture to “confess your sins one to another” was a good thing, which I often practiced, this was not necessarily a practice of Protestant Churches. In the CC, on the other hand, there is a “place to go”- the confessional-where we’re to reconcile with God through the Sacrament of Reconciliation or Confession. And it makes sense. God uses people to do his work here on earth, whether spreading the gospel or helping/ministering to people in one way or the other, and this Sacrament is no different. We’re spiritual but also physical beings in need of concrete action in order to resolve issues we’re dealing with. There’s a dynamic that takes place when, after seriously sinning in some way, we know internally-experientially- the guilt/separation from God that this results in-in like manner to the separation from God that took place at the fall. So when this situation occurs, the Church teaches that we’re not to participate in communing with God directly by receiving the Eucharist. What’s already happened inside is admitted to and reflected outwardly. Then, when we humble ourselves and confess and are forgiven and restored/reconciled by His grace, we can know , in a definitive concrete manner, that we’re able to commune with Him again-and do it. Through this we live the dynamic interplay of sin and forgiveness-and can proceed onward to a more perfect state.

And this connects back to the Pentecostal pastor again. His theology was wrong to begin with. We’re not changed instantly into saints by a “born again” experience. The CC teaches that we’ll generally continue to struggle against the tendency to sin-or concupiscence- for our whole lives. Conversion, in Catholicism, is a process, by which we’re molded into the beings God desires, but not without our cooperation. And this is another departure from Protestantism. Perfection is necessary in Catholic teaching on salvation. “No sinners will enter heaven” according to scripture. Heaven is not even realizable to a sinner –as he’s simply someone who’s still attached to things other than God first and foremost. God didn’t create man only to have him fall and then at some arbitrary time later on be artificially restored-bypassing man’s will and with no apparent reason for the whole drama of centuries of human strife. Gods purpose in casting man out of the garden is* formative*-for man to gain the wisdom to choose correctly-to have the time and opportunity to come to learn of his dependence on Him, rejecting the evil we know here on earth and embracing love, i.e., coming to love Him with his whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and his neighbor as himself- this is perfection and only then does man become a being worthy of the end God has in mind-and capable of it. And this is also where purgatory comes into play-a merciful final purification, if necessary, where refining our wills-to where ours agree with His because we’ve finally recognized the perfect beauty and wisdom of His will-takes place and we’re no longer drawn to anything less than Him-and our happiness can be complete. All of this has become clearer over the centuries-to a Church who must ultimately apply the revelation she’s been given to herself-to her own real life experiences- in order to end up in a more mature and holier state as a result –and so with a greater understanding of the revelation than when she first received it.

cont:
 
cont from previous post:

The Eucharist. Catholics don’t just pay lip service to this Sacrament-it’s central to our service, i.e. the Mass.

For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. 1 Cor 11:26-29


The Real Presence can be discerned. An awesome sacrament in which God condescends to place Himself in our hands-for our good. As with Reconciliation and all sacraments, the physicality of the matter is integral-God concretely meeting us where we are. We believe literally in His presence and power acting in our lives-sacraments being one route He’s provided.

Original sin. I know that the existence of lies and selfishness and arrogance and self-righteousness that are so much a part of this world is not the way it “should be”- IOW they’re a reflection of an innocence lost. I know that evil is real-and that it’s out of sync with the rest of creation-because of the sheer unreasonableness of it. The doctrine of OS faces this fact-not trying to make friends with evil by calling it an illusion or unavoidable. OS means that mans righteousness, rather than Gods, rules in this world, because man was given the freedom to reject Gods authority in determining righteousness for him. We live with the consequences of this first act and with our own disordered actions as a result of our own preference for god-like autonomy. All fail in some way by not living up to the standards of true righteousness-by overriding the standards of their very own created natures. The Catholic teaching on original sin and the effect of the fall on human nature is worked out with depth compared to much in Protestant theology, where it’s been formally addressed at all.

Suffering is another issue. While I’ve tried to avoid pain as much as possible in this life, I’ve certainly given up on any kind of utopian ideal here, recognizing that suffering is inevitable. And suffering is something that Protestant churches aren’t always so comfortable dealing with. At the extreme, the “prosperity movement” thinks God wants his children living in mansions here on earth, adorned with gold and diamonds, lives of comfort and splendor. On a somewhat related note, I remember the same Pentecostal pastor-I learned more than I realized from him, I guess- chastising his flock for not having enough faith to stop a member from dying of cancer. The CC, in any case, acknowledges the inevitability of suffering and even embraces it –valuing it for building character and for emulation of Christ. And to combat concupiscence, she encourages at least some amount of self-denial, more if so inclined, and for like reasons includes vows of chastity, poverty, etc in some of her orders. I’d rather belong to a Church where suffering is embraced and turned into a good instead of looked upon the world’s way, as a thorn to be avoided at all costs.

None of this is to say, ‘my church is better than yours’. All of this is to say, ‘there never was a reason to leave the CC, and there’s plenty of reason to stay -and so any great work now done outside by non-Catholic churches would better be done inclusively- within her purview for the sake of unity, both in terms of community and doctrine.
 
It would seem that catholics dont like to defend their faith before their own brethren.
You would think that would be a useful learning tool, but it just doesn’t always come out on the side that favors the CC.

The truth about the CCC is it reads like a dime store lawyer wrote it. Its so full of ambiguity and double talk no one can discern its real meaning. Which explains all the different views catholics have.
Accusations mean nothing without examples.
  • where is the ambiguity in the CCC
  • what divergent views are you talking about
 
PC:

Perhaps it’s not a competition; or maybe it is, but those who win are those who think of the needs of others and give little thought to the reward they will received. But you wondered what reason Evangelicals might have for doing good works if they don’t believe these works are a cause of their salvation. One reason they give is that there is a reward for such–although they would agree with you that love, not reward, should be their primary motivation for loving others.

That there is in fact a reward in heaven is something Jesus taught. For example, during His Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, chapters 5 - 7), He kept repeating the words:"… great is your reward in heaven …"

The question is whether the reward is arbitrary (that is, the same for everyone who makes it to heaven) or whether it is one of degrees (that is, greater for some than for others). Reason tells me that Jesus is just, and it would be a great injustice if, for example, i were to receive the same reward as Saint Peter! But reason aside, Jesus gives us this insight:For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

(Matthew 16:27)How shall Jesus reward each person? “according to what he has done,” He says. It makes sense to me, then, that those who do more good will be rewarded in heaven with a greater reward than those who do comparitively little good. So, rather than being a *trivial *thing, the faithfulness that you try to uphold is of primary importance, for Jesus will reward you according to what you have done. Don’t you see?
I’m not so sure that there are differing rewards in heaven. Remember this parable from Matthew 20: It would suggest to me that God will reward us all in equal fashion. Its not that I’m against a meritocracy in Heaven. I just don’t know that its true or necessary. Is there something better than ever lasting joy? And don’t you think the Saints would be content with what God gives them?

1 The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’
7 They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’
9 When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’
13 He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. 4 Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
 
Socrates4Jesus:
I’ve been thinking about your two Gospel theory, the Catholic and the Evangelical. I do want to point out that there is much more in common between the two than what separates them. Often what separates the two is simply semantics:

For instance, does it really matter whether works are the results of faith, completion of faith or demonstration of faith?

The biggest single issue between Catholics and Evangelicals is that by separating from the Apostolic succession, Evangelicals deprive themselves of the life giving Sacraments. Of course, they have also convinced themselves that the sacraments aren’t necessary - only Faith in Jesus - but that doesn’t make it the truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top