# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[fhansen]

Or you and i can see modern examples by turning on the Trinity Broadcasting Network and watching the spinners of a modern heresy–the Word of Faith movement. It’s a movement to which–to my great embarrassment–i once belonged. For them, faith is not trust in Christ and what He taught, it’s a force, and their words are the containers of the force. Whatever one asks for in prayer is his, if he continues to believe and not doubt. If one is poor, he needs not get a job, just pray. If one is sick, he should pray that he is not sick, and not show any doubt by seeking medical attention. It’s extremely destructive. However, having been caught up in such deception, i found that the Word of God (the Bible) was powerful and effective enough to show me the truth and set me free from heresy. So i was quite surprised to find God’s Word–even the words of the Word–quite impotent when it comes to deciding whether the Catholic Church is the Church.

That’s the BIG picture, and i wonder if the Devil is in the details. I mean, was Christ crystal clear, but some demonic powers saw to it that ambiguity crept in either to the original autographs or by way of mistranslation? Or was Christ intentionally unclear for a reason. “All Scripture is God breathed,” Paul–whom Peter said wrote Sacred Scripture–tells me. But was it breathed out of the mouth of God perfect and breathed in to the mind of the Apostles, or their successors, imperfect?

My goal is not necessarily to answer the question of the authority of the Catholic Church. My goal is to find the answer to why. Why the lack of clarity in Jesus’ words? He was and is and will be forever God. He was and is and will be forever omniscient, knowing all, and completely aware of the full and future powerful effect of every word that He breaths out. He knew that when He said this,

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

He was not being as clear as if He had said this,

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you this rock, and on your successors, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. And all who trust in you should also trust in them.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or an enlightened saint to see that. It takes dim-witted, sinful, little ol’ me! So yes, i understand the authors of the Bible are going to be unclear at times. After all, Jesus is God and they are not. But that’s it, don’t you see? Jesus IS God. He knew what His words would do to people like me who are searching for truth, rather than thinking they already have it. That’s why i ask why. And if you don’t know, i won’t cry. But i cannot help but wonder.

Soc, I can relate to being swept away by a few deceptive winds of doctrine as well. That’s part of the whole learning process and due to the fall-the fact that we’re lost and need to navigate our way back to the Shepherd as we hear His call. For myself, the ambiguity in Scripture eventually meant I had to abandon it as a sole source of knowledge leading to salvation-and that left me, well, un-Protestant, if nothing else. I still say that, while for many of us the bible has been a solid rock in the middle of the storm of life, a source of Gods voice promising that at least He’s “there”-at least hope is there-that even then much of what we think we discern in our reading is already out there in the public sphere, IOW there are good, non-deceptive winds of doctrine drifting around our world because of the teachings and testimonies of believers, both Protestant and Catholic. We simply believe that only in the CC is the fullness of the faith taught because her guarantee of certainty in doctrinal matters comes from a direct relationship with God, which He established, of course, rather than from the written word, no matter how inspired it is.

 

[utunumsint]

It appears, then, that your understanding of how God conveys new doctrine (e.g., the doctrine of the Trinity) is to not rely on one person, such as Peter, but to rely on several persons, such as Paul, John and the author of Hebrews. When it comes to the idea of the Trinity, Paul and John would win the Nobel Prize, rather than Peter. Rather than a one-man show, it’s a group think; don’t you think?

Group think: yes. However Paul thinks it necessary to confirm his Gospel with the Apostles. So its not as if Paul’s teaching was somehow independed of theirs. Developments in doctrine had to be confirmed and approved by the rest, or especially by Peter. They were very much concerned with doctrinal unity.

That being said, Peter’s revelation in Matthew 16 seems foundational to me. Without the incarnation, we have no revelation into the Trinity, and an incomplete understanding of Christ’s sacrifice, and thefore, of salvation. Peter’s declaration is a necessary step before the Apostles could come to understand Christ’s later dialogues on his relationship with the Father. So I would say Peter’s revelation was truly the foundational rock-like Gold star. All others are bronze or silver because they depend on that one.

God bless,
Ut

 

[gavanhe]

It seems to me that Jesus knew exactly what He was saying and inspiring.
Can we imagine if He presented Himself to us live. What then would become of our free will.
So in other words we need faith to get us to Him. So also with the written word.

He knew that when He said this,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it."

(Matthew 16:17-18)

He was not being as clear as if He had said this,

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you this rock, and on your successors, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. And all who trust in you should also trust in them."

(Matthew 16:17-18)

The clarity of the first paragraph is not obvious to the sceptical reader, yet it is and was clear to the fathers of the church.
Therefore we require faith in the church, His church ie. the one Holy Roman Catholic Church.
You could argue that the second paragraph removes any doubt and ambiguity, but at what cost? You could also suggest many other passages in the bible that if re-written would or could be made less ambiguous.
So I guess what I am suggesting is that we need to accept that faith is what gets us to our ultimate destiny.
We are not all endowed with the same intelectual capacity and though we are required to be discerning in what we believe it can be taken to the n-th degree and take us to a position where we struggle over what is obvious to a lot of (wo)mankind (sorry trying to be pc).
Gerry

 

[clmowry]

Well, i did wreak havoc on my old favorite Protestant forum.

freedomandgrace.com/index.php?topic=11289.0

So, yes, i believe that anyone who refuses to admit ambiguity where it exists is either deceived or unwilling to consider the possibility.

Sounds reasonable to me, Charlie Brown. What’s your next premise?

http://lifesleftovers.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/charlie-brown-and-linus.jpg

My next premise would be that Christ never intended for His Church to be a religion based on words from a book.

He knew words taken by someone from a book, even a Divinely inspired book, are ambiguous and when taken from the written page with no (or even worse poor) guidance can quickly lead different readers to take dramatically different, often diametrically opposed paths.

God could have chosen any time or place for Christ to come into this world and offer himself on our behalf. He could have chosen any method to spread His message to humanity.

Christ could have chosen to write a library of books. He could have chosen as His disciples a body of scribes and linguists to create and propagate a book to the world.

He could have handed us a bible and a printing press if He saw fit.

But He didn’t.

In fact He seems to have done exactly the opposite.

To the best of our knowledge, He left us no writings at all directly from His hand.

He chose to reveal His gospel to a group of disciples (primarily) with questionable literacy.

That body of disciples formed a community that preserved and passed on the message they received via their traditions for many years before a single verse of what we know now as scripture was even written.

After some of Christ’s Apostles and their successors were inspired to write down some of what they saw and heard directly from Christ, eventually a portion of that written heritage was gathered by His followers and consolidated into a book which then proved very useful, in helping to preserve Christ’s teaching and continuing to pass that teaching on from generation to generation.

Unfortunately, the “ambiguity” in that same book, has been and continues to be used for many purposes for which it was never intended, frequently with very dire consequences for both individual souls and humanity as a whole.

Scripture is a set of texts that were to be used to support the teachings of a Church established by Christ.

It was never meant to be a stand alone set of “proof texts” from which a theology was to be continuously re-invented by the reader: treating it as such, will always result in frustrating ambiguity and division.

Chuck

 

[pneuma07]

Well, there is the idea that both you and i have as our own–(a) that Jesus is the authority i should trust. Then there is an idea you have that i do not yet know is my own–(b) that the Catholic Church is the authority i should trust. How do you propose i should get from point (a) to point (b)?

Perhaps it might be helpful to suspend making a final determination about Peter’s primacy and consider the second half of the equation–whether Jesus intended there to be successors to Peter. Let’s say, for the sake of dialog, that Peter was the sole leader of the Catholic Church. How can i know that God intended there to be others to sit in his chair and continue his monarchy? I mean, Moses had no Mosaic successors, yet the Jewish religion continued just the same. Why would the Christian religion not follow the same Divine plan?



But if you have a more promising way to get me from point (a) to point (b), then lead the way! I will follow.

Dear Soc,

        i hope to start answering your two posts by   dealing briefly with Apostolic Succession, (always remembering Scipture as central topic here).

1. The original model is Jesus passing authority to the apostles.
2. A position of authority does not belong to the Apostles only, is not limited
   To them. Hebrews 13.7 1 Peter 3.
3. Not only we have to obey legitimate authority, not only we are entrusted to legitimate local shepherds, but we do need a guide to get Jesus’ message through Scripture ( Acts 8:30-31).

Who else can that be, but those in legitimate authority ?
They receive a precise task:

I]1413What you heard from me, keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Christ Jesus. 14Guard the good deposit that was entrusted to you—guard it with the help of the Holy Spirit who lives in us.2 tim 2 13-

*“The things which you have heard from me through many witnesses you must hand on to trustworthy men who will be able to teach others” *2 Tim. 2:2

1. The Apostolic church is the guardian of the deposit of the faith, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

How is legitimate authority transmitted ?

*Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through a prophetic message when the body of elders laid their hands on you. * 1 Tim 4:14

• Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure./I] 1 Tim 5:22

The general picture is given by Clement:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry… Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44

1. Apostolic succession is …an apostolic decision.

We saw in Matthew 16 His Church is founded on Incarnation.
Or on the Incarnated One. The two things go hand in hand. So as the Apostles had been sent by Jesus, who had been sent by the Father, the model sees Bishops sent by them, and so on.

Where else could I find the legitimate christian authority and spiritual guide I need outside this original model, Soc ?

BTW, being “the greatest prophet” in Israel is not an office you can succeed in. Guarding the deposit of the faith and feeding His flock is.

The christian reflection on the model came very early too. In the II century, with Ireneus, we see apostolic succession explicitly considered as objective mark to distinguish heretics from His Church.

I pay no allegiance to Calvin or Menno or Campbell, and each of their different views, because IMHO they were not sent by the Incarnated Logos. None of them is the body who is in charge with guarding the deposit of the faith. They are not even members of it.

And I cannot follow anybody in believing that Scripture is so perspicuous …. that the Catholic Apostolic Church had not been able for centuries and centuries to properly understand it, before he came to explain the Revelation and expose those old pollutions.

What can you more or less share here, and what sounds weakest or even unreasonable ?*

 

[utunumsint]

Well, i did wreak havoc on my old favorite Protestant forum.

freedomandgrace.com/index.php?topic=11289.0

So, yes, i believe that anyone who refuses to admit ambiguity where it exists is either deceived or unwilling to consider the possibility.

Sounds reasonable to me, Charlie Brown. What’s your next premise?

What an interesting thread!! I got to page 10 and called it a night last night. But this is one of the first protestant threads about Catholic doctrines and interpretations that I’ve seen without ultra polarization among partizans (most likely because there were no Catholics on board.)

I really liked some of Bills responses, and even some of the things Beacon wrote. What I found really interesting was the diversity of perspectives, and how those who accepted the possibility that they were wrong, seemed the most gracious, and those who held to one particular interpretation, seemed to be the most hostile. Beacon comes to mind here. For example, he gave the story about his group that fellowshiped with a Lutheran group, and felt that they needed to protest their understanding of the Eucharist by not going up for communion… How divisive is that!! From my personal predisposition, I was uncomfortable reading his posts because they were so definitive on doctrinal questions.

That being said, the Catholic Church is also definitive in her doctrinal formulations, which must seem equaly as intollerant to all dissenters. So it seems as though the desire to define and to discover truth actually forments hostility. Either because one is condemning, or feels condemned. But truth is truth…

Anywho, just some thoughts. I’ll read the other 100 pages over the next couple of days.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Group think: yes. However Paul thinks it necessary to confirm his Gospel with the Apostles. So its not as if Paul’s teaching was somehow independed of theirs. Developments in doctrine had to be confirmed and approved by the rest, or especially by Peter. They were very much concerned with doctrinal unity.

That being said, Peter’s revelation in Matthew 16 seems foundational to me. Without the incarnation, we have no revelation into the Trinity, and an incomplete understanding of Christ’s sacrifice, and thefore, of salvation. Peter’s declaration is a necessary step before the Apostles could come to understand Christ’s later dialogues on his relationship with the Father. So I would say Peter’s revelation was truly the foundational rock-like Gold star. All others are bronze or silver because they depend on that one.

God bless,
Ut

Ut:

What you just said has left me, well, questionless! And i’m sure you know that does not happen very often.



Agreed. Peter’s revelation is the most important of all revelations.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Very perceptive! Jesus was not like any old teacher, trying to get you through state proficiency exams. No. Jesus is reaching out with his love using parables and teaching actual doctrine. Jesus wants YOU, not that you just understand His words. That is what the parable of the treasure in the field is about. Will you search? Will you come to Him? Like you said, Jesus being God, understands how words affect people. He has thrown down a challenge. Just as he did to the Jews of His own time. Remember his saying not to cast pearls before the swine? Sometimes it is necessary to use words, that reach people, no matter how they are able to interpret them.

But Jesus was never purposely ambiguous to make it more difficult to find Him. If His words are sometimes obscure, it is to help push us towards Him. Remember the saying about being like little children? We have to trust him, and His Church like a child trusts his parents.

Thank you, Ambrose. I gather from your response that you believe Christ’s lack of clarity is not a Satanic strategy, but instead a Divine design. The reason for Jesus’ ambiguity, you seem to say, is to keep drive the seeker to find an authority he can trust to help him understand. Am i understanding you correctly?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, I can relate to being swept away by a few deceptive winds of doctrine as well. That’s part of the whole learning process and due to the fall-the fact that we’re lost and need to navigate our way back to the Shepherd as we hear His call. For myself, the ambiguity in Scripture eventually meant I had to abandon it as a sole source of knowledge leading to salvation-and that left me, well, un-Protestant, if nothing else. I still say that, while for many of us the bible has been a solid rock in the middle of the storm of life, a source of Gods voice promising that at least He’s “there”-at least hope is there-that even then much of what we think we discern in our reading is already out there in the public sphere, IOW there are good, non-deceptive winds of doctrine drifting around our world because of the teachings and testimonies of believers, both Protestant and Catholic. We simply believe that only in the CC is the fullness of the faith taught because her guarantee of certainty in doctrinal matters comes from a direct relationship with God, which He established, of course, rather than from the written word, no matter how inspired it is.

You might be right, FH. And what you say seems to solidify what i’ve suspected. I mean, James tells me:

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. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.

(James 1:5-7)

And i always thought that this meant that if i wanted the answer to any question, i’d receive it from God, if i only did not doubt that God would give the wisdom for which i asked. So i’ve asked God over the past couple of years whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true. And i’ve also asked Catholics like you at this forum, as well as Protestants at another favorite forum. I was expecting a clear yes or no. But rather than that wisdom for which i asked, the wisdom i received was this–that Jesus made it quite impossible to figure out the truth based on His recorded words alone. Maybe that is the wisdom He wanted to give both me and you?

 

[paul_c]

You might be right, FH. And what you say seems to solidify what i’ve suspected. I mean, James tells me:

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. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord.

(James 1:5-7)

And i always thought that this meant that if i wanted the answer to any question, i’d receive it from God, if i only did not doubt that God would give the wisdom for which i asked. So i’ve asked God over the past couple of years whether what the Catholic Church teaches is true. And i’ve also asked Catholics like you at this forum, as well as Protestants at another favorite forum. I was expecting a clear yes or no. But rather than that wisdom for which i asked, the wisdom i received was this–that Jesus made it quite impossible to figure out the truth based on His recorded words alone. Maybe that is the wisdom He wanted to give both me and you?

I think it is exactly the wisdom you needed: you can’t get all the clarity you desire from teh written word. you need someone to add to the written word, the context under which is was written to fully understand. That is the magesterium…

 

[pneuma07]

1. A position of authority does not belong to the Apostles only, is not limited
   To them. Hebrews 13.7 1 Peter 3.
2. Not only we have to obey legitimate authority, not only we are entrusted to legitimate local shepherds, but we do need a guide to get Jesus’ message through Scripture ( Acts 8:30-31).

It is of course :

Hebrews 13:**17 **
17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account.

And 1 Peter **5 **
shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

It seems to me that Jesus knew exactly what He was saying and inspiring.
Can we imagine if He presented Himself to us live. What then would become of our free will.
So in other words we need faith to get us to Him. So also with the written word.

The clarity of the first paragraph is not obvious to the sceptical reader, yet it is and was clear to the fathers of the church.

Gav:

Thanks for the reply. I hope are planning on staying awhile and not just posting by!



From what i understand from the thoughtful Catholics i’ve met here during this discussion, the Church Fathers actually disagreed with one another over the meaning of Christ’s words. Ironically, their disagreement was the same that Protestants and Catholics have today–some said the Rock on which Jesus built His Church was Peter; other early Church Fathers disagreed and said the Rock was the truth Peter spoke. The Church is built on the truth that Jesus is the Son of God, these Church Fathers reasoned.

Therefore we require faith in the church, His church ie. the one Holy Roman Catholic Church.
You could argue that the second paragraph removes any doubt and ambiguity, but at what cost?

Good question! Let’s consider it. What would be the consequence of Christ conveying more clearly? If your Lord and mine had said this,“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you this rock, and on your successors, I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. And all who trust in you should also trust in them.”

(Matthew 16:17-18)
would people be better off today? I’d speculate that such clarity might have detrimental effects. His words might not have put an end to the Protestant Reformation, but they might have changed it considerably. Rather than many Protestants putting Faith in the Bible alone, they might put Faith in their own successors to Peter, whom they would claim are legitimate. There might be many more Churches like the Latter Day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses who reject the Bible in favor of their own scriptures. I think a world in which such conditions existed–where people mistrust the Bible and trust in their own Apostolic successors–would result in fewer people becoming Catholics. That might be the Divine design–to prevent such a possible world. What do you think?

You could also suggest many other passages in the bible that if re-written would or could be made less ambiguous.
So I guess what I am suggesting is that we need to accept that faith is what gets us to our ultimate destiny.
We are not all endowed with the same intelectual capacity and though we are required to be discerning in what we believe it can be taken to the n-th degree and take us to a position where we struggle over what is obvious to a lot of (wo)mankind (sorry trying to be pc).
Gerry

Not sure i understand. How do you define faith?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

My next premise would be that Christ never intended for His Church to be a religion based on words from a book.

Sounds like your conclusion, Chuck. Let’s see if the premises that follow support it.

He knew words taken by someone from a book, even a Divinely inspired book, are ambiguous and when taken from the written page with no (or even worse poor) guidance can quickly lead different readers to take dramatically different, often diametrically opposed paths.

True, if the words of the book are unclear or beyond comprehension. Socrates said as much:I cannot help feeling, Phaedrus, that writing has one grave fault in common with painting. For the creations of the painter stand there true as life, and yet if you ask them a question they maintain a solemn silence. And the same may be said of written words. You would imagine that they had intelligence, but if, out of a desire to learn, you ask for an explanation of something that has been said, they produce the same unvarying meaning, over and over again. And once they have been written down, they promiscuously knock about the world anywhere at all, among those who understand them, and equally among those for whom they are completely unsuitable. They do not know to whom they should or should not speak; and if they are mistreated or unjustly slandered, they always require the author of their being to rescue them. For the book cannot protect or defend itself.

(Phaedrus 275)
But if the words are cogent and unmistakably clear, then they would not suffer from ambiguity. For cogent words are those that are easy to understand, and clear words are those that are not ambiguous. Or do you think that everything that someone writes is ambiguous, and no writing is ever clear? If that were the case, then why write anything in a discussion forum like this? (I say this with a wink, for it’s not a serious question!)



But here is a serious question: Is writing ambiguous because it is written, or because the words that one chooses to write fail to be worded in such a way as to anticipate and address misconceptions?

God could have chosen any time or place for Christ to come into this world and offer himself on our behalf. He could have chosen any method to spread His message to humanity.

Christ could have chosen to write a library of books. He could have chosen as His disciples a body of scribes and linguists to create and propagate a book to the world.

He could have handed us a bible and a printing press if He saw fit.

But He didn’t.

In fact He seems to have done exactly the opposite.

To the best of our knowledge, He left us no writings at all directly from His hand.

He chose to reveal His gospel to a group of disciples (primarily) with questionable literacy.

That body of disciples formed a community that preserved and passed on the message they received via their traditions for many years before a single verse of what we know now as scripture was even written.

After some of Christ’s Apostles and their successors were inspired to write down some of what they saw and heard directly from Christ, eventually a portion of that written heritage was gathered by His followers and consolidated into a book which then proved very useful, in helping to preserve Christ’s teaching and continuing to pass that teaching on from generation to generation.

I think these words explaining how God chose to communicate are free of any defect of ambiguity:In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe.

(Hebrews 1:1-2)
Yes, Jesus did not write anything, other than a few unknown words in sand. But He said a great deal. The question is whether what He said was enough, and whether those who recorded His words, and the meaning of His words, selected the right words to record and explained the meaning of His words adequately. What i was hoping to find was some unmistakable proof from what they wrote that Christ intended there to be successors to Peter who would be equally as infallible as he. If such evidence is not in Sacred Scripture, then is it anywhere to be found in the words of the Early Church Fathers. What i also wonder is how infallible did these Fathers believe themselves to be.

Unfortunately, the “ambiguity” in that same book, has been and continues to be used for many purposes for which it was never intended, frequently with very dire consequences for both individual souls and humanity as a whole.

Scripture is a set of texts that were to be used to support the teachings of a Church established by Christ.

It was never meant to be a stand alone set of “proof texts” from which a theology was to be continuously re-invented by the reader: treating it as such, will always result in frustrating ambiguity and division.

Chuck

So you think the intentional ambiguity on the part of Christ is not a Divine design, but a satanic strategy? Or do you think it both?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MUzfQogdKSpOOM:http://community.middlesex.mass.edu/photos/storage/1000.22.200539.Charlie%20and%20Linus.jpg

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

        i hope to start answering your two posts by   dealing briefly with Apostolic Succession, (always remembering Scipture as central topic here).

1. The original model is Jesus passing authority to the apostles.

Agreed!

1. A  position of  authority  does not belong to the Apostles only,  is not   limited

To them. Hebrews 13.7 1 Peter 3.

Thank you, P7 for trying to reason from the Sacred Scriptures, although i’m not opposed to looking to the early Church Fathers, as well, for guidance. Let’s consider the passages you mention:
Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

(Hebrews 13:7-8)
That for which i’m looking is evidence that the leaders of the Catholic Church today are as trustworthy as the Peter of yesterday. Does God communicate as clearly and cogently to them as He did to him? Remembering a leader is not the same as trusting a leader in the same way i trust Christ, i think. Imitating their faith in Christ is not the same as putting the same faith in them that Christ put in Peter. The words of verse 8 appear to indicate that i should trust Jesus Christ, who does not change. Apostolic successors, however sincere, might have changed the beliefs Christ intended, and so be sincerely wrong. At least, that’s how Protestants, who think i’m a fool to dialog with people like you, warn me.

Regarding 1 Peter 3, i see no reference to trusting the authority of the Apostolic successors–only reference to husbands and wives submitting to one another in love. Perhaps you have the wrong chapter?

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter+1&version=NIV

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…

1. Not only we have to obey legitimate authority, not only we are entrusted to legitimate local shepherds, but we do need a guide to get Jesus’ message through Scripture ( Acts 8:30-31).

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.
“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

(Acts 8:30-35)

Fascinating! Evangelicals are fond of using this passage to teach how every member sitting in the pews can use this as a model for sharing their faith with family, co-workers, or next-door neighbors. However i think you see it as applying not to every parishioner, but to only to Apostolic successors. But how can this be? Are you not, by talking to me, using Philip’s conversation with the Ethiopian as your own model of evangelism–that is, using Sacred Scripture to reason with me? Maybe you are an an Apostolic successor in the Catholic Church. (No need for you to answer, i think, for Philip, whom this chapter quotes, was not an Apostolic successor.)

Don’t you think that the passage is not about trusting the authority of an Apostolic successor (of which Philip was not one) but instead about trusting the authority of Sacred Scripture? For Isaiah 53, which Philip quotes, is unmistakably a prediction of Christ’s suffering on the cross.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+53&version=NIV

It seems to me that any person in a pew can, after Mass, open the Bible and explain how it is a prediction of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Peter’s words, i believe, apply to not only to Apostolic successors:

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect …

(1 Peter 3:15)

 

[paul_c]

Soc,

I think at this point we can say with utmost confidence that the written word can be twisted or misconstrued by anyone to mean anything. This is true because the written word can not argue with the interpretter. You see, Matthew 16 clearly puts authority into Peter’s hands. Regardless of how you see the rock question, Peter gets the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and lose. Yet, those who don’t want Peter to have authority, will easily deny these points and the Bible can not argue with them. That is why Jesus put his power and the truth in the hands of men not words. Because men can correct those who are misguided (if they listen), while words are simply silent testamonies that can be misconstrued or twisted.

You are looking for unambiguous statements in scripture that declare the apostolic succession. Yet, you must understand, that scripture was never written to handle that question directly. Remember what the new testament is: A series of books and letters written by Apostolic men, spreading the truth about Jesus , mostly during the first 30 years of Christianity. They weren’t writing a constitution for the Church. Yet, you do see the essense of succession in the replacement of Judas in Acts 1 and the descriptions of how to choose bishops, priests and deacons in Timothy and Titus. You actually need to go beyond the first generation into the Early Church fathers to see the succession of the leadership of the Church fully, because after all, that’s the period in question.

For those that want to believe, the fullness of truth is easy to gain. Even for those that do not, the pull can be very strong. Ask the many of the converts on these pages if they set out to be converted. The answer will most likely be “no”, that they were pulled into it by the Spirit, sometimes despite their initial reluctance. Open your heart to the truth…Its hidden in plain sight.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc,

I think at this point we can say with utmost confidence that the written word can be twisted or misconstrued by anyone to mean anything. …

Can? Yes. Will be? No. I think that NOT everyone will misrepresent Sacred Scripture. The one who thinks he knows what it means, when he does not, is the one guilty of making unholy pretzels (though he is likely ignorant of his crime). But the one who is seeking the truth, and who admits that he does not know it, cannot be guilty of twisting anything, for he is not claiming to know what he does not know. Instead he knows that he does not know what others know they know, even though they don’t know. You know?

For me, it’s a double-edged sword, PC. By admitting there are things in Sacred Scripture of which i now don’t know the meaning, i’m protecting myself from deception, which is a good thing. However, by virtue of admitting i don’t know, i’ve become painfully aware of my ignorance of the truth. Still, i think i’m better of now being ignorant of what is true than i was before, as a Protestant, when i though i knew the whole truth and nothing but.

 

[paul_c]

Can? Yes. Will be? No. I think that NOT everyone will misrepresent Sacred Scripture. The one who thinks he knows what it means, when he does not, is the one guilty of making unholy pretzels (though he is likely ignorant of his crime). But the one who is seeking the truth, and who admits that he does not know it, cannot be guilty of twisting anything, for he is not claiming to know what he does not know. Instead he knows that he does not know what others know they know, even though they don’t know. You know?

For me, it’s a double-edged sword, PC. By admitting there are things in Sacred Scripture of which i now don’t know the meaning, i’m protecting myself from deception, which is a good thing. However, by virtue of admitting i don’t know, i’ve become ignorant of the truth. Still, i think i’m better of now being ignorant of what is true than i was before as a Protestant, when i though i knew the whole truth and nothing but.

You are missing my point entirely, which is just proof of the inefficiency of the written word. I wasn’t condemning you of twisting scripture. I was pointing out that it can be twisted and that’s the reason it can not be trusted on its own. You need a trustworthy person who understands the context that is assumed in the scripture to get it right. And not everyone is trustworthy. Your neighbor can tell you something and assume it to be truth, even when he has no better idea of the truth than you do. There needs to be an authority that can be trusted. We believe that the Catholic Church is that authority and that it got that authority directly from Jesus (as demonstrated in Matthew 16, Matthew 28 and all the other parallel versus).

If you decide that the Catholic Church is not that authority, then who is your authority and why? That becomes the most relevant question. Some will say that the Bible is their authority. To which I will say, that the Bible is not an authority, it is a book. An authority needs to be able to answer questions and set you on the right path if you get confused. A book, even a divinely inspired one, can not do that. The story of Phillip and the Eunach in Acts demonstrates this.

If you understand that, and the Church is still not your authority, then you must have another authority in mind. Inevitably, the question becomes " where did this person get his authority". Some, like Joseph Smith of the Mormons will claim they got this authority in a vision directly from God. Others, like Martin Luther, will make no claim other than that they trust their own intelligence. It then lies within each man’s province to decide whether any of these alternative authorities is more credible than that Catholic Church.

 

[clmowry]

So you think the intentional ambiguity on the part of Christ is not a Divine design, but a satanic strategy? Or do you think it both?

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:MUzfQogdKSpOOM:http://community.middlesex.mass.edu/photos/storage/1000.22.200539.Charlie%20and%20Linus.jpg

I don’t’ think either.

I don’t believe Christ was “intentionally ambiguous.”

He left us a Church to clear up any ambiguity in the minds of those that hear (or read) the Gospel message.

I believe that was His Divine Design (Isn’t that a TV show?).

Excluding His Church and its teaching authority from the Scripture it produced was not part of the Divine Design.

I have no idea if achieving this separation was a “satanic strategy” but I’ve no doubt it is a current reality in which the evil rejoices.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

But if the words are cogent and unmistakably clear, then they would not suffer from ambiguity. For cogent words are those that are easy to understand, and clear words are those that are not ambiguous. Or do you think that everything that someone writes is ambiguous, and no writing is ever clear? If that were the case, then why write anything in a discussion forum like this? (I say this with a wink, for it’s not a serious question!)



But here is a serious question: Is writing ambiguous because it is written, or because the words that one chooses to write fail to be worded in such a way as to anticipate and address misconceptions?

I don’t think there are any words (spoken or written) that necessarily impart unmistakably clear meaning to all recipients.

Even the simplest thoughts can be and frequently are misunderstood.

For example, how many different interpretations can we get from: “Love one another as I have loved you.”

How many books would you have to write to clear up all of the possible misconception that could come from this one sentence?

By engaging in a dialogue, written or oral, parties can come closer and closer to understanding each other.

One cannot, however, engage in a dialogue with a book.

While various readers can discuss and come to a consensus on what they “think” the author intended, they will never know the truth unless the author reveals it to them in some other way.

In fact, I would submit to you as the dialogue continues groups of readers can lead themselves further and further from the truth of the author’s intent (think back to some of your English Lit classes.)

If you would like to better understand the intended meaning of a book, I would think engaging in a dialogue with its Author or one of His delegates would be the best way to clear up the Author’s intent.

Chuck