# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[joe370]

Paul c said:

Sure its the wise thing to do to check out the pool before you jump in. However, you have a join date of 2004 on this website and almost 5000 posts…

**5000 posts! WOW! Soc, I just assumed that you were responding to each post in descending order, and perhaps that was why you were taking so long to get to my posts, (which makes perfect sense to me) - However, that does not seem to be the case. This post from Paul to which you responded, came after several of my posts, which you overlooked.

Look forward to your responses, when you get the time, of course. These are the questions that if answered honestly, I simply had no choice but to become a member of the church built by God, circa 33AD, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost. **

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, you said:

Well, Joe, the original Church was called The Way.

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to The Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

(Acts 9:1-2)

Ok…

In fact, the words Catholic Church don’t appear anywhere in the Bible.

**Neither do any of the names attached to the myriad protestant churches, built by mere men from the 16th to the 21st century.
**
**Jesus didn’t give His church a name. He left that up to His apostles. He simply called His church - “My church!”
**

Yes, that’s what i was thinking, too.**



**

**One of the real surprises to me as a former Lutheran, was how early the term “Catholic” came to be used to refer to Jesus’ one church. How early? How about the year 107 AD.
**
**Ignatious was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, and the disciple of the beloved Disciple John. He was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 AD. He was the first person to commit to letter, the term “catholic” to describe Jesus’ whole Church. His letters connect us to Jesus’ early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles, which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. To understand the early Church or Catholicism today is to understand St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the successor of Peter, as bishop of Antioch and was the spiritual son of John the Apostle. He is the key to truly knowing the Christians of the first two centuries and what they believed. He is responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos, meaning “universal,” “complete” and “whole” to describe Jesus’ church. It is from the word katholikos that the word catholic is derived. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 AD (again, using the word “catholic” to describe Jesus’ one church) - he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe Jesus’ Church, the world over. Because of him many scholars (Protestant as well) - have concluded that the appellation “catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century. Pretty compelling wouldn’t you say, or do you still believe that Jesus built another church?

From the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by St. Ignatius of Antioch:

*“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” ***

Catholic is a synonym for universal, Joe. That’s why many creeds of Protestant Churches keep the words of the Nicene Creed. They say they are one of the denominations that belong to the universal Church, and so they are catholic with a small c. To say that the Catholic Church is the only true Church because it goes by the same name that Ignatius used would be like a Presbyterian saying the Presbyterian Church is the only true Church because Ignatius spoke of the presbytery. Each way of thinking makes an unwarranted assumption.

**Why would I? The churches that go by that name are churches built by men in the 20 or 21st century, as opposed to the C.C. built by Jesu

Isn’t it important to you? Don’t you want to belong to the church built by Jesus circa 33 AD, as opposed to churches built by mere men?
**

Sure, Joe, that’s why i’m asking.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Paul c said:

Sure its the wise thing to do to check out the pool before you jump in. However, you have a join date of 2004 on this website and almost 5000 posts…

**5000 posts! WOW! Soc, I just assumed that you were responding to each post in descending order, and perhaps that was why you were taking so long to get to my posts, (which makes perfect sense to me) - However, that does not seem to be the case. This post from Paul to which you responded, came after several of my posts, which you overlooked.

Look forward to your responses, when you get the time, of course. These are the questions that if answered honestly, I simply had no choice but to become a member of the church built by God, circa 33AD, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost. **

You noticed that, Joe. I’ve come to the conclusion that i cannot respond to every post you make, because you make too many! I mean, you respond not just to my replies to you, but to my replies to P7, to my replies to FH, to my replies to PC, et. al. To be fair to everyone (and for the sake of my sanity) i have to limit my replies to just a few of your posts.

You have a lot of good things to say, Joe, but you really don’t have to say them all at once. If you want me to reply to all of your posts, consider making fewer posts. Try posting what is the most important, and save the rest for later.
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

(Proverbs 17:28)

 

[fhansen]

FH:

To be fair to Evangelicals, they also believe good works done by God’s power are mandatory–mandatory for sanctification, that is. Yet sanctification is a result of salvation, not a reason for it, they say. So the causal chain of events in their minds is this:

Salvation:

(a) God draws → (b) One repents and trusts Christ → (c) One receives eternal life

Sanctification:

(c) One receives eternal life → (d) One continues to repent and trust Christ
→ (e) One sins less and less and does good works more and more by obeying God

Notice that eternal life (c) comes before obeying God (e). Thus (a) and (b) are seen as the *only *causes of receiving eternal life. And (e) is seen as a consequence, not a cause, of (c).

Yes, and we believe that justification and sanctification are inseparable, not “mandatory” as in being a sign of justification but “mandatory” as in being a necessary part of ones justification. In Catholic teaching justification is a process, whereby man is perfected into the beings God had in mind all along. This is what makes man just-real change-not just imputed righteousness. And this is why Scripture says we must be perfect as God is perfect and that no sinners will enter heaven.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Yes, and we believe that justification and sanctification are inseparable, not “mandatory” as in being a sign of justification but “mandatory” as in being a necessary part of ones justification. In Catholic teaching justification is a process, whereby man is perfected into the beings God had in mind all along. This is what makes man just-real change-not just imputed righteousness. And this is why Scripture says we must be perfect as God is perfect and that no sinners will enter heaven.

Yes, i understand, FH. And i wonder how righteousness cannot be imputed, given Jesus’ words, which you mentioned:**Be **perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

I mean, this side of heaven, it seems impossible to *be *perfect. But that is what Jesus commands–that we be (present tense) perfect. If righteousness were not imputed, then why did He not say this, instead?**[Become] **perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

It’s OK if you don’t know. I’m just wondering out loud. I ask a lot of questions of Protestants that they have trouble answering, too!

 

[joe370]

Soc, you said:

You noticed that, Joe. I’ve come to the conclusion that i cannot respond to every post you make, because you make too many!

**True, but most of the time they are simply the same questions.
**

I mean, you respond not just to my replies to you, but to my replies to P7, to my replies to FH, to my replies to PC, et. al.

Fair enough…I do apologize; from now on I will try to remember, not do that.

To be fair to everyone (and for the sake of my sanity) i have to limit my replies to just a few of your posts.

Ok…

You have a lot of good things to say, Joe…

**Thanks Soc. So do you.:thumbsup:I enjoy reading your posts.
**

but you really don’t have to say them all at once. If you want me to reply to all of your posts, consider making fewer posts.

**Just ignore my previous posts. We can start afresh. One post (question) - at a time, starting now. I won’t ask another question until you have answered the one question. **

Try posting what is the most important, and save the rest for later.
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

(Proverbs 17:28)


Okeydoke…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Soc, you said:

You noticed that, Joe. I’ve come to the conclusion that i cannot respond to every post you make, because you make too many!

**True, but most of the time they are simply the same questions.
**
I mean, you respond not just to my replies to you, but to my replies to P7, to my replies to FH, to my replies to PC, et. al.

Fair enough…I do apologize; from now on I will try to remember, not do that.

To be fair to everyone (and for the sake of my sanity) i have to limit my replies to just a few of your posts.

Ok…

You have a lot of good things to say, Joe…

**Thanks Soc. So do you.:thumbsup:I enjoy reading your posts.
**
but you really don’t have to say them all at once. If you want me to reply to all of your posts, consider making fewer posts.

**Just ignore my previous posts. We can start afresh. One post (question) - at a time, starting now. I won’t ask another question until you have answered the one question. **

Try posting what is the most important, and save the rest for later.Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

(Proverbs 17:28)


Okeydoke…

And i’m not trying to criticize, Joe, just making a suggestion. Please let me know what you most want to talk about and let’s focus on that. It will make it easier for me to follow you.

 

[joe370]

Catholic is a synonym for universal, Joe. That’s why many creeds of Protestant Churches keep the words of the Nicene Creed. They say they are one of the denominations that belong to the universal Church, and so they are catholic with a small c. To say that the Catholic Church is the only true Church because it goes by the same name that Ignatius used would be like a Presbyterian saying the Presbyterian Church is the only true Church because Ignatius spoke of the presbytery. Each way of thinking makes an unwarranted assumption.

**Interesting perspective; one I often employed as a Lutheran.

Actually 3 simple questions:

1. Did Jesus Christ build all the protestant churches that we see in the world today.
2. Do you believe that Jesus built just one church?
3. If just one church, then which one, and when?

I know, that’s 4 questions…LOL…
**

 

[joe370]

Soc, you asked:

Sure, Joe, that’s why i’m asking. Do I think that the man-made church that goes by the name “the way” is the true church? Absolutely if in fact you can prove that the way church was built by God circa 33 AD on Pentecost.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, i understand, FH. And i wonder how righteousness cannot be imputed, given Jesus’ words, which you mentioned:**Be **perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

I mean, this side of heaven, it seems impossible to *be *perfect. But that is what Jesus commands–that we be (present tense) perfect. If righteousness were not imputed, then why did He not say this, instead?**[Become] **perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

It’s OK if you don’t know. I’m just wondering out loud. I ask a lot of questions of Protestants that they have trouble answering, too!

To be perfect in no way implies that the perfection must occur instantaneously-one can* be* perfect due to having become perfect. And remember that, after His disciples raised essentially the same question, "Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’ " Matt 19:26

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, i agree, and yes, that’s what Evangelical Ed tells me.

I suppose Evangelical Ed would say this failure is evident as early as the Nicene Creed in the 4th century AD, for it erroneously states that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins.

I’d assume he’d say this is one biblical text that proves the error:And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ… .

(1 Peter 3:21)
He’d argue that it’s the pledge of a good conscience toward God (repentance) and trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (faith) that saves one from hell. It’s this repentance and faith in Christ–NOT the superstitious belief in some magical power of the holy water in which an infant is baptized–that gives one eternal life. That’s what Ed tells me–quoting Peter, no less! How should i respond?

Dear Soc,

 IMHO you could respond something like this:

Dear Ed,

         I guess you expect that answering by quoting Scripture, and  no less than Peter,

can be very impressive for my catholic virtual friends.
But, you see, I do suspect this is not the case at all. Since what they ask, is precisely what makes your own position Ed, better than that of the leadership of the ancient Church as far as the sound comprehension of Jesus’ message is concerned.

You see, catholics do know you have the Bible, Ed, and they do not doubt your ability to quote it. What they will keep asking, and I know well enough them now, is what makes you Ed, a better interpreter of the written word
than the leadership of the early Church, which received, when selected, the special task to guard the deposit of the faith, and therefore fight corrupted innovations.

Some of them could also ask for evidence of your interpretation in the generations before 325. That could be very useful for them, as I got to know them. Collect it please, just in case. *

And to you Soc, I ask whether at this point you don’t suspect that the verse quoted by Ed, upon cross-examination a la Socrates4Jesus, and an ad hoc megathread, could turn out as ambiguous as those you quoted in the OP, to your eyes, ie could cease in its turn being a reason for you to follow the Evangelicals’ way rather than Catholicism.

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

I find it incredible that this is the creed of the Evangelical Lutheran Church:

[/INDENT]I suppose an Evangelical Ed, if he were an Evangelical Lutheran, would defend the creed this way: Regarding (a) he’d likely say the Lutheran Church is apostolic, unlike the Catholic Church, which no longer follows the true Gospel preached by the Apostles. Regarding (b) i suppose he’d say the creed speaks of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not water baptism.

So i’d like to consider his response.

Lutherans conserve that monument of Sacred Tradition which is Nicene Creed Soc.

As for their interpretation of apostolocity I guess I have already expounded on why I see it as mere circular reasoning. .

Read Irenaeus again please. He is warning us against guys such as Marcion or Luther, or Ed, coming to us form the II, XVI, or XXI century with their own peculiar teachings, against the faith presented by the legitimate successors of the Apostles.

The ancient Church would propose legitimate succession as mark of orthodoxy, against chicken-and-egg dilemmas.
The founder of any new heresy, against whom this note of the true Church was precisely so early proposed, in any time will tell you that he is apostolic, because, he again tells you, he teaches what the apostles would teach. Hence your present dilemma.

 

[pneuma07]

Can you show me any quote from an early Church Father (the earlier or closest to the Nicene Creed the better) that indicates it is water baptism (not merely receiving the Holy Spirit) that saves one from hell?

 I hope I get evangelical  points about baptism correctly.  There is “water baptism”, an obedience and an outward expression,  and distinct from that,  a “spiritual baptism”, the one which is regenerative.  Ed quoted 1 Petr 3 as alleged support of this position.

As for other relevant pericopes

Romans 6:4 teaches baptism is regenerative. We are to believe it is not “water baptism”.

*Titus 3:5 He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit./I] We are to believe this is not water baptism.

John 3:5 no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. We are to believe this water is not physical water. Or is maybe amniotic fluid.

Back to Peter

Acts 2:38,“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

Let’s listen to Peter then.
We are to believe that either this is not “water baptism” (Just, wait a minute if “receiving of the Holy Spirit IS spiritual, ie real, regenerative baptism”, and if Peter does not speak about water baptism here , but “spiritual baptism”, his exhortation amounts to saying” repent and be baptized, and you shall be baptized” ),
or - if it is - the effects of remission and receiving the Spirit come from repenting only, and nothing at all from getting baptized into water. ( the construction “Repent for the forgiveness of your sins, and be baptized ….” would be proper then )

But he says

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins

and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

…

It seems, after the evangelical teaching, we can only see either a non-water regenerative baptism,or a non-regenerative water baptism.
It looks like Jesus and the Apostles would preach these two completely distinct kinds of baptisms. Never, ever should we understand they would teach regenerative baptism with physical water.

And now I come to your kind request. Let us see what around 150 AD was the understanding of this teaching in St. Justin’s words
As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven*. ( First Apology, Chapter 61)

Bless you
P7

PS i’d say we are saved from sin, and his consequences. In baptism we receive the remission of sins.*

 

[paul_c]

Fascinating! I suppose they believe only 66 of the 77 books are inerrant, for several books in my Catholic-sanctioned Bible are missing from my Protestant-sanctioned Bibles.

Well, they accept the entire new testament put together by a church that they consider corrupt. How is that logical?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Catholic is a synonym for universal, Joe. That’s why many creeds of Protestant Churches keep the words of the Nicene Creed. They say they are one of the denominations that belong to the universal Church, and so they are catholic with a small c. To say that the Catholic Church is the only true Church because it goes by the same name that Ignatius used would be like a Presbyterian saying the Presbyterian Church is the only true Church because Ignatius spoke of the presbytery. Each way of thinking makes an unwarranted assumption.

**Interesting perspective; one I often employed as a Lutheran.

Actually 3 simple questions:

1. Did Jesus Christ build all the protestant churches that we see in the world today.
2. Do you believe that Jesus built just one church?
3. If just one church, then which one, and when?

I know, that’s 4 questions…LOL…
**

Four questions–one post–works for me!



Before i can answer the question, Joe, i have to know what you mean by the word Church. If you mean a religious organization with a centralized government, then i’m not so certain this is what Christ and the Apostles understood His Church to be. If you mean a collective of people who follow Christ and have a common set of essential beliefs, then i think this, perhaps, might be what the Apostles understood the Church to be. Just as there were many churches mentioned in the New Testament, but one universal (or catholic) Church, so too there might be many denominations in the modern world, but one universal Church.

The truth is you are asking me what i don’t know. I don’t know if the Catholic Church is the universal Church, so how can i answer (1)? The answer to (2) is yes, but i’m not sure what the definition of Church is, as explained in the previous paragraph. There might be one universal Church but many denominations with different forms of government. The answer to (3) is unknown to me. It depends on the answers you help me find to (1) and (2), for i don’t how to define the word Church. As Socrates said:How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know what the thing is?

(Theaetetus, 147)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Absolutely if in fact you can prove that the way church was built by God circa 33 AD on Pentecost.

Again, that depends on what the true definition of Church is. Let’s try to define it so that we know about what we are talking when we say the word Church. At least, that’s what Socrates would advise we do, and i think it’s good advice. That is, it is if we want to get to the truth in a timely manner, he says:No matter what the subject, there is for those who wish to deliberate well upon it always one and the same starting point: You must know what it is you are deliberating about, or you will inevitably fail altogether. Most people, however, are not aware of their ignorance of a thing’s essential nature, and because they think they know all about it, they fail to secure agreement about the premises of their inquiry at its beginning. As they proceed, they reap the predictable harvest of this oversight: They disagree with one another and even contradict themselves. Now, you and I must not be guilty of this fundamental error that we condemn in others.

(Phaedrus, 237)

Let’s you and i come to an agreement about the essential nature of this Church of which we speak. Then we might find be in a better position to agree that the Catholic Church is the Church.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

To be perfect in no way implies that the perfection must occur instantaneously-one can* be* perfect due to having become perfect. And remember that, after His disciples raised essentially the same question, "Jesus looked at them and said, ‘With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.’ " Matt 19:26

Well, FH, the word *be *does NOT mean become. * Be *denotes a present state of being. *Become *denotes a future state of being. Be is what you are now, and is not a process. Become is what you will be, for it is a process. We’ve been speaking about some words of Jesus that are ambiguous, but i think it’s perfectly clear that there is no ambiguity here.
Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)
cannot possibly mean
[Become] perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

But perhaps you already are quite aware of this. Are you saying, then, that you believe there in fact was one among the people to whom Jesus spoke who could in fact obey the command to be (right then and there) perfect? Please tell me his name! In fact, please give me the name of just one Catholic who ever claimed that he had obeyed the command to be (in the present) perfect.

 

[fhansen]

Then you believe that there was one among the people to whom Jesus spoke who could in fact obey the command to be (right then and there) perfect? Please tell me his name? In fact, please give me the name of just one Catholic who ever claimed that he had obeyed the command to be (in the present) perfect.

We believe Mary remained without sin but the point is that heaven means to be unattached to sin-to anything other than God as the highest good-that’s what makes it heaven-and that’s what makes creation, in the form of man, perfect: to be fully oriented to Him. To fully love God and be loved by Him* is* man’s complete and ultimate happiness.

For the rest of us (in the present), probably none of us are “there”. By the time heaven is realized, all must be.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:12-14

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

We believe Mary remained without sin but the point is that heaven means to be unattached to sin-to anything other than God as the highest good-that’s what makes it heaven-and that’s what makes creation, in the form of man, perfect: to be fully oriented to Him. To fully love God and be loved by Him* is* man’s complete and ultimate happiness.

For the rest of us (in the present), probably none of us are “there”. By the time heaven is realized, all must be.

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. Phil 3:12-14

So Jesus’ command

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

was for Mary only? What about the other commandments given during His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapters 5 - 7? Were they for Mary only, as well? Was He speaking only to His mother that day?

 

[fhansen]

So Jesus’ command

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

was for Mary only? What about the other commandments given during His Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, chapters 5 - 7? Were they for Mary only, as well? Was He speaking only to His mother that day?

Maybe you didn’t understand my post. To enter heaven we must** be** perfect, just like He said, and in whatever way He intends.