T
tGette
Guest
I’m going to have to think about that one for a while.
Simple, yet my brain says…WHAAA? hehe
Thank you!
- Status
Simple, yet my brain says…WHAAA? hehe
Thank you!
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
It’s a new Catholic card game!
The Truth card trumps the Unity card.
There are four suits: Holy Trinity, Angelic, Man, Critter
The Truth card is “wild-card” like.
The Unity card is “ace” like, meaning that it’s both the lowest and the highest, depending on context, within it’s suit.
The “denominations” of the suits are 9, instead of the usual 10, as they refer to the choirs of angels, with the Unity card being both 0 and 10 within it’s suit.
1 Angels,
2 Archangels,
3 Virtues,
4 Powers,
5 Principalities,
6 Dominations,
7 Throne,
8 Cherubim,
9 Seraphim
There are no “face” cards.
(( This is utter nonsense. I had a few minutes to let my mind ramble off some goofiness, and so I let it fly! ))
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Correct
Most definately not. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are not Christians whatsoever - for the reason you specified. I don’t know if I remembered to add “Anyone who can recite Apostolicum, Nicaenum and Athanasium, and mean what he says, is a Christian”, but I THOUGHT it anyway
There is a “within” and a “without” Christendom. JW and the Mormons are without. They may claim to believe in Jesus, but the “Jesus” they believe in is NOT the Jesus the Bible speaks of, but some made-up “Jesus”, who is no better than “Zeus”, “Athena”, etc.
It is important, yes. But if I have to choose between visible unity (which is what I’m hearing you speak about here
), and what I would describe as the “purity of the Faith”, I must choose the latter, as any Christian must. There are compromises I am not willing to make to achieve visible unity, just as I am sure you have some. There are reasons that Melanchton’s trying to find a compromise with the Emperor’s theologians went south - and basic doctrinal differences were one of them And also with you
T
tito
Guest
Thank you for answering my post, tGETTE. I reviewed you part 1 to try to better understand your valid concerns. Meanwhile LutheranDK has written a response that clarifies even more the issue, and his point on suffering when we learn of the suffering of a brother/sister in the faith I can fully identify with totally.
In the biblical exposition of the Unity in the mystical body, again I propose that, being ‘of the Spirit’, it is not loose but as solid a bond as it can be; it is of God. We all deplore the current situation that the visible church (not addressing any one denomination specifically) does not match the invisible, as we would like and that is a commendable desire as it reflects where the heart is in desiring communion with ea. other.Therefore, it is the external unity (a disunity) that is imperfect.
In the case of the JW and LDS, there are different conceptions of the Deity of Christ between Biblical Christianity and their religious systems. The observation ‘believe in Christ’ brings up an important issue. What exactly does it mean to believe in Christ? That He existed? That He is God? That He is Savior and Lord? (Acts 2:36) . All are true. I summit that to ‘believe in Christ’ means to fully and unreservedly trust what He accomplished on the Cross as full satisfaction for the debt of my sins, so that I need add not a thing to this completed work of Calvary as 1 John 1: 7,9 and 2:2 says. Only this way does Christ receive all the credit for savation, and I do not need to diminish His Glory.
Finally Luke 9: 49, 50 brings up an important duality in the Scriptures as far as a position in Christ: ‘he who is not against us is with us’ (AV uses ‘us’ and not ‘you’), ‘he who does not gathers, scatters’, the ‘narrow gate and the wide gate’, the narrow road and the wide road’, ’ kingdom of light and kingdom of darkness’, ‘slave to sin or slave to righteousness’, ‘lost or in Christ’ etc. The point is that in this life God leaves us no room for stradling the fence; not to accept (receive) Christ as Savior is to reject him. No other choices! One may come to understand that this life, a wisp in the sense of eternity, is but to be with, for, love, etc Jesus, and be saved. God promised Adam and Eve a savior and He delivered. Restoration is coming too but that topic is for another day.
Anticipate your comments, as it is time now for me to listen to your views as you present and expose your beliefs and christian positions.
In the biblical exposition of the Unity in the mystical body, again I propose that, being ‘of the Spirit’, it is not loose but as solid a bond as it can be; it is of God. We all deplore the current situation that the visible church (not addressing any one denomination specifically) does not match the invisible, as we would like and that is a commendable desire as it reflects where the heart is in desiring communion with ea. other.Therefore, it is the external unity (a disunity) that is imperfect.
In the case of the JW and LDS, there are different conceptions of the Deity of Christ between Biblical Christianity and their religious systems. The observation ‘believe in Christ’ brings up an important issue. What exactly does it mean to believe in Christ? That He existed? That He is God? That He is Savior and Lord? (Acts 2:36) . All are true. I summit that to ‘believe in Christ’ means to fully and unreservedly trust what He accomplished on the Cross as full satisfaction for the debt of my sins, so that I need add not a thing to this completed work of Calvary as 1 John 1: 7,9 and 2:2 says. Only this way does Christ receive all the credit for savation, and I do not need to diminish His Glory.
Finally Luke 9: 49, 50 brings up an important duality in the Scriptures as far as a position in Christ: ‘he who is not against us is with us’ (AV uses ‘us’ and not ‘you’), ‘he who does not gathers, scatters’, the ‘narrow gate and the wide gate’, the narrow road and the wide road’, ’ kingdom of light and kingdom of darkness’, ‘slave to sin or slave to righteousness’, ‘lost or in Christ’ etc. The point is that in this life God leaves us no room for stradling the fence; not to accept (receive) Christ as Savior is to reject him. No other choices! One may come to understand that this life, a wisp in the sense of eternity, is but to be with, for, love, etc Jesus, and be saved. God promised Adam and Eve a savior and He delivered. Restoration is coming too but that topic is for another day.
Anticipate your comments, as it is time now for me to listen to your views as you present and expose your beliefs and christian positions.
C
Carolyn_H
Guest
ROTFL…Correct
Most definately not. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons are not Christians whatsoever - for the reason you specified. I don’t know if I remembered to add “Anyone who can recite Apostolicum, Nicaenum and Athanasium, and mean what he says, is a Christian”, but I THOUGHT it anyway
There is a “within” and a “without” Christendom. JW and the Mormons are without. They may claim to believe in Jesus, but the “Jesus” they believe in is NOT the Jesus the Bible speaks of, but some made-up “Jesus”, who is no better than “Zeus”, “Athena”, etc.
It is important, yes. But if I have to choose between visible unity (which is what I’m hearing you speak about here
And also with you
Roman Catholics and Lutherans are closer theologically, than Lutherans and Mormons!!! TRUE!!!
God has a wonderful sense of humor!!!
L
LutheranDK
Guest
Indeed he does - and I call upon everyone to look on the giraffe as an example of that! - now THERE’s a strange creature if ever there was oneROTFL…
Roman Catholics and Lutherans are closer theologically, than Lutherans and Mormons!!! TRUE!!!
God has a wonderful sense of humor!!!
P
Peter_J
Guest
That makes sense, but I would ask, How far do we carry the language of “the ‘Jesus’ they believe in is not the Jesus the Bible speaks of”?
For example, I believe that Jesus didn’t have any biological siblings (i.e. that Mary didn’t birth to anyone besides Jesus). Should I then say “Anyone who believes that Jesus did have biological siblings doesn’t believe in the real Jesus, because the real Jesus didn’t have biological siblings”?
T
tGette
Guest
I was going to quote previous posts but there are too many…so I am just going to respond accordingly, hopefully people will see where the responses came from.
In regards to this invisible unity. I am understanding more completely what you guys mean that it is the Spirit uniting us. So…even how we believe about Baptism and Communion are in fact the external beliefs? Please correct me if I am wrong…
Anyways…so…if it is the Holy Spirit who unites us invisibly as Christians…then why does that exclude Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc who deny the divinity of Christ? They all accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior also…isn’t that good enough? So they might be a tad ignorant to His exact nature…but at least they accept what was done on the cross for them…isn’t that enough? Why should it matter if they believe Jesus is God, isn’t that merely an external unity that is somewhat irrelevant in regards to this invisible unity?
I mean…they believe in the Holy Spirit…so then can’t we say they are also united in this invisible unity?
Peter J’s comment lines up completely with the point I am trying to convey. How much of Jesus do we need to agree on for this invisible unity to occur?
And, again, if this unity is purely just the Holy Spirit uniting us, then I say it is unfair to exclude the believers who deny Christ’s divinity.
In regards to this invisible unity. I am understanding more completely what you guys mean that it is the Spirit uniting us. So…even how we believe about Baptism and Communion are in fact the external beliefs? Please correct me if I am wrong…
Anyways…so…if it is the Holy Spirit who unites us invisibly as Christians…then why does that exclude Mormon’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc who deny the divinity of Christ? They all accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior also…isn’t that good enough? So they might be a tad ignorant to His exact nature…but at least they accept what was done on the cross for them…isn’t that enough? Why should it matter if they believe Jesus is God, isn’t that merely an external unity that is somewhat irrelevant in regards to this invisible unity?
I mean…they believe in the Holy Spirit…so then can’t we say they are also united in this invisible unity?
Peter J’s comment lines up completely with the point I am trying to convey. How much of Jesus do we need to agree on for this invisible unity to occur?
And, again, if this unity is purely just the Holy Spirit uniting us, then I say it is unfair to exclude the believers who deny Christ’s divinity.
T
tito
Guest
Perhaps it is worth to review the descriptions of Jesus of the 3 groups.
JW’s bible, the New World Translation in John 1:1 says tha Christ the Word is ‘a god’. He was the first son Yaweh brought forth, and furthermore that Michael the Archangel is no other than the only-begotten Son of God. No Trinity, H. Spirit a force.
LDS Jesus a created son, not born god but elevated to that position of primacy, greater than all other gods (as in many).
Christianity
AS it reads in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, One in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and from our salvation he came down from Heaven”
The Creed alone tells us that he is Lord, eternal, not made, of the same nature (essence) as the Father, the true God and the true Light, Creator God.
v. 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high".
JW’s bible, the New World Translation in John 1:1 says tha Christ the Word is ‘a god’. He was the first son Yaweh brought forth, and furthermore that Michael the Archangel is no other than the only-begotten Son of God. No Trinity, H. Spirit a force.
LDS Jesus a created son, not born god but elevated to that position of primacy, greater than all other gods (as in many).
Christianity
AS it reads in the Nicene Creed: “We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, One in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and from our salvation he came down from Heaven”
The Creed alone tells us that he is Lord, eternal, not made, of the same nature (essence) as the Father, the true God and the true Light, Creator God.
Code:
Christians do not get to define the God-man, God the Son in human nature, the Scriptures do: Hebrews 1 verses 1,2,3. In v.1 GOD in past times spoke via prophets but in these days GOD has spoken to us by his Son. v 2b " whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom he also made the worlds;
Code:
We see here where the Nicene Creed theology is founded upon. JC must be very God of very God to have the right to sit at the right hand of the Father. It is imperative that he be both with human nature and divine nature. Animal sacrifices in the OT could atone for sins but not purge them or have them cleanse the conscience (spiritual cleansing) Heb.10:4. When sins are purged there is no further need for sacrifices Heb 10:17. Again, 1John 1:7b "..........the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanses us from ALL sin".
GOD himself was the one who suffered to purge our sins and remove the guilt and penalty (wrath) that we deserved. And that is real LOVE. It is also why rejecting JC and what He has done for us results in eternal condemnation. Who greater than God the Son can redeem you from your transgressions? HE is the one sitting at the right side of the Father: we can go no higher!
The God of Christianity by biblical definition is not the same person as that of the JW and LDS, and that is why what one believes makes a vast difference.
A
T
tGette
Guest
**
Before I continue…I just want to thank everyone for this being a civil discussion thus far. May the Holy Spirit guide us to keep it so!**
I agree 100%…my comment was more rhetorical than anything.
This is exactly why the title of my thread is “We Must ALL Agree”
Because Christ is God, it is imperative that we believe the same things regarding what He taught and commanded. Again, for instance, concerning Baptism and Communion. It makes a vast difference that a lot of Christians believe different things about these.
For me…the God of the Universe taught us something…we should all, as Christians, agree with it with the same understanding (and one of truth, of course.)
Christians do not get to define what they want about these things and then just be content with us having invisible unity through the Spirit. That is why I am stressing that this visible unity is important.
Our Lord taught us something…should we not agree?
C
CatsAndDogs
Guest
Yes, God did teach us something. But one could just as sensibly admonish Adam and Eve, who were preternaturally more intelligent and “in-tune” with God than we could ever HOPE to be, that they REALLY need to NOT sample from that TREE!
There is no necessity that we “all agree” within God’s plan. I agree that it would be nice if we did, but the fact is that God’s plan is built around reality (and OF reality) and the reality is that due to free will we WON’T (WILL not) “all agree”.
Why do you think it’s an “overriding imperative” that we “all agree”?
Do you think that our “all agreeing” would somehow “bring on” some phenomena? (The 2nd Coming, perhaps?)
Do you think that having our free will “nullified” would be a good thing?
(( Once again, I agree that it would be good if we were truly united in doctrine, and striving to “attract” people TO doctrinal agreement is what we MUST do, it’s the old “God should make everything perfect NOW, or He’s an evil Daddy!” argument to cling to the idol of false unity over truth. ))
T
tGette
Guest
LOL…that made my day! I honestly thought you were explaining something profound to me and then the ending comment!It’s a new Catholic card game!
The Truth card trumps the Unity card.
There are four suits: Holy Trinity, Angelic, Man, Critter
The Truth card is “wild-card” like.
The Unity card is “ace” like, meaning that it’s both the lowest and the highest, depending on context, within it’s suit.
The “denominations” of the suits are 9, instead of the usual 10, as they refer to the choirs of angels, with the Unity card being both 0 and 10 within it’s suit.
1 Angels,
2 Archangels,
3 Virtues,
4 Powers,
5 Principalities,
6 Dominations,
7 Throne,
8 Cherubim,
9 Seraphim
There are no “face” cards.
(( This is utter nonsense. I had a few minutes to let my mind ramble off some goofiness, and so I let it fly! ))
Thanks for the lift!
T
tGette
Guest
I do not think I quite understand your example of Adam and Eve concerning unity. I am not saying we must be mindless robots following suit and that we all have to agree chocolate IS our favorite flavor.
Please expound upon that more…if you do not mind.
Concerning the last sentence:
I understand, in reality, that we will not ever “all agree”, but we can still try, right?
I think, yes, theologically we should agree. Because that is what Jesus wanted. Please refer to John 17:17-23 (this scripture to my original post.)
I never meant to give the impression that I think freewill should be “nullified”. I just think we should agree…I know, I know…I keep saying that. Basically…just as we should all agree on the Divinity of Christ, so also, we should agree on what He meant concerning Baptism, Communion, etc.
Though, I would not say it is an “overriding imperative” though I feel it is imperative.
I thought never crossed my mind about some major phenomena occurring…especially not our Lord’s Parousia!
Your last statement says it best! It is just that I am striving for this doctrinal unity and I guess I am just trying, by God’s grace, to play my part in bringing that about.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
I think we can all agree that doctrinal unity is something to be desired. However, I also don’t see asking people to profess that which that do not believe as valid unity either (I don’t think that’s what you intended either, but I’m getting to my point
). In a fallen world where we don’t agree on all doctrine, I think a very important question is when doctrinal agree is more important than unity and vice versa.Certainly even the Catholic Church is not completely at one end of the scale in enforcing doctrinal unity, there are matters of belief which they leave to individual conscience. This allowance of conscience of belief implies that there are differences in belief, and therefore that if agreement was enforced in those issues, some amount of additional division would created in the body of Christ.
Wherever there is disagreement on doctrine, one side (or occasionally all of them) is missing out on a fuller and more gratifying understanding of our faith. However, I would rather see the body united by our agreements of the core issues of faith then divided over more peripheral doctrinal issues.
The Marian doctrines I think are the most obvious example. Certainly some of us must have a significant misunderstanding of who Mary is. However, I feel it’s an error refuse fellowship with one another of this issue, instead coming along side one another in faith that the grace of God is greater than these errors.
T
tGette
Guest
Thank you, now we’re hitting home! I was not sure if this thread how this thread might unfold…I see it is doing so nicely! Thanks to everyone participating. And can you believe? Not one argument! Thanks be to God!I think we can all agree that doctrinal unity is something to be desired. However, I also don’t see asking people to profess that which that do not believe as valid unity either (I don’t think that’s what you intended either, but I’m getting to my point
Certainly even the Catholic Church is not completely at one end of the scale in enforcing doctrinal unity, there are matters of belief which they leave to individual conscience. This allowance of conscience of belief implies that there are differences in belief, and therefore that if agreement was enforced in those issues, some amount of additional division would created in the body of Christ.
Wherever there is disagreement on doctrine, one side (or occasionally all of them) is missing out on a fuller and more gratifying understanding of our faith. However, I would rather see the body united by our agreements of the core issues of faith then divided over more peripheral doctrinal issues.
The Marian doctrines I think are the most obvious example. Certainly some of us must have a significant misunderstanding of who Mary is. However, I feel it’s an error refuse fellowship with one another of this issue, instead coming along side one another in faith that the grace of God is greater than these errors.
I agree with all but the comment about the Marian doctrines. The belief in the Assumption and Immaculate conception are not beliefs the Catholic Church leaves up to a persons conscience. Now…concerning apparitions anddevotion they leave up to the individual. But these are doctrines of the Church. They attested to as is the life of Saint Francis. The Church will not waver on these beliefs because they are true.
Though I do agree that we should not refuse fellowship because of it, because the Church is also not going to “get rid of” these beliefs for the sake of fellowship either.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
I think that you and I are in close agreement on this, but it is my understanding that the Catholic Church feels differently on the matter. Namely, to the best of my understanding of Catholic teaching I would never be able to partake of the Eucharist so long as did not believe that the Marian doctrines are true. So from my perspective, it seems that the Catholic Church unfortunately is refusing fellowship over this issue.
T
tGette
Guest
Hmmm…you got me there. I am uncertain of that.
Could you cite anything on that for me?
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Well in all honesty, it’s not something I’m certain of, and I’d love to be shown wrong in this matter. My understanding was that you can only receive the Eucharist if you are in good standing with the Catholic Church, and that you are only in good standing with the Catholic Church if, among other things, you acknowledge all of the Church’s formal doctrine (including, therefore, Marian doctrine).
If someone more familiar with the Catholic Church could clarify what is necessary to receive the Eucharist within the RCC that would be much appreciated.
T
tGette
Guest
My understanding is that one just needs to be in a state-of-grace (having gone to Confession).
I consider myself familiar with my Catholic faith and just honestly have never heard this before.
What you say would definitely hold true for Confirmation. Because we have to profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. Which I guess would then somehow apply to receiving Communion. Hmmm…?
I am glad you brought this up though! Thanks!
We are on the hunt! Protestant and Catholic working together! I know God is just so happy!
We can be like Sherlock and Holmes! Though I am not sure which one would be which.
A
a_mirror_dimly
Guest
Well, I’m happy to help out on the hunt, just a little wary of accidentally putting words into someone else’s mouth delving into Catholic resources and making claims about what they mean. Here are some resources I found:My understanding is that one just needs to be in a state-of-grace (having gone to Confession).
I consider myself familiar with my Catholic faith and just honestly have never heard this before.
What you say would definitely hold true for Confirmation. Because we have to profess that we believe all that the Catholic Church teaches. Which I guess would then somehow apply to receiving Communion. Hmmm…?
I am glad you brought this up though! Thanks!
We are on the hunt! Protestant and Catholic working together! I know God is just so happy!
catholic.com/library/who_can_receive_communion.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0302sbs.asp
- Status