What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Pax]

michaelp:

Yes, but if you are talkng about their prophets, they showed the signs of a prophet. In other words, they showed the signs of someone speaking for God. Something the RC system somehow bypassed and does not require. Even Christ and the apostle had to give attesting signs to their authority. Their miracles were not simply acts of benevolence, as some think, but attesting signs to point to the authority of their message. Otherwise, anyone could claim to speak for God. Anyone.Michael

Michael,

If you really believe this then you may as well chuck all of Christianity today. No Church leadership is working the kinds of signs that you speak of. You are creating a requirement that is not applicable. When Jesus established his Church He did not claim that the leadership would always and forever more be working signs and miracles. Look at what Jesus says about His Church and simply see the fulfillment in the Catholic Church which was the only Church until the Reformation.

michaelp:

But these are the parameters that God set up to protect His word. (Deut 13, 18 and 2 Cor 12:12). All of Gospels and the Book of Acts shows how Christ and the Apostles did many signs to substantiate the parameters that God established. Is this really that unreasonable?Michael

It is unreasonable because it is not scripturally applicable to the Church established by Jesus Christ.

michaelp:

What promises? That the church should be one and united? They are one and united. Michael

Sorry, but the unity Jesus prayed for is a visible unity and this not the case in Christianity today. It was true before the 12 century and was “virtually” the case before the Reformation. The differences in doctrines, teachings and practice across Christianity today are significant. I think this issue of unity is huge. Protestants by necessity must play the issue down. The 17th Chapter of John takes exception to your position in every way.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Hi Michael!

Debatable Points that are hard to determine exactly what they believed:

1. Theology of Baptism (i.e. the affects of baptism)

[Jesus] says that we descend into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and hope in Jesus in the spirit (Letter of Barnabas AD 70, 11,10).

1. That Scripture is the ultimate authority.

They could as they didn’t yet have the NT. They had no clue which Christian writings were scripture of the miriad of writings that they used.

1. That there was two deposits of faith, both equal.

TWO deposits of faith???

Certianly, all would agree, none of these existed *in the current articulations in which they exist today no matter what tradition you are from. *

This does not make them wrong. What does make them right or wrong? What is the standard against which we measure the rightness of wrongness of their teachings?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[michaelp]

Hey all, I do appreciate you continued guidence and support, but it seems that comments are being made for things that have been covered or answered in this post already. I think that we are beginning to go in circles. We probebly ought to start a new thread sometime in the future that will continue on with this.

Michael

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

I just browed the forum and I see three disagreements before I even got down through the first page:

1. What is the nature of Purgatory. Is it fire, how long are people there, etc. Pretty important.
2. What does “Outside the Church there is no salvation means.” I don’t even need to begin to express the essentiality of this–expecially for me!!
3. What does Co-redemtrix mean? I have read many different and conflicting opinions on this.

My point is, who decides–you?

No offense Michael, but this is a seriously weak list.

1. The nature of Purgatory? What difference does it make? I presume you believe in reduced heavenly rewards - Is the question about the nature of the “least Heavenly reward” any clearer to you? Then why should this matter?
2. This is good enough and the answers are there if you want them go check the earlier posts…Just become Catholic and you can forget this one!
3. A good one, but hardly a deal breaker. Mary is hardest for intellectuals I think…

None of these would seem to carry the weight of many of the Fundamental disagreements within Protestantism. I mean do any of the above (with the POSSIBLE exception of #2) actually influence your behavior or form of Worship? This doesn’t make sense for a smart guy like you. I’m gonna read between the lines and say that you mostly agree with Catholic Doctrine with the exception of a few things, and in they are:

1. Infallibility of the Church for declaring Doctrine
2. Mary
3. The “other 5” Sacraments and “ex opere”

The rest of the “theological divide” you probably are flexible on, recognizing the validity (intellectually and possibly historically) of Catholic and Non-Catholic positions but you’re unable to rest comfortably with the concept of an earthly higher authority(guided by the holy Spirit) without clear evidence “Apostolic” origin via signs. I hear ya. Doesn’t sound like you’re too committed in either direction. I see that as hopeful! Can I ask one question? What would you do if you were dumb, illiterate, and had no access to “information” - you know, like most of Christians throughout history and even today?

Phil

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

No offense Michael, but this is a seriously weak list.

1. The nature of Purgatory? What difference does it make? I presume you believe in reduced heavenly rewards - Is the question about the nature of the “least Heavenly reward” any clearer to you? Then why should this matter?
2. This is good enough and the answers are there if you want them go check the earlier posts…Just become Catholic and you can forget this one!
3. A good one, but hardly a deal breaker. Mary is hardest for intellectuals I think…

None of these would seem to carry the weight of many of the Fundamental disagreements within Protestantism. I mean do any of the above (with the POSSIBLE exception of #2) actually influence your behavior or form of Worship? This doesn’t make sense for a smart guy like you. I’m gonna read between the lines and say that you mostly agree with Catholic Doctrine with the exception of a few things, and in they are:

1. Infallibility of the Church for declaring Doctrine
2. Mary
3. The “other 5” Sacraments and “ex opere”

The rest of the “theological divide” you probably are flexible on, recognizing the validity (intellectually and possibly historically) of Catholic and Non-Catholic positions but you’re unable to rest comfortably with the concept of an earthly higher authority(guided by the holy Spirit) without clear evidence “Apostolic” origin via signs. I hear ya. Doesn’t sound like you’re too committed in either direction. I see that as hopeful! Can I ask one question? What would you do if you were dumb, illiterate, and had no access to “information” - you know, like most of Christians throughout history and even today?

Phil

Thanks Phil. I will think about this. You have given me some great info and you have really nailed the problem on the head. If it could be established that apostolic sucession were true and the Tradition (the ones approved by the Church through apostolic succession) were, indeed, representative of God’s truth, I would be Catholic. For if this were true, you would not need to find the doctrines with which I do not find in the Bible (i.e. Mary, Petrine Sucession, seven sacraments as avenue through which grace is administered, institutionalized Church) since the Pope today, as Peter’s successor could just say that they were true without dispute.

But again, I do not find agreement in the Traditions of the Church to which both you and I find our roots. I do not find early Church acceptance of Peterine succession (other than the general passing on of tradition to others as expressed in the Scriptures that you gave–but no implication of passing on of Apostolic authority, much less infallibility).

Although I have some other major problems with RC doctrine, these would all be solved, one way or the other, with the issue of Authority.

But since the issue of authority of the Church is not justified in my mind, I have to stick with Scripture alone, since it is the only varified authority in my mind (recognized by the Church, not dogmatized by the Church ).

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

What would you do if you were dumb, illiterate, and had no access to “information” - you know, like most of Christians throughout history and even today?

Phil

I teach to people like this. I just give them the Gospel and teach them the truth. People don’t have to be able to read the Scripture to understand it. In fact, most people just learn the truths of Scripture through those who are gifted to teach. But it is still the truths of Scripture that they learn, just as it was in the early Church.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

If you really believe this then you may as well chuck all of Christianity today. No Church leadership is working the kinds of signs that you speak of. You are creating a requirement that is not applicable. When Jesus established his Church He did not claim that the leadership would always and forever more be working signs and miracles. Look at what Jesus says about His Church and simply see the fulfillment in the Catholic Church which was the only Church until the Reformation.

But none of these people are claiming infallibility and introducing new doctrine. Big difference.

Sorry, but the unity Jesus prayed for is a visible unity and this not the case in Christianity today. It was true before the 12 century and was “virtually” the case before the Reformation. The differences in doctrines, teachings and practice across Christianity today are significant. I think this issue of unity is huge. Protestants by necessity must play the issue down. The 17th Chapter of John takes exception to your position in every way.

But, again, there is not unity in Christianity in general, and even the Pope now places us (agglomeration of non-catholics) in the Church. Do you think that the non-believer looks at the Church and sees this unity? You are just one of many interpretations to them. I don’t think there has ever been the unity that you seem to suggest.

 

[michaelp]

Acts 6:5-8
And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were obedient to the faith. And Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people.

So this is a demonstration of infallibility being passed on? Tell me where you would get that if you did not already believe it. Are they all successors of the Apostles? I get nothing from this text but what was cultural sign of approval–laying on of hands.

Acts 8:13-24
Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. . . . And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.”

This is a sign of Apostolic succession. Just because Peter, an apostle who showed the signs of an Apostle (2 Cor. 12:12) lays his hands on people and they recieve the Holy Spirit, would not in any way suggest to me that he is supposed to or does here pass on apostolic infallibility or authority. You don’t think that he passed on his authority to all these people do you? Of course you don’t. Why did you reference this verse then?

1 Timothy 5:22
Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, nor participate in another man’s sins; keep yourself pure.

Again. Apostolic succession out of this. This is just saying don’t approve anyone of ministry without knowing them first. I follow by this in selecting leaders in my church. There is no way to get apostolic succession or infallibility out of this. It must be read into it.

2 Timothy 1:6
Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands;

This one could be if you assume that the gift is the gift of apostolic succession. This would be a HUGE assumption and unwarrented since the Bible does not mention this gift anywhere. He was probebly talking about the gift of teaching, which in no way implies infallibility. Again, alot must be read into this.

Ordination in the Catholic Church is through an unbroken succession of those who have the power to lay on hands and are able to grant that same power to others. That is why scripture speaks of presbyters (priests) and bishops. Non-Catholic Churches do not participate in the unbroken chain of the laying on of hands. They do not participate in the same kind of ordination that a Catholic priest or bishop participates in.

None of these verses speak of an unbroken chain of authority that give apostolic succession and infallibility. It does not even imply this.

Now, ordination has been in place since immediately after Pentecost. The liturgical rites may have changed but the sacrament of Holy Orders has always been in place.

The same is true of marriage as seen in the statements of Jesus and in the letters of Paul.

I agree, although I would not define it as a sacrament, just a tradition.

Baptism is seen in the gospels, the book of Acts, the writings of Paul, and in 1 Peter 3:21. Read the Didache, a first century writing, which contains statements on baptism. Baptism has always been understood as Catholics teach it today. I challenge you to produce reliable documentation that shows that it developed over the 100 to 300 years. This sacrament has been in place from the get go.

I believe that baptism has been in place since the first century. I have no problem with this. It is in Scripture!

 

[michaelp]

The Eucharist was considered the body and blood of Jesus from the beginning. This is clear in the NT scriptures of the Last Supper and John Chapter 6 where Jesus gives the Discourse on the Bread of Life. Even Paul reiterates this truth in 1 Corinthians Chapters 10 and 11. The apostle John discipled and ordained Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was a 1st century bishop and martyr. On his way to Rome to be martyred, he wrote a number of letters to local churches. In his letter to the Church at Smyrna, Ignatius condemns the docetists. In this condemnation he specifically points out that they do not participate in the Eucharist because they deny that it is the body and blood of the Lord Jesus.
It doesn’t get any more clear than that.

I have no problem with the early church believing that it was truly the body and blood of Christ. But to me, this is not necessarily what the Scriptures are teaching since Jesus also says he is a “gate” and neither you or I take that literally.

John 10:7
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Do you think that he is LITERALLY a door?

Although, this one is not really a big deal to me. I don’t stuggle that much with thinking that the eucharist is Christ’s literal body and blood. I have some issue with Chalcedon if it is since Chalcedon advocates the noncommunicability of the attrubutes of the natures of Christ (therefore, his body could not be in more than one place at one time). But that is another story.

Now these sacraments are indeed distinct. Obviously, marriage is not the Eucharist, baptism, confession, or Holy Orders. All of these things are quite clear in the NT and in the writings of the early church fathers. The history is readily available and is not some simple picking and choosing of those things that please us.

I believe this. But I don’t need to call them sacraments. I just say that they are things we are supposed to do, like many other things. They only two things that I think are visual proclaimations of Christ are baptism and the Lord’s supper.

 

[michaelp]

A quick note to Lisa, Paul, Phil, Dennis, and Pax,

I just wanted to let you all know how much I appreciate you and your continued diligence in this thread. You all have helped my tremendously. I also want you to know that even though I am not convinced as of yet of these issues, I am convinced of your love for Christ. There is nothing more important than that.

You all are very smart and you are great Catholics. I am glad to have this exposure to you all since I have not met many Catholics who know, much less follow, their faith.

Please know that I love Christ more than my own life. I am ready at any time to give my life for the Gospel. I pray every day that God would make me more like Him and less like myself. I am not on an academic adventure so that I know “more” than the next guy. I am in persuit of Him, my only reason and purpose. I pray that He would lead me and my family to a greater devotion to Him. I pray the Psalms that He would “bend my heart toward him,” “open my eyes to the wonderful things of his word,” “make my joy in him full,” and oh, now I can’t remember the forth one!!

Anyway, I thought that you should hear this once again.

In Him,
Michael

 

[michaelp]

Oh, the last one, that He would “unite my heart to Him.” (i.e. follow Him for the right reasons). Ps. 86:11

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

But none of these people are claiming infallibility and introducing new doctrine. Big difference.

But, again, there is not unity in Christianity in general, and even the Pope now places us (agglomeration of non-catholics) in the Church. Do you think that the non-believer looks at the Church and sees this unity? You are just one of many interpretations to them. I don’t think there has ever been the unity that you seem to suggest.

Michael,

You are wrong on both of these. Anytime someone starts a new church because of a twist or spin of doctrine through their interpretation of scripture, they are indeed acting as if they are infallible and they have indeed created new doctrines. One glaring example is the practice of certain churches that now teach that you must be baptized in the name of Jesus only rather than the Trinitarian formula. I could list literally hundreds of doctrinal disintegrations since the reformation.

You misunderstand the Pope and there was unity before the 12th century. Even today the Catholic Church is said to be monolithic and the complaints abound that it will not change or adjust its doctrines to the times. You need to look at this question of unity more carefully, and consider how the unity Jesus prayed for would and could be accomplished and then held together. If Jesus prayed for it, you cannot discount it as you have. Even if your claims that it has never really existed were true, you must still deal with the fact that Christians need to be united as Jesus prayed they would be. Anything that was uttered by the Lord, Himself, should be given the deepest and most profound consideration. All else pales in comparison.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

I apologize for my quote of your post on infallibility. I followed with answers to ordination, apostolic succession, and the sacraments. I did not intentionally mean to mix the two. I chose the wrong quote and didn’t proof read this. Sorry for the mix up. Obviously, none of this material addresses infallibility.

I do believe, however, that ordination through the laying on of hands and the fact that this can only be administered and granted others by those that have the power to grant it, has been demonstrated. This is no small matter.

 

[michaelp]

Even if your claims that it has never really existed were true, you must still deal with the fact that Christians need to be united as Jesus prayed they would be. Anything that was uttered by the Lord, Himself, should be given the deepest and most profound consideration. All else pales in comparison.

With this, we agree more than you know. Although I do believe that we are united by virtue of baptism, just as I believe we are righteous by virtue of imputation of Christ righteousness, we all need to live out the implications of these fact much more. I pray that we do someday, but I think that day will ultimately come when Christ comes.

Michael

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

I do believe, however, that ordination through the laying on of hands and the fact that this can only be administered and granted others by those that have the power to grant it, has been demonstrated. This is no small matter.

I agree to an extent. I just don’t see this as the passing on of infallibility. It is not there in the text in anyway. Read those text again. Did Peter pass on infallibility to all the Samaritians? Does Paul imply in any way that Timothy recieved infallibility? This would be reading alot into those text.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

A quick note to Lisa, Paul, Phil, Dennis, and Pax,

I just wanted to let you all know how much I appreciate you and your continued diligence in this thread. You all have helped my tremendously. I also want you to know that even though I am not convinced as of yet of these issues, I am convinced of your love for Christ. There is nothing more important than that.

You all are very smart and you are great Catholics. I am glad to have this exposure to you all since I have not met many Catholics who know, much less follow, their faith.

Please know that I love Christ more than my own life. I am ready at any time to give my life for the Gospel. I pray every day that God would make me more like Him and less like myself. I am not on an academic adventure so that I know “more” than the next guy. I am in persuit of Him, my only reason and purpose. I pray that He would lead me and my family to a greater devotion to Him. I pray the Psalms that He would “bend my heart toward him,” “open my eyes to the wonderful things of his word,” “make my joy in him full,” and oh, now I can’t remember the forth one!!

Anyway, I thought that you should hear this once again.

In Him,
Michael

Michael,

What you’ve said is certainly the way it should be with each and everyone of us. As Catholics we firmly believe that we have been given the fullness of the truth. However, even if we knew everything about our faith it is still not our goal. Knowing and loving God is our ultimate goal. It is as you have pointed out, all about loving God and following that love where ever it takes us. Conforming ourselves to the will of God is genuine love of God. Moverover, it is all by His lavish grace that we are able to respond at all.

God is good and He will not disappoint those who seek Him.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I agree to an extent. I just don’t see this as the passing on of infallibility. It is not there in the text in anyway. Read those text again. Did Peter pass on infallibility to all the Samaritians? Does Paul imply in any way that Timothy recieved infallibility? This would be reading alot into those text.

I conceded that my post really didn’t address infallibility.
I will, however, have to work on something that will. My time tonight is unfortunately spent, so perhaps tomorrow.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

I conceded that my post really didn’t address infallibility.
I will, however, have to work on something that will. My time tonight is unfortunately spent, so perhaps tomorrow.

Oh, got it. Maybe I will hear from you tomorrow. I will probebly check tomorrow night. Have a good night Pax.

Michael

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I have no problem with the early church believing that it was truly the body and blood of Christ. But to me, this is not necessarily what the Scriptures are teaching since Jesus also says he is a “gate” and neither you or I take that literally.

John 10:7
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

Do you think that he is LITERALLY a door?

Michael,

No one thinks that Jesus was calling himself a “literal” door. The metaphor is obvious. When Jesus spoke in this way and people didn’t understand him he explained it so they would. In John Chapter 6, Jesus says that we must eat and drink his blood several times and says so in stronger and stronger language. There are two words phago and trogo in the original Greek text that refer to eating. In the first instance Jesus uses the generic term for eating and in the later reference Jesus uses the term that means to literally gnaw or chew. He did this to make it clear that he was speaking literally. Finally, all of his disciples, except for the apostles. left because they knew He was speaking literally. If was only speaking metaphorically, He would not have let them leave because of a misunderstanding. He would have explained that He was only speaking symbolically. Furthermore, if Jesus was only speaking symbolically then the flesh Jesus speaks of in John 6:51, that is the flesh He will give for the life of the world on the cross is also only symbolic.

There is an awful lot more that can be said on John Chapter six and the issue of Jesus only speaking symbolically. There is plenty of good Catholic exegesis on the Eucharist and it is worth the read. The first Christians believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus because it is the body and blood of Jesus. They believed it because it is in the gospels and in the letters of Paul. They believed it because they were taught this truth by the apostles. They believed it because they were taught this truth by the those ordained by the apostles. We believe it because it is scripture. We believe it because it is true. We believe it because the Church has always taught it. This isn’t some crazy idea that just happened to take hold among early Christians. Consider how difficult it is to believe the words of Jesus in John 6. Consider how difficult it is for the non-Catholic to accept the teaching. No one would have believed this teaching in the early Church if it were not true. If it were not true Jesus never would have said eat my flesh and drink my blood or you will not have life within you. He would know what would happen and if it weren’t true then Christians would forever more be worshiping nothing more than bread and wine. This would be instituting and encouraging a horrible form of superstition and idolatry. This is not something Jesus would do.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

No one thinks that Jesus was calling himself a “literal” door. The metaphor is obvious. When Jesus spoke in this way and people didn’t understand him he explained it so they would. In John Chapter 6, Jesus says that we must eat and drink his blood several times and says so in stronger and stronger language. There are two words phago and trogo in the original Greek text that refer to eating. In the first instance Jesus uses the generic term for eating and in the later reference Jesus uses the term that means to literally gnaw or chew. He did this to make it clear that he was speaking literally. Finally, all of his disciples, except for the apostles. left because they knew He was speaking literally. If was only speaking metaphorically, He would not have let them leave because of a misunderstanding. He would have explained that He was only speaking symbolically. Furthermore, if Jesus was only speaking symbolically then the flesh Jesus speaks of in John 6:51, that is the flesh He will give for the life of the world on the cross is also only symbolic.

There is an awful lot more that can be said on John Chapter six and the issue of Jesus only speaking symbolically. There is plenty of good Catholic exegesis on the Eucharist and it is worth the read. The first Christians believed that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus because it is the body and blood of Jesus. They believed it because it is in the gospels and in the letters of Paul. They believed it because they were taught this truth by the apostles. They believed it because they were taught this truth by the those ordained by the apostles. We believe it because it is scripture. We believe it because it is true. We believe it because the Church has always taught it. This isn’t some crazy idea that just happened to take hold among early Christians. Consider how difficult it is to believe the words of Jesus in John 6. Consider how difficult it is for the non-Catholic to accept the teaching. No one would have believed this teaching in the early Church if it were not true. If it were not true Jesus never would have said eat my flesh and drink my blood or you will not have life within you. He would know what would happen and if it weren’t true then Christians would forever more be worshiping nothing more than bread and wine. This would be instituting and encouraging a horrible form of superstition and idolatry. This is not something Jesus would do.

Again, this is not a big problem for me. I also see exegetical warrent for it. I can see how it would be interpreted literally. I have a hard time thinking that it just symbolic sense people were dying because they were taking it unworthly. Scripture seems to suggest to me that there is something more there than meets the eye. I don’t, however, see it as being savific. In other words, I don’t see it as giving of the merits of Christ. But I do think that it is more than just symbolic.

Michael