J
jphilapy
Guest
Mt I know what you are trying to pull but catholics do the same thing all the time.
Which is it?
- Status
Which is it?
K
Kevin_Walker
Guest
Yes. One of the advantages of the Roman Catholic Church is its stability; that it abides by one interpretation of the Bible which comes from the Vatican. When in doubt about a meaning you might not understand within scripture, then you consult with your Priest. He will provide clarification. And if he can’t, he goes up the hierarchy until an accurate interpretation is established. Obviously the Priest knows more than the Brother, the Bishop knows more than the parish Priest, the Archbishop knows more than the Bishop, etc. The Vatican sets Church doctrine according to its cogent and intelligent interpretation of the Bible.
And as far as ecumentical councils, you abide by the final opinion of the Vatican, as with Vatican II, or you are free to leave the Church. The Catholic Church, for better or worse, is not a democracy, and I see that as a necessary strength.
Yet the beauty of the Vatican is that no matter how much you might disagree with its interpretation of Scripture or tradition, it still remains the One Catholic Church, and does not schism off into dozens of sects as did Protestanism, and is still splintering off today. There is still only one Holy Catholic Church and the Pope is at its head. If you don’t like being a Catholic anymore, you can go and be a heretic or a schismist.
The Vatican, in its generosity, has given the Bishops of each Parish various latitude in how they run their Churches. So a custom might be allowed in one parish but not in another. This is not to reinterpret Scripture or tradition, but to conform to the various norms, and mores of the people of that Church; and I think you would agree that the Irish Catholic factory workers of Boston might have different customs than the Southern migrant worker of Alabama for instance. So practice of Bishops tailoring the needs of the Church to fit the local customs might be misinterpreted as disagreement with the Vatican.
On this forum the reason there are so many disagreements is mostly through ignorance of Canon Law and tradition; many contributors, myself included, have started their posts with the admission that they are unsure of the Catholic position on a particular issue. So the average Catholic Church goer might not be an expert on all aspects of Church history, law, customs, eschatology, theology, or revisions (as other people in their respective religions). I don’t expect an average Catholic to be expert in all aspects of Catholicism unless they were a Priest or Nun.
Another beauty of the Catholic Church is its logical and historical consistant explanation of tradition. Tradition is even important in Civil Law (its called precedent); and with Canon Law, tradition is not as hard, but just as easy to explain as Scripture. You consult your Priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, or Pope for a proper and consistant interpretation of both Scripture and tradition.
And don’t forget, it was the Catholic Church which originated the history, law, customs, and traditions of Christianity.
I think this is a great line of questioning. I have had similar questions for Jews and Protestants and their answers have enriched my understanding of their respective world views.
Its nice that you are not mocking, insinuating, or attacking Catholicism rather than asking curious and polite questions. I can’t stand it when a Prot yells at me that Catholics worship the Pope, or Catholics set Mary above Jesus, or accuse/ask: Where does it say that in the Bible? When the Pope has O.K.ed an excellent Franciscan custom like the 14 Stations of the Cross or the Manger scene or the superb Dominican custom of the Rosary
And also on you!
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Kevin Walker:
Have a good one.
Michael
Thanks Kevin. Very nice summary. Well written also. You and Phil need to be teachers.
Have a good one.
Michael
J
jphilapy
Guest
I wanted to edit my previous post and add more, but the edit option expired.
Just because two people understanding something different doesn’t indicate a contradiction. It just indicates that we are human and as human’s always in need of better understanding. I give individual catholics this much credit. If you don’t expect everysingle catholic to fully understand everything to the same degree then why should you expect every single protestant?
Jeff
P
Pax
Guest
Michaelp,
The accusation that I am somehow performing a biblical exercise in eisegesis is only based on your doctrinal position and subsequent opinion of scripture. It is our contention that you are the one that is engaged in eisegesis. I have supplied you with plenty of exegesis and historical data in another thread as well as in private emails. The evidence provided you is extremely strong yet you refuse to accept it, and you put your “interpretation” and that of your tradition ahead of 2000 years of history, scriptural understanding, and Catholic tradition. After doing so you claim that yours is exegesis and ours is eisegesis. Please don’t go there, it simply won’t fly. If you want to play that game it will simply be applied to you in kind.
I have given you more than enough food for thought and I am apparently wasting my time on this topic. Apostolic succession doesn’t require miracles and you are making an untenable claim to suggest otherwise. I have pointed out to you that the book of Judges makes it abundantly clear that this is not a necessary ingredient for those in spiritual authority. Moreover, the NT never indicates that Timothy, Titus, or others worked any signs and wonders but they were in positions of authority and there is no evidence that they ever taught any errors in faith or morals. I have also pointed out the obvious to you concerning authority and succession. Jesus made promises and He established a Church. He gave authority to people within that Church and He would not allow His Church to flounder about in error upon the death of the last apostle. None of your contentions add up.
You also made reference to heretics, as I did, that go out from “Evangelical circles.” Your evidence concerning them is that they no longer preach the gospel. Evangelicals and others might make this claim but they have no back stop for their contentions. Those that disagree with your particular brand of Christianity can simply point to scripture and argue from a position of interpretation that they are right and you are wrong. You and your circle of Christians will be branded as heretics by your detractors in other denominations and they can simply claim that you are the one distorting the gospel. The moment you rest upon Sola Scriptura your position vis-a-vis any other position of doctrine is toast. You have no more credibility than the next person or group that can present yet another “plausible(?)” interpretation of scripture. This happens all the time regardless of what standards of hermenuetics and exegesis you wish to apply. I have listed on other threads, as have others, many of the things that divide Protestants and they are of no small importance. Yet this is apparently something that Protestants are willing to tolerate, and must do so by force of their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It all boils down to authority and history, and the Catholic Church holds all of the trump cards in this regard.
In light of the bigger picture of this discussion I would like you to consider the following situation within Christianity. Christianity from the earliest of times always condemned artificial means of contraception. It was not until the 1930’s that the Anglican Communion broke ranks. Now there is only one Church that still teaches that artificial contraception is a sinful act. That Church is the one true Church that has remained faithful and has not gone off track on this moral doctrine. That Church is the Catholic Church. Please explain this situation. Is the Catholic church wrong? Were all other Protestant Churches wrong until they were somehow enlightened in 1930? Or are the non-Catholic Churches now right and the Catholic Church was always wrong? Were the earliest Christians and the Jews wrong? Or is this perhaps another instance of the protection by the Holy Spirit that has kept the Catholic Church from deviating from something that had always been held by Christians everywhere? Attack this issue honestly and don’t merely try to think your way into a rationalization that justifies the current Protestant view.
There is plenty of evidence to show that artificial birth control is wrong and I’m not going to give you any explanations on the subject. There are many good books available that adequately cover the subject from a biblical perspective. You can research this yourself. In the meantime look at the situation on the teaching and how modern Christianity has deviated from an established moral teaching except for the Church that traces its roots directly to the apostles.
The accusation that I am somehow performing a biblical exercise in eisegesis is only based on your doctrinal position and subsequent opinion of scripture. It is our contention that you are the one that is engaged in eisegesis. I have supplied you with plenty of exegesis and historical data in another thread as well as in private emails. The evidence provided you is extremely strong yet you refuse to accept it, and you put your “interpretation” and that of your tradition ahead of 2000 years of history, scriptural understanding, and Catholic tradition. After doing so you claim that yours is exegesis and ours is eisegesis. Please don’t go there, it simply won’t fly. If you want to play that game it will simply be applied to you in kind.
I have given you more than enough food for thought and I am apparently wasting my time on this topic. Apostolic succession doesn’t require miracles and you are making an untenable claim to suggest otherwise. I have pointed out to you that the book of Judges makes it abundantly clear that this is not a necessary ingredient for those in spiritual authority. Moreover, the NT never indicates that Timothy, Titus, or others worked any signs and wonders but they were in positions of authority and there is no evidence that they ever taught any errors in faith or morals. I have also pointed out the obvious to you concerning authority and succession. Jesus made promises and He established a Church. He gave authority to people within that Church and He would not allow His Church to flounder about in error upon the death of the last apostle. None of your contentions add up.
You also made reference to heretics, as I did, that go out from “Evangelical circles.” Your evidence concerning them is that they no longer preach the gospel. Evangelicals and others might make this claim but they have no back stop for their contentions. Those that disagree with your particular brand of Christianity can simply point to scripture and argue from a position of interpretation that they are right and you are wrong. You and your circle of Christians will be branded as heretics by your detractors in other denominations and they can simply claim that you are the one distorting the gospel. The moment you rest upon Sola Scriptura your position vis-a-vis any other position of doctrine is toast. You have no more credibility than the next person or group that can present yet another “plausible(?)” interpretation of scripture. This happens all the time regardless of what standards of hermenuetics and exegesis you wish to apply. I have listed on other threads, as have others, many of the things that divide Protestants and they are of no small importance. Yet this is apparently something that Protestants are willing to tolerate, and must do so by force of their doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It all boils down to authority and history, and the Catholic Church holds all of the trump cards in this regard.
In light of the bigger picture of this discussion I would like you to consider the following situation within Christianity. Christianity from the earliest of times always condemned artificial means of contraception. It was not until the 1930’s that the Anglican Communion broke ranks. Now there is only one Church that still teaches that artificial contraception is a sinful act. That Church is the one true Church that has remained faithful and has not gone off track on this moral doctrine. That Church is the Catholic Church. Please explain this situation. Is the Catholic church wrong? Were all other Protestant Churches wrong until they were somehow enlightened in 1930? Or are the non-Catholic Churches now right and the Catholic Church was always wrong? Were the earliest Christians and the Jews wrong? Or is this perhaps another instance of the protection by the Holy Spirit that has kept the Catholic Church from deviating from something that had always been held by Christians everywhere? Attack this issue honestly and don’t merely try to think your way into a rationalization that justifies the current Protestant view.
There is plenty of evidence to show that artificial birth control is wrong and I’m not going to give you any explanations on the subject. There are many good books available that adequately cover the subject from a biblical perspective. You can research this yourself. In the meantime look at the situation on the teaching and how modern Christianity has deviated from an established moral teaching except for the Church that traces its roots directly to the apostles.
P
Pax
Guest
Jeff,
Some quotes in the NT apply to all of us in general and some apply more specifically to some but not all. In 1 Cor 12:28 we read “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.” There are other places in the NT that speak similarly of different appointments such as deacon and bishop.
Naturally, everyone who is truly following the Spirit will not be decieved. Scripture says it and we believe it. The problem is that we might think that we are following the Spirit and we may not be. The Church was established by Jesus with offices for purposes of shepherding the flock and keeping things on track. This is not a one time deal given only to the original apostles. Afterall, the newly formed Christian Church was undergoing persecution and growth and would need guidance well beyond the death of the last apostle. Likewise, the Church still needs to have bishops and a “prime minister” to guide us today.
Notice in the book of Acts when Matthias is selected to succeed Judas. Scripture says, “'His office let another take.”[Acts 1:20] The apostles were given authority by Jesus. Jesus was sent with all authority in heaven and on earth[Matt 28:18] and Jesus then gives authority to the apostle’s saying, “Peace be with you.** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** Jesus also says to the apostles “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”[Luke 10:16] This is some heavy weight authority and Matthias would exercise this same authority as he "took the office (Gk. episkopos of Judas.
You refer to this as an institution. I believe this to be a reasonable synonym for “office” and the Church still uses the term episcopy. It is silly to assume that it all ends with the death of the last apostle. Scripture attests to Paul ordaining Timothy and Titus and history records John ordaining Ignatius and Polycarp as bishops. The apostles didn’t do this just for fun. Ordination and the laying of hands brings “power” and authority. This is why Simon the Magician attempted to pay money to the apostles for the power of laying on of hands, but Peter rebuffed him.[Act 8:13-23]
Just as the office of Judas would be filled so also would the offices of the other apostles which would include that of Peter who has a special commission. History tells the rest of the story but it is not a story that is isolated from the OT. You can find out about the OT connection on other threads on the papacy or I can email a file to you that covers this as well. Just let me know if you’re interested.
P
Pax
Guest
No one would disagree with what you have said in this post. The problem, however, is not merely in having different levels of understanding. Doctrinal divides are fundamentally different and do not meet the test of your statement. Sola Scriptura may have subtle differences in meaning to different Protestants and it would be appropriate to suggest that this is due to different levels of understanding among Protestants. I’m sure we could find other examples that do fit your statement but what is of serious concern are those things that exceed the threshold of mere understanding.
The meaning of baptism as merely a symbol verses being regenerative is a fundamental doctrinal divide among Protestants as is the issue of infant baptism. These [and there are many more examples] are substantive in nature and do not reflect a different level of knowledge or understanding. Once Saved Always Saved is a doctrine accepted by some and not others. This is another fundamental doctrinal issue and does not fit your statement concerning levels of understanding. There are many more teachings that could be mentioned and they are frequently opposed to one another. All of these teachings are believed and held as true doctrines by those that espouse them. Moreover, all those that profess belief in these doctrines base their belief on scripture alone. Not only that, those that profess beliefs in differing doctrines all believe that they are guided by the Holy Spirit.
The ironic thing about this is that in a practical sense Protestants are exercising a quiet and “unstated” claim of infallibility when using the Bible alone and justifying their conclusions by maintaining that they are guided by the Holy Spirit and led unto all truth. No protestant will admit that they are claiming infallibility. If queried about it they will always attempt to fall back on scripture as their sole rule of faith. But scripture means many things to different people and each believes that their conclusions are the correct ones.
If you want to see this first hand simply examine all of the End Times scenarios that are floated around in Protestant circles. Take note of how each scenario is presented and pay particular attention to the level of confidence and authority with which they are presented. It’s an eye opener.
J
jphilapy
Guest
Pax thanks for taking the time to answer.
I don’t agree that we are excercising infallibility necessarily. To be infallible means to be able to not err right? Well we know that we can err in our understanding of scripture. However there are somethings that I can say which are inerrant. For example Jesus is God is an inerrant statement. I can even say my own name inerrantly.
I am not real sure how relevant the infallibility issue is. From my understanding the pope has made very few ex cathedra decesions. And the things that it appears he himself has decided are never presented in scripture as being fundamental to the gospel.
Likewise when he makes any infallble descision he has to study. I mean if you study hard enough you can come to the precise and correct answer to many problems.
Jeff
J
jphilapy
Guest
Sure, send it.
Jeff
P
Pax
Guest
Jeff,
There is some real wisdom in what you have stated in this post. I take exception, however, to a couple of things that you have said. You stated that “And the things that it appears he himself * has decided are never presented in scripture as being fundamental to the gospel.” Please be aware the Church Councils have almost always had some kind of Papal statement or decree associated with them particularly in deciding matters of faith and morals. I will give you but one example of a Papal decree that is absolutely fundamental to the gospel. The Decree of Damasus affirmed the canon of scripture at the Council of Rome in the late 4th century. This and the Councils of Councils of Hippo and Carthage all occured within a few years of each other and all confirmed the Catholic Canon of seventy three books.
This example and all Council decisions that are binding involve infallibility. The Pope has also, as you have pointed out, made some excathedra decisions separate from Church Councils. It would be wrong to state that these decisions are “never presented in scripture as fundamental to the Gospel.” This statement immediately puts “you” and “everyone else” in a position of deciding what is fundamental to the gospel and that which is not. Naturally, this leads to more disputes about scripture and we can wrangle endlessly over what is and what is not essential.
It is important in this regard to reflect on the following words of Jesus found in Matthew 4:4. Jesus says, "“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’” When Jesus says this He is talking about the spiritual life and eternal life. We need to be quite circumspect when we speak of what is and what is not fundamental to the gospel.
Most non-Catholics like to point to Catholic teachings on Mary as those things that are not essential to the gospel. I presume, correctly I hope, that this is the kind of doctrinal issue you were referring to. In truth these teachings are fundamental to the gospel in that the teachings say so much about Jesus. When we deny something about the Church’s teaching on Mary we begin to deny something about Jesus. I have actually heard many non-Catholics attack the Catholic teaching that Mary is the mother of God. Clearly, if you deny this teaching you are also saying that Jesus is not God.
While not wanting to divert this thread to Mary, I am only trying to illustrate the difficulty of trying to say what is and what is not fundamental to the gospel. Many more examples can be cited concerning this point. Naturally, Catholics believe that there is a hierarchy of truths but we are very hesitant to ever speak in terms essentials vs. non-essentials.*
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
I disagree. The problem imho is that he is getting his information not from Catholic Answers posts (to which he has consistently avoided responding in a direct and reasonable manner) but from this forum (two pages of which are linked as follows):
[netbibleinstitute.com /…topic.php?t=855](http://www.netbibleinstitute.com /…topic.php?t=855)
bible.org/qatopic.asp?topic_id=52
Here is what Catholic Answers writers have to say about some of the material on that forum:
[catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.a sp](http://www.catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.a sp)
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp
Just so that we’re clear.
P
Pax
Guest
Jeff,
You are right to say that your statement concerning Jesus is inerrant. Your statement, however, ignores the debate about Jesus as both man and God that arose during the Nestorian heresy. It was the Catholic Church protected by the Holy Spirit that condemned, corrected, and clarified the truth concerning Jesus as one person, begotten not made, one in being with the Father and the Holy Spirit. The Nestorian heresy was huge and many were misled. And guess what…everyone was using scripture to justify their thinking.
I agree that Protestants are not necessarily exercising infallibility in all things concerning faith and morals within their respective congregations. But there are cases where it is happening and it is quite obvious. The two pillars of Protestantism are cases in point. Protestants declare with an infallible conviction the doctrines of “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide.” I gave other examples in a prior post and I will gladly compile a list of others if you wish. I will give but one more example in this post.
Fundamentalists have listed what they believe are the fundamental teachings of Christianity that must be believed by a Christian. Although the list varies a little from group to group it is clear that Fundamentalists hold this set of fundamental teachings with a conviction of infallibility. They will claim that it is all from the inerrant word of God in scripture. In truth, and I mean no offense to anyone, it is only **their selected list ** from scripture. They have created what might be called a short list of essentials and are ignoring Jesus statement in Matthew 4:4.
Apparently, Protestants do in some ways accept infallibility and practice a form of it without explicitly claiming to have it. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, makes its claim for infallibility right up front and does so because it is the Church established by Jesus himself. The Church is, as Paul tells us in 1 Timothy 3:15, “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” The Church that Jesus established would know that it is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and in knowing this would proclaim it to the world.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Let’s try this again. You can get links that work on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43094
It is the thread entitled ‘Do you want Protestants here?’ in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum.
I can see that two of these links are not working:
Let’s try this again. You can get links that work on this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=43094
It is the thread entitled ‘Do you want Protestants here?’ in the Non-Catholic Religions Forum.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
They never give up!
The Catholic Church, commissioned by Christ, teaches the message of Christ. The authority to do this is called the Magisterium. Christ’s message is transmitted to us through two modes, scripture and tradition.
How is that so hard to understand?
The Catholic Church, commissioned by Christ, teaches the message of Christ. The authority to do this is called the Magisterium. Christ’s message is transmitted to us through two modes, scripture and tradition.
How is that so hard to understand?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
vern humphrey:
Good news! Rejoice! Lay down your burden of sin and mistrust and come Home! What Vern says is true and what’s more you’re getting this truth for free. No invoice will be sent to you in the mail. No appeal for donations. Again, here is the truth free-of-charge:
The Catholic Church
commissioned by Christ
teaches the message of Christ.
The authority to do this teaching is called the Magisterium
Christ’s message is transmitted to us through two modes:
scripture and tradition.
You can’t interpret tradition.
You can’t interpret the Magisterium.
To say that you can is insincere and a waste of everybody’s time! Now can we move on to more important topics such as the Sacraments?
Perhaps it it astonishes them that it could be so simple. Perhaps, unless it leads them a merry chase through many a labarythine double-speak costing them an arm and a leg at a pop – they just can’t believe it could be true!
Good news! Rejoice! Lay down your burden of sin and mistrust and come Home! What Vern says is true and what’s more you’re getting this truth for free. No invoice will be sent to you in the mail. No appeal for donations. Again, here is the truth free-of-charge:
The Catholic Church
commissioned by Christ
teaches the message of Christ.
The authority to do this teaching is called the Magisterium
Christ’s message is transmitted to us through two modes:
scripture and tradition.
You can’t interpret tradition.
You can’t interpret the Magisterium.
To say that you can is insincere and a waste of everybody’s time! Now can we move on to more important topics such as the Sacraments?
M
mtr01
Guest
One problem with this interpretation of yours is that God specifically warned against those performing signs as well:
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect.
Furthermore, I don’t know why you reference Deut 13 and 18. These chapters (the relevent portions) speak of false prophets who work signs and wonders as well:
Deu 13:1 If there rise in the midst of thee a prophet or one that saith he hath dreamed a dream,** and he foretell a sign and a wonder**,
Deu 13:2 And that come to pass which he spoke, and he say to thee: Let us go and follow strange gods, which thou knowest not, and let us serve them:
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hear the words of that prophet or dreamer: for the Lord your God trieth you, that it may appear whether you love him with all your heart, and with all your soul, or not.
And the only signs mentioned in Chap 18 is:
Deu 18:22 Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him.
On the whole however, I think this whole argument is irrelevant, because we are talking about Bishops, which are distinct from prophets.
Another problem with your argument is that you falsely assume these “signs and wonders” that the Apostles perform should somehow be performed also by bishops. We know that there were different “positions” in the church, and that each of these offices received different gifts. Let’s look at Chapter 4 of St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith: Ascending on high, he led captivity captive: **he gave gifts to men. **
Eph 4:9 Now that he ascended, what is it, but because he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended above all the heavens: that he might fill all things.
Eph 4:11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors:
So my question to you, is where is it stated in the Bible that the gifts given to Apostles were also to be given to Bishops? In fact, they weren’t, and we know that bishops have different functions from the apostles (for instance, bishops have no mandate to introduce new doctrines, as the apostles did. In fact, Paul, instructs bishops to hold fast to the doctrines they were taught through tradition in Tit 1:9). In conclusion, there is no reason (other than your own eisogesis) to assume that the signs and wonders used by the Apostles to lay down Christian doctrinal foundation should also be present in bishops, who do not lay down new doctrines.
cont’d…
M
mtr01
Guest
…cont’d
michaelp:
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
We can see that this statement was intended directly for the apostles, not to everyone. He was sending the apostles out to make disciples of all nations. We can clearly see how this happened in Acts (especially in regards to St. Paul. They went out, founded churches, ordained men to teach in their place, then went out and founded more churches, ordained more priests and bishops, and so on.
michaelp:
michaelp:
And again, the infallible Magisterium consists of bishops, not apostles. I think you would do well to understand the distinction.
michaelp:
michaelp:
He also warns against it.
michaelp:
michaelp:
Mat 28:16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
We can see that this statement was intended directly for the apostles, not to everyone. He was sending the apostles out to make disciples of all nations. We can clearly see how this happened in Acts (especially in regards to St. Paul. They went out, founded churches, ordained men to teach in their place, then went out and founded more churches, ordained more priests and bishops, and so on.
This is a completely incoherent and pointless statement. In other words you say: “it has a broader application because this is the disciple making process”. In fact, as I said above, Acts certainly details the disciple-making process through the establishment of churches, and the ordination of priests and bishops.
This is all very interesting, except you forgot one thing (or person): Paul. How does he fit in, is he not an apostle? Wouldn’t that then make 13? Therefore who do you include in the 12, Matthias or Paul? If Matthias was elected to fulfill a prophecy, but Jesus selected Paul in addition, who gets to be the 12th apostle? Perhaps it was the original 12? See the problem?
And again, the infallible Magisterium consists of bishops, not apostles. I think you would do well to understand the distinction.
I didn’t once appeal to Acts 1…I don’t need to.
Of apostles, not bishops.God requires it.
He also warns against it.
Easy for you to sayUm . . . . no it doesn’t . . . yes it does . . . no it doesn’t . . . yes it does ad infinitum.
You too.
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Jeff-
Sorry but “protestants” don’t fully believe that faith and works are “2 sides of the same coin”. Remember: Salvation is by Faith Alone" is the mantra. They view works as strictly evidence of faith and unecessary for salvation. They believe the faith side of the coin accomplishes things independent of the works side of the coin and in that sense the two are truly different. Catholics view faith and works as truly an inseperable unit.
Catholics don’t teach that we are justified only after doing works. In fact the sacrament of baptism brings justification to infants and adults - is that a work to you? Yes there is a continued life of good works to live up to for we were created for Gods good works.
The problem with this Jeff is that you don’t know that your faith is alive if you aren’t doing good works! Now maybe God knows, but you and I don’t. So for you to stipulate that one is justified at the point of “true faith” and then describe true faith as “faith that is alive” leaves me a little confused. How does one determine a faith that is alive? Catholics say the answer is simple - they need to LIVE it. So your alive faith is a WORKING faith. So I don’t see any big discrepancy here between Catholics and Protestants- just a little confusion of terms fueled by the desire to distinguish ourselves from one another- kinda sad. Nope, the real difference is that the process of justification for Protestants has three charateristics:
- It’s INSTANTANEOUS
- It’s COMPLETE
- It’s PERMANENT
That verse(and others) speaks of a continued need to live out your faith as a prerequisite to being forgiven of your sins and hence justified. It doesn’t matter if you’ve already come to “true faith” or not - people will sin against you and if you don’t forgive them their sins you won’t be forgiven yours. So how can we be completely justified if we haven’t yet completed a life of forgiving others? True faith isn’t an instant, it’s a lifetime. That doesn’t mean that you need to feel insecure of your salvation its just that you should continue to strive for “the holiness without which no one will see heaven”.
Another verse that I have difficulty reconciling with the “instant of faith” concept is 1 Peter 2:11 “Beloved I urge you as aliens and sojourners to keep away from worldly desires which wage war against the soul.” Wage WAR against the soul? Sounds pretty serious - whats the consequence of losing that war? some have attempted to argue that such verses don’t apply 1. to believers or that they don’t only apply “this side of the cross”. Here are my objections:
- He uses the term “Beloved” to indicate his affection for the people he was speaking to. That’s not the kind of language used for strangers.
- The bible as we have it wasn’t composed and brought together for at least 80 years after Christs death - what would be the point of including these verses that only apply to people who are already dead and gone in Scripture? It makes no sense.
Phil
P
Pax
Guest
Not only does Peter refer to those he speaks to as beloved but he also says, "SIMEON PETER, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:"[2 Peter 1:1 In this same epistle he goes on to say the following: “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.”[2 Peter 2:20-22]
Obviously, faith is not instantaneous, complete, and permanent as understood in Protestant theology.
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi guys - only slightly sorry to butt in!
What happens with these disagreements over objective truth based on differing interpretations of Scripture? They get relegated to the category of “non-essential” and technically, for Protestants, disagreeing on a non-essential isn’t really a disagreement. So how many non-essentials are there? Too many to count, and growing. A better appreciation of this is to look at the essentials. Ready? There are 5!
*]Scripture Alone
*]Christ Alone
*]Grace alone
*]Faith Alone
*]Glory to God Alone
I dunno, that is a seriously short list. Number one has some functional problems and number four is pretty slippery in terms of understanding. The other 3 are orthodox for sure, even faith alone could be depending on your definition of faith…
Phil
- Status