Catholicism

[truthman]

What do you think?

truthman

[Solly]

I voted for the first. I believe that definitely.

I voted for the second. It's a tough call, esp for a hardened Calvinist like me, but I think they are within orthodoxy, they do have a defense of the great truths of Christianity such as the Trinity, Incarnation, Vicarious death of Christ, Inspiration of the Word. They are off on a lot, but then so are many Prot denoms.

[truthman]

Yeah, there are many Protestants who are way off on some stuff.

That must have been a tough vote for you, considering the Catholics are very big on freewill.

truthman

[Solly]

Ha ha TM; everybody is very big on Free Will.

but Calvin said: What purpose is served by labelling with a proud name such a slight thing.

Anyway, let's hope we get some Catholics over here who aren't trying to reunite the separated brethren!!

[truthman]

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Libertarian who believes that human reason is sovereign, but all the same......did you say that freewill is slight?

truthman

[GrayPilgrim]

If he didn't, I will. It is so corrupted by sin that barring the grace of God we would all be in a whole heap of trouble.

[Solly]

What he said.

I am sure we can rely on Yx to give us the case for LFW [insert pop up box for definition at later date], but to my mind, following Edwards, I hold to the fact that Will is the end result, the act of choosing, determined by previous factors. If the mind is corrupt through sin, then the will will choose corruptly (though we like to gild the matter). However "free" the will is, Reformed Christians maintain that it is unable to choose anything correctly with respect to God, esp for us to choose and humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, and own the problem: that we are sinners in rebellion against God. But God can condemn us because we willingly accept this state of affairs, we are willing rebels. Salvation comes about partly through the fact that being regenerated, we have the desire to choose differently, and do - soince the work is of God, by God indwelling us, not just a change in ourselves.
Jaltus has an Arminian take on this that there is a boot sector in the human makeup that God can appeal to and jump start.

And didn't this thread get off topic quickly. Where's the moderator.

Moderator??


Oh, it's me. Ah well, when I have my powers I will rpobably split this. :idea:

[Revolg]

The Catholic Church has grown to accept tradition that does not agree with scripture. If it was the model of Orthodoxy, then it would be wrong! For example, Mary didn't REMAIN a virgin the rest of her life. She had little children who grew up around brother Jesus. I don't accept the Catholic Church's over emphasis on idols and crosses with models of Jesus on them.

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

[automatthew]

The Roman Catholic Church is the last Christian body I could join, but I consistently find that the thinkers I most value are Catholic:

G. K. Chesterton
William F. Buckley
Paul Johnson
Richard John Neuhaus
Antonin Scalia

I know there are others, but I'm blank right now. First Things, a predominantly Catholic mag, is the best conservative journal out there (sorry National Review; how about 2nd?).

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey y'all. first off, i hold that the Catholic Church is the true-est Church, but this in no way entails that i therefore think that anyone who isn't Catholic is therefore not Christian.
now, to Revolg, who said--

The Catholic Church has grown to accept tradition that does not agree with scripture.

**8** regarding Icons and belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, when do ya spose that we "grew to accept" these things?
ya said--

If it was the model of Orthodoxy, then it would be wrong!

**7** who determines the form of Orthodoxy?
ya said--

For example, Mary didn't REMAIN a virgin the rest of her life. She had little children who grew up around brother Jesus.

**8** it will be granted that there is no explicit statement within Scripture which explicitly states the perpetual virginity of Mary. at the same time, it shouldn't be stated with dogmatic certitude that Scripture *necessarily* implies that Mary had other children.
also, there are several passages which can be taken in the Alexandrian sense which point to the perpetual virginity of Mary. this view also has good support in the early Church, especially from the fourth century onward. as a matter of fact, i think that both Calvin and Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
ya said--

I don't accept the Catholic Church's over emphasis on idols

**7** what "idols" did you have in mind?
ya said--

and crosses with models of Jesus on them.

**8** what do you have against the cross?
ya said--

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

**7** and yet the ark of the covenant had images of heavenly beings on it, and what of col. 1:15 wherein the "image" of God becomes flesh; the object of religious devotion?
peace

[Jaltus]

I should have gone 1 and 2, but I did not know we could do both...doh!

Anyway, I think they have salvation covered, and then add a lot of nonessential stuff.

[Revolg]

Idols as the "Holy Rosary." And hey isn't it the Roman Catholic church that tries to ascribe Orthodoxy to it's self? Crosses aren't supposed to be in churches, it violates Exodus 20:4.

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Revolg
Idols as the "Holy Rosary." And hey isn't it the Roman Catholic church that tries to ascribe Orthodoxy to it's self? Crosses aren't supposed to be in churches, it violates Exodus 20:4.

How is the rosary an idol?

[Gavin]

I voted for the first two, but it all depends on what you mean by "orthodox".

Under most definitions I would accept that the catholic church is orthodox, but that is not to say that some catholic doctrine does not lay burdens on people rather than lift them.

:angel:

[Revolg]

People use the rosary to pray to Mary with.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** yo, Revolg, ya said--

Crosses aren't supposed to be in churches, it violates Exodus 20:4.

**7** the ex. 20:4 accusation has already been given partial response by me, which you ignored.
ya said that the Rosary is an "idol" because--

People use the rosary to pray to Mary with.

**8** this accusation is quite exaggerated, along with being a category confusion. the only prayer to Mary during the Rosary is asking her to pray to God for us ("pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death").
the Rosary is a meditative prayer wherein mysteries from the life of Christ are contemplated (Agony in the Garden, Scourging at the Pillar, Crowning with Thorns, Carrying of Cross, Crucifixion; Baptism of Christ, Cana Miracle, Announcement of the Kingdom, Transfiguration, Institution of the Eucharist; etc.)
the Marian element comes in here--"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Lk. 1:38)
hence the Rosary is an attempt to perceive the Trinitarian and Salvific form of the Word made Flesh, and opening himself to it, to respond and let the Word of God reign in our lives.
peace.

[spl_cadet]

Revolg, are you the same one on CARM?

[Pilgrim]

Originally posted by Revolg
People use the rosary to pray to Mary with.

People use the rosary to keep track of prayers. A prayer to Mary happens to be a prayer that Catholics pray. But those two things are not mutually dependant and certainly one is not proof that the other is idolatry.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Originally posted by Revolg
Crosses aren't supposed to be in churches, it violates Exodus 20:4.

Strange, my copy of Exodus doesn't include the words 'cross' or 'church' anywhere at all, including 20:4. :p

Actually, that reminds me of some local history my grandfather told me years back. My grandfather, Rev. A.C. Turner, had been, at various times, a Southern Baptist pastor, preacher and home missionary. He said that in his younger days (we're talking turn-of-the-century here) Baptists churches in Texas and most of the south would not put crosses--even non-crucifix bare crosses--on their churches for one reason: they didn't want to be mistaken for Catholic churches. That was the only reason for the practice (or non-practice, if you prefer); interpretations of Ex. 20:4 weren't in it. That was also the reason why the Baptist congregations of that time/place didn't celebrate Christmas: Christmas was seen as a specifically Catholic, not generally Christian, holiday because Christmas = Christ-Mass.

After the passage of merely 50-60 years, I found both of these astounding because it was so divergent from what I saw in my own day and time, in generally the same locale. We always had special Christmas services at church, and although there was never a cross hanging on the wall or such, there was one on the top of the steeple, and generally at least one of the stained-glass windows was a Crucifixion scene (followed immediately by a Resurrection scene in the next window over).

Not that I'm suggesting any gradual closing of ranks between Southern Baptists and Catholics! :rofl: One of my own favourite stories is of a trip to Ireland where my mother and I stayed in various bed-n-breakfasts around the Republic. At one particular B&B, the hostess sat down with me for a get-acquainted conversation, of which her very first remark was, "And what religion are you?" My answer "Southern Baptist" left her rather at a loss (let's just say that our kind is not thick on the ground in Ireland), to which she eventually replied, "Well, that's a lot like being Catholic, isn't it?" My turn for speechlessness at that point. But we got on very well anyway, and I've stayed with her and her family on other visits, too.

The (if we're not CoI we must be okay!?) Curtmudgeon

[spl_cadet]

Originally posted by Pilgrim
People use the rosary to keep track of prayers. A prayer to Mary happens to be a prayer that Catholics pray. But those two things are not mutually dependant and certainly one is not proof that the other is idolatry.

I might add that I know of Rosaries which don't have any prayers to Mary and the only prayer on it that a Protestant might not agree with is the Apostles Creed.

[Pilgrim]

and most protestants use the apostles creed as well so...

[Zakath]

As Pilgrim pointed out, rosaries are merely prayer beads used to keep track of one's place in a set of standard prayers. The only part of the prayer to Mary which protestants usually object is where the supplicant asks her to pray for him or her.

Of course many such folks would have no objection to asking an elder or a pastor (or visiting preacher) to pray for them.

From the way they talk about the doctrine of the communion of saints and the concepts of church militant and church triumpant, an outsider like me might conclude that many fundamentalists do not actually believe that the dead believers are in the presence of the deity.

[Socrates]

I agree with 1 and 2, but there should have been an option, "It is impossible to be a true Christian and be a member of the Roman Catholic Church," although I would not have voted for it.

[John Reece]

I voted for 2, but would have included 1 also, if I had known that more than one number was an option.

I, too, am a subscriber to First Things and National Review.

And I, too, read with great appreciation the following authors:

G. K. Chesterton
William F. Buckley
Paul Johnson
Richard John Neuhaus

Antonin Scalia is one of the two best Justices of the Supreme Court - the other being Clarance Thomas, who was educated by Catholic nuns.

In the early 1960s, I had a friend who worked in an office with a co-worker who was a Catholic. They shared fellowship in the Lord for some time. One day she said to him, with sincerity and real curiosity, "Harry, how is it you know Jesus and you are not a Catholic?"

:smile:

Something that impressed me about the Charismatic movement in the early 1960s: The Spirit of God blessed all the same - Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, etc.

I think the Lord is far more interested in the focus of John 17, 1 Corinthians 13, and Ephesians 4, than He is in our doctrinal disputes.

[PuritanD]

I voted for 1 and have a hard time voting for 2 especially if RC was orthodox then why bother with the Reformation.

RC still does not acknowledge sola scriptora and justification by faith alone. Shouldn't that be considered to be Orthodoxy?

PuritanD

[John Reece]

RC still does not acknowledge sola scriptora and justification by faith alone. Shouldn't that be considered to be Orthodoxy?

Chuch Colson and Richard John Neuhaus have been making some progress on that, by means of work with colleagues in Evangelicals and Catholics together.

:love:

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 12:03 AM
PuritanD:

I voted for 1 and have a hard time voting for 2 especially if RC was orthodox then why bother with the Reformation.

RC still does not acknowledge sola scriptora and justification by faith alone. Shouldn't that be considered to be Orthodoxy?

PuritanD

Since sola scriptura is not in the Bible, the idea itself seems irrelevant and oxymoronic.

[PuritanD]

Today @ 08:23 AM
Pilgrim:

Since sola scriptura is not in the Bible, the idea itself seems irrelevant and oxymoronic.

Hmmm, sola scriptura is just an acknowledgement that the Bible is the sole Word of God and no other writings or "revelations" are equivalent to its authority. This was in refutation to RC putting the apocraphy not equal but still authoritative and also the new "revelation" from the bull pulpit of the pope as being authoritative in the church.

By the way, trinity isn't in the Bible either but we believe in its existence.

[spl_cadet]

Who brought this thread back from the dead?

Yesterday @ 09:03 PM
PuritanD:
RC still does not acknowledge sola scriptora and justification by faith alone. Shouldn't that be considered to be Orthodoxy?

No. Unless of course you desire to ingore the millenia and a half of orthodoxy prior to the Protestant Schism. And frankly, there are major practical flaws with sola scriptura (thousands of denominations can't all be right) and also with sola fide (many mistakenly take it as license).

[Pilgrim]

Today @ 09:28 AM
PuritanD:



Hmmm, sola scriptura is just an acknowledgement that the Bible is the sole Word of God and no other writings or "revelations" are equivalent to its authority. This was in refutation to RC putting the apocraphy not equal but still authoritative and also the new "revelation" from the bull pulpit of the pope as being authoritative in the church.

By the way, trinity isn't in the Bible either but we believe in its existence.

My point exactly. Sola scriptura fails it's own standard.

[Zakath]

There seem to be several different views here as to what "sola scriptura" (scripture alone) actually entails. My understanding is that the term, derived from the Protestant Reformation, means the belief that scripture alone is the primary and absolute source of authority, the final court of appeal, for all doctrine and practice. It holds that the Bible is infallible, that it is sufficient, and that it is clear.

As a former RC, I'll comment that the RCs take issue with the last point, clarity. They contend that, for the meaning to be clear or properly understood, the scripture must be interpreted by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (their term for this is "Magisterium"). This takes the infallibility away from a static text and places into the Magisterium, human vessels allegedly influenced by the spirit of the deity.

Either way, someone or something is considered infallible or incapable of error, or we might say, inerrant.

[Zakath]

Yesterday @ 09:28 AM
PuritanD:
Hmmm, sola scriptura is just an acknowledgement that the Bible is the sole Word of God and no other writings or "revelations" are equivalent to its authority. This was in refutation to RC putting the apocraphy not equal but still authoritative and also the new "revelation" from the bull pulpit of the pope as being authoritative in the church.

It's been a while since I argued this side of the argument, so forgive me if my points aren't as clear as they might be...

First, the RCs hold the books designated by the Protestants as "apochrypha" to be "deuterocanonical" and of equal status with the rest of their scritpures.

Second, the RCs contend that revelation through their Magisterium does not contradict their scripture, since both (according to them) have the same ultimate source.

Third, wasn't Luther a proponent of "sola scriptura"? The same Luther who removed the book of James from the canon in the Lutheran churches during his lifetime?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 12:13 PM
Zakath:
As a former RC, I'll comment that the RCs take issue with the last point, clarity. They contend that, for the meaning to be clear or properly understood, the scripture must be interpreted by the infallible teaching authority of the Church (their term for this is "Magisterium"). This takes the infallibility away from a static text and places into the Magisterium, human vessels allegedly influenced by the spirit of the deity.

We don't take any infallibility away from Scripture. We simply recognize that it needs an interpreter and that because of what it is and the issues involved, that interpreter must be infallible. I think the lack of infallible teaching about Christianity evident in Protestantism is the reason why it is so fragmented and gives rise to so many cults.

[Sozo]

A rather biased poll I would say.

Why isn't there an option 4?

The Catholic church is a cult!

There is no such thing as a follower of the RCC who is also a Christian.

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 02:47 PM
Sozo:
The Catholic church is a cult!

There is no such thing as a follower of the RCC who is also a Christian.

That's right, for 1500 years until the Protestsant Schism there were no Christians. :rofl:

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:39 PM
spl_cadet:



That's right, for 1500 years until the Protestsant Schism there were no Christians. :rofl:


See... more lies from Catholicism.

[John Reece]

The Catholic church is a cult!

There is no such thing as a follower of the RCC who is also a Christian.

:hrm:

:no:

[Sozo]

Today @ 06:50 PM
John Reece:



:hrm:

:no:

John...

Do any of these groups have Christians in their fold...

LDS
RLDS
JWs
Scientology
Bahai
Hare Krishnas
Judaism
Islam
Hindu
Unitarians

[John Reece]

Sozo,

Not that I know of.

Did I overlook Catholic in the list?

:huh:

[Dave]

1) All Catholics are christian by virtue of their baptism. As all trinitarian-baptized protestants are christian by virtue of their baptism. Does that gaurantee that the person won't fall away or won't lead a sinful life? nope. but it's the start of the walk with God.

2) Catholicism IS orthodoxy. And by orthodoxy I don't mean some vague notion of agreeing on 'essentials' but disagreeing on the 'unimportant things'. Whatever that is.

3) If #2 is correct then it logically follows that #3 is true also. That is, unless some people here believe you can be orthodox but still hold wrong beliefs. And if that's the case, well heck, we might as well believe whatever we want and put God in a nice little box.

Peace,
Dave

[Sozo]

Today @ 07:12 PM
John Reece:

Sozo,

Not that I know of.

Did I overlook Catholic in the list?

:huh:

Why would you think that Catholics belong in the body of Christ and not these other groups?

[Jaltus]

Baptism is not salvific.

Romans 10:9.

[Dave]

Today @ 01:24 AM
Jaltus:

Baptism is not salvific.

Romans 10:9.

Yes it is.

1Peter 3:21. or John 3:3-5

Lutherans would disagree with you, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Methodists, etc. would all disagree with you. Not to mention Nazarene, Church of God, of Christ, etc.

[Sozo]

Today @ 08:14 PM
Dave:



Yes it is.

1Peter 3:21. or John 3:3-5



1Peter 3:21 = Spiritual baptism

John 3:3-5 = Natural birth and Spiritual baptism

Lutherans would disagree with you, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Methodists, etc. would all disagree with you. Not to mention Nazarene, Church of God, of Christ, etc.

And the point being?

[John Reece]

Sozo:
Why would you think that Catholics belong in the body of Christ and not these other groups?

Catholics I know, am related to, and read, are Christians.

I do not know anyone in any of the groups listed, so I am agnostic about them. I'm not a heresy hunter, so I have not studied what any of those groups believe.

If I were still a pastor, and the congregation I was serving were at risk of infiltration by unorthodox persons, I would make it my business to find out what they believed, in order to protect the sheep from false teaching. But I left the pastoral ministry long enough ago to have retired from a different profession ten years ago.

One of my sisters became a Catholic to marry a Catholic. Of all my many Christian relatives, I am more certain of the genuineness of her relationship with Christ than anyone else in my family of real Christians.

I have a daughter who became a Catholic to marry a Catholic. I baptized her myself, 30+ years ago. Interesting thing is, none of her husband’s family think I and the non-Catholic members of the family are true Christians, because we are not Catholics :doh: .

[Sozo]

So then, John, you would never evangelize Catholics because you are convinced that they are in Christ?

My parents, grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, etc., are Catholic. Do you suggest that I no longer share the gospel with them? BTW, none of them have any interest in talking about Jesus. Also, many of my closest friends came to Christ and out of the Catholic church and are desperate to share the gospel with their family. When they reflect on what they know and believe now in relation to their devotion to the Catholic church, they would never go back, nor accept it as Christian.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the real reasons why the RCC is a cult, but I would challenge those who believe that it is not, to question a great many of those who came out of her, and accepted the gospel of Christ.

[John Reece]

Sozo:
So then, John, you would never evangelize Catholics because you are convinced that they are in Christ?

I have no mission to evangelize anyone. Medical conditions give me reason to live the life of a hermit, which suites me fine at age 70. I burned out as missionary for any cause or doctrine quite some time ago. I live at peace with God, and he requires of me nothing more than to do justice, and to love loyalty, and to walk humbly with Him (seems I recall having read something to that effect in the OT :smile: ).

Do you suggest that I no longer share the gospel with them?

I would not presume to make any suggestion as to how you relate to your family or anyone else. That's between you, them, and God.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the real reasons why the RCC is a cult, but I would challenge those who believe that it is not, to question a great many of those who came out of her, and accepted the gospel of Christ.

Interesting, I know of some true Christians who have moved in the other direction.

:smile:

Peace,

John

[Dave]

Today @ 09:24 PM
Sozo:



1Peter 3:21 = Spiritual baptism

John 3:3-5 = Natural birth and Spiritual baptism



And the point being?

where does 1Peter 3:20-21 talk of spiritual baptism? And prove that John 3:3-5 is 'natural birth' vs. 'spiritual baptism'.

I'll start with a counter-argument.

John 3 (NIV)
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[1] "


verse 5 is a clarification of verse 3. To be 'born again' means to be born again of 'water' and 'Spirit'. how do we know this? By the simple fact that it's everywhere in the Bible and throughout the entire history of the Church.

What's the context of this passage? Jesus had just gotten baptized, to show us the way. After this encounter with Nicodemus, Jesus and his disciples go out baptizing.

Titus 3
5he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,

And the list of those churches is relevant because it shows that this belief in a 'spiritual baptism' as contrasted with 'water baptism/birth' is a relatively new concept, even by reformation standards.

Peace,
Dave

[Dave]

Today @ 09:47 PM
Sozo:

So then, John, you would never evangelize Catholics because you are convinced that they are in Christ?

My parents, grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, etc., are Catholic. Do you suggest that I no longer share the gospel with them? BTW, none of them have any interest in talking about Jesus. Also, many of my closest friends came to Christ and out of the Catholic church and are desperate to share the gospel with their family. When they reflect on what they know and believe now in relation to their devotion to the Catholic church, they would never go back, nor accept it as Christian.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the real reasons why the RCC is a cult, but I would challenge those who believe that it is not, to question a great many of those who came out of her, and accepted the gospel of Christ.

Well why don't we analyze Catholic beliefs. We can take them one at a time. We can look at the Scriptural and historical views. Let's start with the Eucharist. What problems do you see with it?

Peace,
Dave

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 04:46 PM
Sozo:
See... more lies from Catholicism.

Ok, perhaps you never learned history in which case I'll have to educate you. Before the Protestant Schism, there was the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches (who had broken away around the beginning of the millenium) up to the time of Christ, there was only the Catholic Church. At the time of Christ there was only the Jews :teeth:



Do any of these groups have Christians in their fold...

LDS
RLDS
JWs
Scientology
Bahai
Hare Krishnas
Judaism
Islam
Hindu
Unitarians


Half of those are completely different religions and the rest are cults as defined by their non-acceptance of the Nicene Creed while claiming to be Christian.

John Reece

I have a daughter who became a Catholic to marry a Catholic. I baptized her myself, 30+ years ago. Interesting thing is, none of her husband’s family think I and the non-Catholic members of the family are true Christians, because we are not Catholics .

Hmm, it sounds like they may be ultra-traditionalists. Do they submit to Pope John Paul II?

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 06:47 PM
Sozo:
So then, John, you would never evangelize Catholics because you are convinced that they are in Christ?

Many individuals may not be, but those are the ones whom you must get involved with the Church again and learn about Christ. Now then, I think of it as like a Lutheran evangelizing an Anglican. Yes if they are lapsed it's perfectly fine but saying that the Anglicans aren't Christian at all is preposterous.


Of course, none of this has anything to do with the real reasons why the RCC is a cult, but I would challenge those who believe that it is not, to question a great many of those who came out of her, and accepted the gospel of Christ.

How exaclty are we a cult? Near as I've found, it's always been that we disagree with someone's personal theology (most of the time because they don't know what we teach).

[Sozo]

Dave & spl...

That's a alot of questions, and I will be more than happy to address them all, but not all tonight.

Dave...

The baptism of Jesus has nothing to do with John's baptism, unless of course you believe that Jesus was a sinner.

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

"And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

And John speaks of their contrasting baptisms...

"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Jesus answers Nicodemus question relating to his notion of being born-again as natural birth (that which is of the flesh)

"How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

[Jin-Roh]

I voted for the first one. I'd have a stern talk with anyone who said otherwise. The second one I left blank. I both agree and disagree with it though.

[Jin-Roh]

Hmm, it sounds like they may be ultra-traditionalists. Do they submit to Pope John Paul II?

Was it Vatican II where it was decided that non-catholics where still saved? Or was a church council before that?

[Sozo]

Yesterday @ 11:54 PM
Jin-Roh:

I voted for the first one. I'd have a stern talk with anyone who said otherwise.

otherwise

[John Reece]

Spl_Cadet,

Hmm, it sounds like they may be ultra-traditionalists. Do they submit to Pope John Paul II?

:smile: You guessed correctly: No.

But that was until recently, when the priest kicked the mother-in-law out of the church because the father-in-law .... I can't remember what (except that it had to do with doctrine rather than behavior, unless you consider not agreeing with the priest re doctrine a matter of behavior...).

Now the father-in-law stays home, and the mother-in-law and son-in-law and my daughter and their 5 children attend an Orthodox Catholic church that recognizes the Pope but follows the Greek tradition - it gets so complicated... :smile: .

(edited to correct spelling)

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 03:19 AM
John Reece:
But that was until recently, when the priest kicked the mother-in-law out of the church because the father-in-law .... I can't remember what (except that it had to do with doctrine rather than behavior, unless you consider not agreeing with the priest re doctrine a matter of behavior...).

Not agreeing with doctrine is heresy. So that's something behavioural.


Now the father-in-law stays home, and the mother-in-law and son-in-law and my daughter and their 5 children attend an Orthodox Catholic church that recognizes the Pope but follows the Greek tradition - it gets so complicated... :smile: .

Greek Byzantine Rite?

[John Reece]

Spl_Cadet,

Not agreeing with doctrine is heresy. So that's something behavioural.

A poor choice of words on my part about something I did not really understand. I meant the father was not guilty of any kind of moral turpitude or abuse.

And it was the mother who was booted out by the priest. She is an extremely domineering and cantankerous person. I can imagine the priest barring her from the church for behavior rather doctrinal dissidence :smile: .

They live too far away for visits very often, and I only get infrequent tidbits of info re things of an ecclesiastical nature.

Greek Byzantine Rite?

:smile: I thought you would come through with the identity of the denomination. You are correct. I had forgotten the name, but had looked them up on the Internet when my daughter mentioned them. I liked what I saw there better than the little I knew about the hyper-traditionist group they were in originally.

But again, I don't know enough to judge...

Your comments and questions are very interesting to me.

Thanks & blessings,

John

[Jin-Roh]

Yesterday @ 10:04 PM
Sozo:



otherwise

Do you honestly believe that you can't be a Christian in a catholic church? I'd agree that people need to come out of it, but I wouldn't say that they're abosolutely no real believers in catholicism.

[Sozo]

Today @ 11:04 AM
Jin-Roh:



Do you honestly believe that you can't be a Christian in a catholic church? I'd agree that people need to come out of it, but I wouldn't say that they're abosolutely no real believers in catholicism.


That was partly a joke, but no I do not believe that there is someone who can call themselves a Christian, and a Catholic. Of course I feel the same way about Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Charasmatics, etc. etc.

You are either a part of a religeous system, or the body of Christ.

[John Reece]

Sozo,

Re the jokes:

:smile:

[spl_cadet]

Today @ 07:11 AM
John Reece:
:smile: I thought you would come through with the identity of the denomination. You are correct. I had forgotten the name, but had looked them up on the Internet when my daughter mentioned them. I liked what I saw there better than the little I knew about the hyper-traditionist group they were in originally.

Well, just to nitpick, they aren't a denomination. They are a rite within the Catholic Church (different methods of celebrating the sacraments and such, but same beliefs). And of course you'd like them better, ultra-traditionalists are basically fundies.

[John Reece]

Spl_Cadet,

they aren't a denomination. They are a rite within the Catholic Church

Yes, I understand. Just a careless use of words on my part. If they were not "within the Catholic Church”, believe me, my daughter and her family would not join them.

By the way, my daughter called today and I asked her for an update re the church. She said, "They remind me of you, Dad".

Definitely not "fundies"; sorta charismatic.

:smile:

By the way, check out my last post in the Library Forum. I'd be interested to know what you think re the subject.

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 09:19 AM
Sozo:




That was partly a joke, but no I do not believe that there is someone who can call themselves a Christian, and a Catholic. Of course I feel the same way about Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Charasmatics, etc. etc.

You are either a part of a religeous system, or the body of Christ.


Okay I understand then. I respectfully disagree with your veiws on denoms and such, but I can see where you are coming from.

:smile:

[John Reece]

Sozo,

Read again. Not demons. Denoms (presumably short for denominations...)

[Wesley's son]

03-19-2003 @ 09:14 PM located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40379#post40379)
Dave:



Yes it is.

1Peter 3:21. or John 3:3-5

Lutherans would disagree with you, Episcopalians, Orthodox, Methodists, etc. would all disagree with you. Not to mention Nazarene, Church of God, of Christ, etc.


I am a Nazarene, and our Articles of Faith DO NOT state that baptism is salvivic. We understand baptism to be a confession of new faith in Jesus to the body of believers. We understand it is a very good thing to do to demonstrate spiritual maturity, but an unbaptised Christian WILL NOT miss out on Heaven on that reason alone.

from a dyed-in-the-wool Nazarene

:wink:

Ammended Post -

...water baptism I mean...

[Dave]

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=43735#post43735)
Wesley's son:




I am a Nazarene, and our Articles of Faith DO NOT state that baptism is salvivic. We understand baptism to be a confession of new faith in Jesus to the body of believers. We understand it is a very good thing to do to demonstrate spiritual maturity, but an unbaptised Christian WILL NOT miss out on Heaven on that reason alone.

from a dyed-in-the-wool Nazarene

:wink:

Ammended Post -

...water baptism I mean...

oops. my bad. It's just that I had attended a church service there one time (for a friend's baby dedication) and they had baptisms that day. I just thought perhaps they held to baptismal regeneration as so says the Bible and the early Church. :thumb:

[Dave]

03-20-2003 @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=40454#post40454)
Sozo:

Dave & spl...

That's a alot of questions, and I will be more than happy to address them all, but not all tonight.

Dave...

The baptism of Jesus has nothing to do with John's baptism, unless of course you believe that Jesus was a sinner.

"As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire."

"And I did not recognize Him, but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water."

And John speaks of their contrasting baptisms...

"I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

Jesus answers Nicodemus question relating to his notion of being born-again as natural birth (that which is of the flesh)

"How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

this line of thinking has never made any sense. Were there ever people who were not born of flesh and yet will go to heaven? Why would Jesus say 'you must be born of water' as one of the conditions? That's like saying 'you must be human' when everyone already is human!

On the other hand the context of the surrounding passages makes it perfectly clear that water baptism is the what Jesus is talking about. Jesus is baptized prior to this conversation, and Jesus and his disciples go out 'anothen' baptizing after this event. And it's the same 'type' of baptism as John and his disciples were doing (v.26).

Peace,
Dave

Titus 3
5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit (NIV)

[Jaltus]

Actual, recent work in John 3 has many experts thinking that being "born of water and spirit" refers to one thing.

After all, the Holy Spirit is referred to as water throughout John and the imagery that water is used for, generally referring to Ezekiel, also has water referring to the Spirit. Thus, water and spirit (or Spirit) are synonymous.

[Dave]

Yesterday @ 09:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44091#post44091)
Jaltus:

Actual, recent work in John 3 has many experts thinking that being "born of water and spirit" refers to one thing.

After all, the Holy Spirit is referred to as water throughout John and the imagery that water is used for, generally referring to Ezekiel, also has water referring to the Spirit. Thus, water and spirit (or Spirit) are synonymous.

well that too wouldn't make much sense b/c in effect Jesus would be saying 'you must be born of Spirit and Spirit'. Of course the historical Church held to baptismal regeneration via water. Not that it was the water itself, mind you, but that was how the Spirit operated.

And Ezekiel does say this about water and Spirit.

Ezekiel 36
24 " 'For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land. 25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.

Peace,
Dave

[Jaltus]

You missed my point.

Jesus was saying you must be born of the Spirit.

The "and water" part was a signal John used to show that in the rest of his gospel those concepts were tied closely together. See John 7:37-39 especially.

[Dave]

Today @ 05:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=44854#post44854)
Jaltus:

You missed my point.

Jesus was saying you must be born of the Spirit.

The "and water" part was a signal John used to show that in the rest of his gospel those concepts were tied closely together. See John 7:37-39 especially.

Jesus was actually saying you must be born of water and Spirit. not just Spirit. The distinction between 'water' and 'Spirit' (or as some say 'water baptism' and 'Spirit baptism') is largely a modern-day (maybe a couple hundred years at best) invention that seems more a reaction to the idea of 1)baptismal regeneration and 2)the sacraments. Such a distinction (in my opinion) doesn't exist in Scripture and doesn't exist in the history of the Church.

Peace,
Dave

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** peace in Christ, Dave--

Such a distinction (in my opinion) doesn't exist in Scripture and doesn't exist in the history of the Church.

**8** though i haven't read him in about a month, i think that St. Symeon the New Theologian made a distinction, and i think Pseudo-Dionysius was very close to the general mindset.
speaking of Symeon (whose ideas in this regard were, i believe, not followed on the ecclesiastical scale), it is important to note that he also affirmed the efficacy of the sacraments. his spiritual life was one of the most intense in the history of Christianity. Dionysius also afforded the sacraments a reality which i think is lacking in the modern individualistic mindset (the invisible "soul" is what counts).
question: many today deny the salvific efficacy of sacraments. why do you think that the early Church affirmed their efficacy so clearly? what theological "given" might explain this?
peace in Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** peace in Christ, Jaltus--

The "and water" part was a signal John used to show that in the rest of his gospel those concepts were tied closely together. See John 7:37-39 especially.

**7** granting that water was a symbol for the Spirit in John, wouldn't it be atleast on the cards that perhaps positing "Spirit" and "water" in the same sentence might indicate, in this instance, a real distinction (think of Jesus the "Word" and the other times "word" is used in Jn.) furthermore, might not the Johannine focus on the incarnation prompt us to allow, in principle, a corporeal understanding of "water"?
peace.

[Dave]

03-25-2003 @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45048#post45048)
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** peace in Christ, Dave--

Such a distinction (in my opinion) doesn't exist in Scripture and doesn't exist in the history of the Church.

**8** though i haven't read him in about a month, i think that St. Symeon the New Theologian made a distinction, and i think Pseudo-Dionysius was very close to the general mindset.
speaking of Symeon (whose ideas in this regard were, i believe, not followed on the ecclesiastical scale), it is important to note that he also affirmed the efficacy of the sacraments. his spiritual life was one of the most intense in the history of Christianity. Dionysius also afforded the sacraments a reality which i think is lacking in the modern individualistic mindset (the invisible "soul" is what counts).
question: many today deny the salvific efficacy of sacraments. why do you think that the early Church affirmed their efficacy so clearly? what theological "given" might explain this?
peace in Christ.

Sorry I didn't answer sooner, as I am entertaining company this week. That and if I ever choose the 'net over my wife...well, let's just say I'll be sleeping with the fishes.:whip:

I found a St. Symeon website that had some pretty weird music. At first I thought it was some fuzzy recording of punk rock, but then I realized it was some more cultural groove.:rockon:

Anyway, St. Symeon lived around 1000 A.D., if I'm reading this correctly. I suppose I should make a distinction in my word usage. When I say 'the history of the Church', I'm typically talking about the first 4-500 years, b/c most protestants won't accept any beliefs after that time. They quite often resort to the 'Constantine' charge, which really holds no water. So in effect I've been limiting myself to a much earlier timeframe. In fact, I usually quote no farther than the Apostolic Fathers (maybe up to Augustine).

So if you are saying that he made a distinction between water baptism and spirit baptism (together constituting baptismal regeneration), then I would have to disagree. In order to have the designation 'St.' his writings would have to be orthodox in nature (unless said orthodoxy hadn't been defined to such an extent, yet. in that case more latitude is given). So in my opinion (and I'd need to know which specific writings/quotes so I could read them myself) saying St. Symeon made a disctinction would a hasty assertion.

you say: "why do you think that the early Church affirmed their (sacraments) efficacy so clearly?"

answer: b/c they were a real, living part of the Church. Too much of protestant christianity has been reduced to mere symbols or even worse dependent upon emotional experiences as validation of spiritual development/experience. The early Church affirmed the efficacy of the sacraments b/c they are real occassions of God's grace. And I believe they are held the same way within the Church today (although the extent with which the laity utilizes the availability is another matter altogether).

Peace,
Dave

[Woman]

Sozo:
That was partly a joke, but no I do not believe that there is someone who can call themselves a Christian, and a Catholic. Of course I feel the same way about Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Charasmatics, etc. etc.

You are either a part of a religeous system, or the body of Christ.

WOW - for someone who thinks you don't have to "do" anything to be saved, you sure condemn a lot of other people. Why?


And a question to anyone. Why is the church referred to as the body of Christ? Why do some call it his "bride?" (that sounds weird to me)

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Dave, peace in Christ. i take it you're Catholic? if so, hallo bro!

I suppose I should make a distinction in my word usage. When I say 'the history of the Church', I'm typically talking about the first 4-500 years

**7** ah, gotcha. i'm just starting to spread out into the later days meself. i didn't think i'd like it, but its a goldmine. my new hero is St. Bonaventure.

In fact, I usually quote no farther than the Apostolic Fathers

**8** my guess would be that this gives hardcore anti-Catholics all kinds of trouble (Clement's straightforward attestation to apostolic succesion and talk of the Eucharist as a 'sacrifice'; Ignatius' insistence on the real presence and the Bishop--grounded in the Incarnation; the martyrdom of Polycarp in a Eucharistic-Liturgical frame, etc.).

So if you are saying that he made a distinction between water baptism and spirit baptism (together constituting baptismal regeneration), then I would have to disagree.

**7** i don't think he'd toss up a dichotomy the way modern-day anti-sacramentalists do. i think he'd rather put it as 'the necessary continuation of what baptism was in your daily life'. baptism in the Spirit was a quite frequent thing for him. he wasn't saying "the water baptism is merely a symbol", but rather, "you aren't save just because you went through the ritual...".

In order to have the designation 'St.' his writings would have to be orthodox in nature (unless said orthodoxy hadn't been defined to such an extent, yet. in that case more latitude is given). So in my opinion (and I'd need to know which specific writings/quotes so I could read them myself) saying St. Symeon made a disctinction would a hasty assertion.

**8** he's a Saint, of a rather high degree, in the Orthodox Church (the schism hadn't happened yet, i think). if you have anything of a monk in you, or anything of a mystic, you'll love him--the man was a living flame of the Spirit. and like i said, his distinction was nothing like that posited by the modern-day anti-sacramentalists.
i dig what ya said on the sacraments. in my opinion, it all comes down to the Incarnation.
peace in Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey Woman, peace in Christ.
by the by, have ya ever heard that John Lennon song "Woman"? groovy toon.

And a question to anyone. Why is the church referred to as the body of Christ?

**8** the idea is that salvation comes from participation in the being of God, and this is made possible for us by the Son of God becoming human.
to put it somewhat clumsily, by participating in the (actual) flesh of Christ, we're "plugged in" to the Trinity. since we are plugged in, we participate in the Son's sonship. "God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, and we cry Abba! Father!"

Why do some call it his "bride?" (that sounds weird to me)

**7** weird, but the summit of beauty once the idea rises on your soul like the sun.
if ya can, look for Origen's Commentary (or his two Homilies) on _The Song of Songs_. i think the former is available at ccel.org/fathers2.
peace in Christ.

[Sozo]

Yesterday @ 06:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47380#post47380)
Woman:

Sozo:


WOW - for someone who thinks you don't have to "do" anything to be saved, you sure condemn a lot of other people. Why?


I am against religious systems, and heirarchies that yoke their people under condemnation and teach self-righteousness to be acceptable to God.

If you believe that someone is going to hell, what is your solution?
If we are all going to spend eternity with Christ, why share the gospel at all? Is there anyone that you believe needs to hear the truth?

Secondly, we do need to "do" something... we must repent from being an unbeliever, and to accept the death of Christ for our sins, and the resurrection for our salvation. And if someone adds to Christ's provision for us, than they are preaching another gospel and another Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** ummmm--

Today @ 01:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47689#post47689)
Sozo:


I am against religious systems, and heirarchies that yoke their people under condemnation and teach self-righteousness to be acceptable to God.

If you believe that someone is going to hell, what is your solution?
If we are all going to spend eternity with Christ, why share the gospel at all? Is there anyone that you believe needs to hear the truth?

Secondly, we do need to "do" something... we must repent from being an unbeliever, and to accept the death of Christ for our sins, and the resurrection for our salvation. And if someone adds to Christ's provision for us, than they are preaching another gospel and another Christ.

**7** sounds like the beginnings of a "religious system" to me.

[Sozo]

Today @ 11:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47825#post47825)
phantaz sunlyk:

**7** ummmm--



**7** sounds like the beginnings of a "religious system" to me.


Wrong! Religion seeks to reach to God. There is but one gospel, period, and it is not found in 99% of what is pawned off as "Christianity"! Are you saying there are no false religious systems? I am affirming that religion did not die on a cross, and the majority of people who claim to be Christians have a relationship with a false religious system, and not with Christ.

*Button pushed and answered*

[yxboom]

Today @ 10:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47911#post47911)
Sozo:




Wrong! Religion seeks to reach to God. There is but one gospel, period, and it is not found in 99% of what is pawned off as "Christianity"! Are you saying there are no false religious systems? I am affirming that religion did not die on a cross, and the majority of people who claim to be Christians have a relationship with a false religious system, and not with Christ.

*Button pushed and answered*

:yipee: He shoots..............He scores!!! :thumb:

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** say hey--

Wrong! Religion seeks to reach to God.

**8** that's a vague and inaccurate generalization.

There is but one gospel, period, and it is not found in 99% of what is pawned off as "Christianity"!

**7** i take it that you're in the 1% who actually "gets it"? lucky you. and to think that poor St. Augustine and St. Francis never had a real relationship with Christ.

Are you saying there are no false religious systems?

**8** no. i'm saying that Catholicism is not one of them, and that what you seem to be arguing for is probably quite near being one of them.
don't get me wrong--i'm not saying that you aren't a true Christian; i'm saying that your notion of salvation and Church (seems to me, from what i've seen) to be inaccurate.

I am affirming that religion did not die on a cross,

**7** Christ died on the Cross so that man could be united to God. how this union is effected in existential terms is something that needs to be both enacted and explained.
that is religion.

and the majority of people who claim to be Christians have a relationship with a false religious system, and not with Christ.

**7** sounds presumptuous to me; "judge not, lest you be judged ... the measure with which you measure will be measured unto you"--you might consider whether or not adopting a more irenical tone would be more spiritually beneficial.
at any rate, even if true, that says nothing necessarily against this or that "religoius system"--it more likely says that the people in question are abusing it.
can you name one Christian body who believed as you between 100 and 1000 ad?
may the peace of Christ be with you.

[Sozo]

Today @ 02:21 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47969#post47969)
phantaz sunlyk:

There is but one gospel, period, and it is not found in 99% of what is pawned off as "Christianity"!

**7** i take it that you're in the 1% who actually "gets it"? lucky you. and to think that poor St. Augustine and St. Francis never had a real relationship with Christ.



I frankly could care less about Augustine or Francis, God did not choose them to reveal to us the gospel, He chose Paul.

...what you seem to be arguing for is probably quite near being one of them.

You mean faith in Christ apart from works?

Christ died on the Cross so that man could be united to God. how this union is effected in existential terms is something that needs to be both enacted and explained

Still ignoring the resurrection, huh? Is that why you still have Jesus hanging on a cross?

...can you name one Christian body who believed as you between 100 and 1000 ad?

Who cares? Paul taught it, and there were plenty who accepted it, and plenty of "false religious leaders" who didn't. Do you think because people practiced Christianity the same way you do today makes it right? Are the Gnostics right?
The RCC is a cult! They were then, and they are today!

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** peace in Christ, Sozo--

I frankly could care less about Augustine or Francis, God did not choose them to reveal to us the gospel, He chose Paul.

**8** ugh--i don't like disdain for Christian history. hardcore Sola Scriptura?
actually, i think if you read up on St. Francis, you'd rather like him.

You mean faith in Christ apart from works?

**7** there is no such thing.
just me and my faith--ignoring the Incarnation still, eh? out out of physical matter as though it were a burning house, the world of the invisible soul is all that matters...

Still ignoring the resurrection, huh?

**8** not at all. since we are in the condition we are in, however, the seed had to "fall to the ground and die" before He could rise and bear the fruits of eternal life. the two go hand in hand.

Is that why you still have Jesus hanging on a cross?

**7** speaking of which, why don't ya ask John the Apostle why he portrays Christ as a slain Lamb standing on the throne of glory.
he who has not worshiped the dying God has no right to speak for those of us who do. it was on the Cross that Christ's heart (literally) exploded for us; it was on the Cross that this gift was given to us when the Blood and Water poured forth from his side; it was on the Cross, when the New Adam was asleep, that the bride of the Lamb was taken from his side.
it is the Cross that is the bull's-eye of meaning in space and time, for it is the Cross that reveals God.
try praying over John 19, maybe it'll make more sense to you then.

Who cares?

**8** apparently, Christ. he promised that death would not prevail against his Church (at this point, i'm not necessarily arguing that Christ is here referring to the Catholic Church--the point is that a Church was promised to last "even until the end of the world").

Paul taught it, and there were plenty who accepted it, and plenty of "false religious leaders" who didn't

**7** uh huh, uh huh. etc.
if "plenty accepted it", where'd they all go?

Do you think because people practiced Christianity the same way you do today makes it right?

**8** i think i lack a 1500 year hole in my argument, and therefore i am more likely to be right.

Are the Gnostics right?

**7** you tell me; it was Marcion who was the Pauline mono-maniac, and your un-Incarnational theology is far closer to gnosticism than historical Christianity.
and when the gnostics were around, there was a Church there to defend the truth--a Church which has far more in common with my Church than yours.
where were the "faith alone alone alone" believers to put both parties (the gnostics and those of us who believe in the efficacy of sacraments and the visible nature of the Church) in line?

The RCC is a cult! They were then, and they are today!

**8** people who say such "know not what they" say. they weren't around until a few hundred years ago, and they do more harm than good today.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

[Sozo]

Yesterday @ 08:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48087#post48087)
phantaz sunlyk:

hardcore Sola Scriptura?

Where do you think Paul turned to find the message concerning Christ?

"And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures"

"...he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ."

(BTW... only the OT is Scripture)

just me and my faith--ignoring the Incarnation still, eh? out out of physical matter as though it were a burning house, the world of the invisible soul is all that matters...

Catholic rhetoric :no:

not at all. since we are in the condition we are in, however, the seed had to "fall to the ground and die" before He could rise and bear the fruits of eternal life. the two go hand in hand.

...more Catholic rhetoric, and a serious distortion of bible passages.

if "plenty accepted it", where'd they all go?

Most were martyred by the RCC

[phantaz sunlyk]

**8** say hey Sozo, may the peace of Christ be with you--

Where do you think Paul turned to find the message concerning Christ?

**7** the "message" that is Christ fell down upon him from heaven as though a thunderbolt.
neither of the two passages you cite from Acts go anywhere near proving that Paul was a fan, or advocate, of Sola Scriptura. they merely show that Paul, when arguing with Jews, used as a point of departure a ground that was, in their eyes, acceptable.
and likewise, when trying to convert the non-Jewish Athenians, he resorted to natural theology and their writings (Acts 17:18ff).
in sum, Paul was "all things to all people, that" he "might win some for Christ".
and on the side, it would be extremely wrongheaded to imagine that Paul simply sifted the OT and built his doctrine of Christ around it--"to this very day, when the old covenant is read the veil remains unlifted; it is only in Christ that it is taken away. even now, when moses is read a veil covers their understanding." (2 Cor. 3:14f.)
so where did Paul recieve his understanding? first, by a direct revelation from God (Gal. 1:16), and then the Spirit led him to the Apostles (Gal. 2:2), and Paul treated the message of the Apostles like the Word of God (1 Cor. 15:3) and passed the same on himself.
Paul used the OT, but as in the Church, communion with Christ was his hermeneutic for understanding the OT; it is false to say that the OT simply dictated his understanding of Christ.
hence your case seems to me to be quite weak.

(BTW... only the OT is Scripture)

**7** i hope you're simply saying that that was the case when Paul was writing?

Catholic rhetoric
[...]
...more Catholic rhetoric, and a serious distortion of bible passages.

**8** ignorance combined with anti-Catholic mania.

Most were martyred by the RCC

**7** tell me, then, about the few who weren't, and about their doctrine, and about its continuity from 30 ad to the present.

[Sozo]

Today @ 12:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48568#post48568)
phantaz sunlyk:

... it is false to say that the OT simply dictated his understanding of Christ.


No, but it confirmed it.

There is no revelation of truth outside of the Scriptures or the NT letters.

i hope you're simply saying that that was the case when Paul was writing?

No, I am saying that the New Testament is not Scripture.

tell me, then, about the few who weren't, and about their doctrine, and about its continuity from 30 ad to the present

God knows who are His, and organized religion has no relationship to the body of Christ.

[phantaz sunlyk]

**7** yo, Sozo--

No, but it confirmed it.

**8** indirectly. you're looking at the matter somewhat backwardsly--it is Christ who makes sense of the OT, not vice-versa. Christ is the magnetic field, so to speak, which pulls all of the OT together.

There is no revelation of truth outside of the Scriptures or the NT letters.

**7** both of which are secondary to the person of Christ. God has one Word--his Son.
and where, in either, is this claimed?
and do you exclude the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation?
and way to ignore the points about Paul that i brought up.

No, I am saying that the New Testament is not Scripture.

**8** define "Scripture".

God knows who are His,

**7** of course, and judging from this--

and organized religion has no relationship to the body of Christ.

**8** --it would seem that you do to, lucky fellow.
seems to me that you like to throw around vague and insulting claims, and have no love for truth. i'm not going to stoop to your level. if you don't change your m-o, i'm not talking to you anymore.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

[Sozo]

Today @ 03:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48733#post48733)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** define "Scripture".


Let's not confuse the Scriptures from the Word of God.
The Word of God is eternal (John 1), the Scriptures nor the bible, are not.

Now, the message of God is revealed to us in the holy Scriptures, and the New Testament gives us an account of the Word made flesh and the message of the gospel, that is contained in the Scriptures.

Romans 10: 17 literally is saying to us:

So faith comes by hearing the message concerning Christ.

Now, the Scriptures are where Jesus, Paul and the others turned to confirm that Jesus was the fulfillment of all that the Scriptures spoke of concerning Christ. The New Testament is written to affirm, confirm, and convince us that the Scriptures point to Jesus as the Christ and the message concerning Christ. They are reliable witnesses and commentators, but Jesus is the Word of God, not the bible. And the Scriptures reveal that to us.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Corinthians 2:13: 13: This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This speaks to the fact that the truth of the Scriptures were revealed to them through the Holy Spirit and has guided them into all truth regarding the message concerning Christ. This is why the New Testament is reliable.

It may be semantical, but I am just trying to present the true delineation of the Word of God, the Scriptures, and the Bible. They are often spoke of as the same thing, and they are not, even though they work together to bring us the message concerning Christ.

The Word should be exalted!
The Scriptures revered!
The Bible used!

When we read the New Testament, they proclaim the Scriptures and the Word is exalted!

[Dave]

Yesterday @ 12:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47561#post47561)
phantaz sunlyk:

**8** say hey Dave, peace in Christ. i take it you're Catholic? if so, hallo bro!

>hello my brother in the Sacraments!

I suppose I should make a distinction in my word usage. When I say 'the history of the Church', I'm typically talking about the first 4-500 years

**7** ah, gotcha. i'm just starting to spread out into the later days meself. i didn't think i'd like it, but its a goldmine. my new hero is St. Bonaventure.

In fact, I usually quote no farther than the Apostolic Fathers

**8** my guess would be that this gives hardcore anti-Catholics all kinds of trouble (Clement's straightforward attestation to apostolic succesion and talk of the Eucharist as a 'sacrifice'; Ignatius' insistence on the real presence and the Bishop--grounded in the Incarnation; the martyrdom of Polycarp in a Eucharistic-Liturgical frame, etc.).

>yup.

So if you are saying that he made a distinction between water baptism and spirit baptism (together constituting baptismal regeneration), then I would have to disagree.

**7** i don't think he'd toss up a dichotomy the way modern-day anti-sacramentalists do. i think he'd rather put it as 'the necessary continuation of what baptism was in your daily life'. baptism in the Spirit was a quite frequent thing for him. he wasn't saying "the water baptism is merely a symbol", but rather, "you aren't save just because you went through the ritual...".

>well, I would agree to a point. But perhaps it is my own limited >understanding (being a hobby theologist). If that is his views it >would seem to imply that infant baptism is invalid (b/c infants >don't have faith). But we both know that baptism is the >entrance into Covenant with God. And in OT times that was >done to infant boys and the parents answered for them. Now is >baptism a guarantee? Not entirely. We are all still called to run >the good race.
>But as far as baptism being a part of our everyday lifes (and >once baptized we have no excuse to sin as some are wont to >teach), I agree totally. Each day should be a further turning >towards God and a further turning from a selfish life.

In order to have the designation 'St.' his writings would have to be orthodox in nature (unless said orthodoxy hadn't been defined to such an extent, yet. in that case more latitude is given). So in my opinion (and I'd need to know which specific writings/quotes so I could read them myself) saying St. Symeon made a disctinction would a hasty assertion.

**8** he's a Saint, of a rather high degree, in the Orthodox Church (the schism hadn't happened yet, i think). if you have anything of a monk in you, or anything of a mystic, you'll love him--the man was a living flame of the Spirit. and like i said, his distinction was nothing like that posited by the modern-day anti-sacramentalists.
i dig what ya said on the sacraments. in my opinion, it all comes down to the Incarnation.
peace in Christ.

Okay, I feel relieved knowing where he draws the line. It continually amazes me that God didn't just decide to declare mankind forgiven, but that he rather decided to become Emmanuel, and involve humanity in an intimate way in his plan of salvation.

Peace,
Dave

[darcutm]

Catholics like all chrisitians must first make a personal choice to accept Christ as Savior and Lord of their life...It doesn't matter whether Catholic or Protestant, Baptist or Pentecostal, or anything else, you have to choose that for yourself...There are people going to every kind of church every where doing flaky idolotrous things. Going to a church doesn't save you and doesn't necessarily damn you. The choice is that of the individual....

[Joe Gofish]

Lets not forget some of the most explicit:

Calling oneself a "Lutheran" and "Calvinist", etc

Is there any better example of "traditions of men" than naming your belief after a MAN? 1600 years removed from Christ?

Errors like those are God's way of clearly and fully exposing such false teachers.

[Pilgrim]

Lets not forget some of the most explicit:

Calling oneself a "Lutheran" and "Calvinist", etc

Is there any better example of "traditions of men" than naming your belief after a MAN? 1600 years removed from Christ?

Errors like those are God's way of clearly and fully exposing such false teachers.
Errors like which?

[Jezz]

Errors like which?
Like having your church named after a man (other than Christ), which is an error in itself. This is historically the way many heretical/schismatic groups have been distinguished from the Orthodox ones - Arians, Nestorians, Donatists, Novatians, Mohammedeans, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc, etc.

[Joe Gofish]

Will you please show me from the Bible that Mary gave birth to other children

[Pilgrim]

That's really funny. I mean, don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches,(I spend a week every year in silent retreat at Jesuit retreat house afterall) but those are simply names given by men describing human ideas too. Unless you are seriously arguing that naming a church Greek or Roman or Russian, is somehow different that describing a theology by the name of the person who first taught it?

BTW, there is no "Church of Calvin" but there is Calvinism. It's descriptive. I think you're just getting caught up in the same sort of semantic bull crap that Jude 3b gets all caught up in and it does serious damage to the body of Christ as a whole.

FWIW, Presbyterianism comes fro the greek word "presbuteros" which means elder. It is so named because our system of church organization and government is founded on the concept of the rule of elders.

[Jezz]

That's really funny. I mean, don't get me wrong, I have great respect for Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, (I spend a week every year in silent retreat at Jesuit retreat house afterall)
Haha. You say you have great respect but you are laughing at our belief? I don't quite see how you can reconcile these two statements...

...but those are simply names given by men describing human ideas too.
Whether or not they are human ideas is besides the point. Christ and the Apostles had ideas, and they are human. What matters is whether they are correct or incorrect.

So the question you need to ask yourself is: Did Christ found a heterodox Church, or an orthodox one?

Unless you are seriously arguing that naming a church Greek or Roman or Russian, is somehow different that describing a theology by the name of the person who first taught it?
Of course it is! "Greek" or "Roman" or "Russian" doesn't describe the belief of those churches - it describes its geography and/or its language.

Of course, you give the game away with the statement "describing a theology by the name of the person who first taught it" (emphasis added)... this is precisely the point. The fact that you have to distinguish the belief by referring to the person who first taught it indicates that the first person to teach them was not Christ or His Apostles - which means that the belief is neither Christian nor Apostolic.

BTW, there is no "Church of Calvin" but there is Calvinism.
Ok. Let me modify my statement then:

"Like having your church belief named after a man (other than Christ), which is an error in itself."

The substance of what I am saying remains unchanged.

It's descriptive.
Yes. It describes the heresy.

I think you're just getting caught up in the same sort of semantic bull crap that Jude 3b gets all caught up in and it does serious damage to the body of Christ as a whole.
:rofl: Likening me to Jude 3b is almost the TWeb equivalent of the "Hitler clause"...

This is not "semantic bull crap", as you put it. In fact, it is precisely the opposite - it aims to cut through the semantic bull crap and speak frankly. As you yourself implicitly note, Calvinism is named after the person who first taught it. If Calvin was the first person to teach it, then it means that Christ and the Apostles were not. Which means that the beliefs are neither Christian nor Apostolic.

FWIW, Presbyterianism comes fro the greek word "presbuteros" which means elder. It is so named because our system of church organization and government is founded on the concept of the rule of elders.
Of course. This was a second common method to identify heretical groups/beliefs - instead of naming them after their earliers proponents, they name them after their most prominent heretical belief. Example:

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means knowledge/science. It is so named because they believed that you need special knowledge to get into the afterlife.

Docetism comes from the Greek word "dokeo" which means "to seem". It is so named because they believe that Christ didn't really suffer on the cross - He only seemed to.

Monophysitism comes from the Greek words "monos" which means "one" and "physis" which means "nature". It is so named because they believed that Christ had only one nature.

Papism comes from the Latin "papa" which means father/pope. It is so named because they believed that the Pope was head of the whole Church.

In the meantime, there remains no name for Orthodox belief, other than Orthodox. Curious, huh? How do you suppose we managed that, without God's providence?

[Jeannot]

Haha. You say you have great respect but you are laughing at our belief? I don't quite see how you can reconcile these two statements...


Whether or not they are human ideas is besides the point. Christ and the Apostles had ideas, and they are human. What matters is whether they are correct or incorrect.

So the question you need to ask yourself is: Did Christ found a heterodox Church, or an orthodox one?


Of course it is! "Greek" or "Roman" or "Russian" doesn't describe the belief of those churches - it describes its geography and/or its language.

Of course, you give the game away with the statement "describing a theology by the name of the person who first taught it" (emphasis added)... this is precisely the point. The fact that you have to distinguish the belief by referring to the person who first taught it indicates that the first person to teach them was not Christ or His Apostles - which means that the belief is neither Christian nor Apostolic.


Ok. Let me modify my statement then:

"Like having your church belief named after a man (other than Christ), which is an error in itself."

The substance of what I am saying remains unchanged.


Yes. It describes the heresy.


:rofl: Likening me to Jude 3b is almost the TWeb equivalent of the "Hitler clause"...

This is not "semantic bull crap", as you put it. In fact, it is precisely the opposite - it aims to cut through the semantic bull crap and speak frankly. As you yourself implicitly note, Calvinism is named after the person who first taught it. If Calvin was the first person to teach it, then it means that Christ and the Apostles were not. Which means that the beliefs are neither Christian nor Apostolic.


Of course. This was a second common method to identify heretical groups/beliefs - instead of naming them after their earliers proponents, they name them after their most prominent heretical belief. Example:

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means knowledge/science. It is so named because they believed that you need special knowledge to get into the afterlife.

Docetism comes from the Greek word "dokeo" which means "to seem". It is so named because they believe that Christ didn't really suffer on the cross - He only seemed to.

Monophysitism comes from the Greek words "monos" which means "one" and "physis" which means "nature". It is so named because they believed that Christ had only one nature.

Papism comes from the Latin "papa" which means father/pope. It is so named because they believed that the Pope was head of the whole Church.

In the meantime, there remains no name for Orthodox belief, other than Orthodox. Curious, huh? How do you suppose we managed that, without God's providence?
Back in the 16th century, it was customary to name denominations after their system of church gov't. Thus, Papism meant rule by one man, the Pope. Episcopalianism meant rule by bishops (episcopoi). Presbyterianism meant rule by elders (or priests). Congretationalsim meant that the congregation had the power and could vote preachers out--as was done to Jonahan Edwards in 1750.

Quakers went one step further and had no preachers.

[maudman]

The Catholic Church has grown to accept tradition that does not agree with scripture. If it was the model of Orthodoxy, then it would be wrong! For example, Mary didn't REMAIN a virgin the rest of her life. She had little children who grew up around brother Jesus. I don't accept the Catholic Church's over emphasis on idols and crosses with models of Jesus on them.

Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

What are those little graven images under your name? Do they say something about you? Maybe more than you care to tell.

[Pilgrim]

Back in the 16th century, it was customary to name denominations after their system of church gov't. Thus, Papism meant rule by one man, the Pope. Episcopalianism meant rule by bishops (episcopoi). Presbyterianism meant rule by elders (or priests). Congretationalsim meant that the congregation had the power and could vote preachers out--as was done to Jonahan Edwards in 1750.

Quakers went one step further and had no preachers.
In regards to Presbyterian, it has nothing to do with being ruled by priests. Priests does not equal elders as you suggest. It comes from the greek presbyteros which means elders. Nothing more. It is meant to be a democratic system of church government adhearing to the "priesthood of all believers."

[sonofyah]

What do you think?

truthman

One word for you, "PAGAN" (see Bishop Damasus)

[Jeannot]

In regards to Presbyterian, it has nothing to do with being ruled by priests. Priests does not equal elders as you suggest. It comes from the greek presbyteros which means elders. Nothing more. It is meant to be a democratic system of church government adhearing to the "priesthood of all believers."
"Presbyteroi" can be translated either "priests" or "elders."

I admit I'm a little fuzzy on Presby church governance, but understand that 1) they have no bishops, and 2) are governed by synods of elders??

In having no bishops, they differentiated themselves from the Episcopalians, who did (episcopoi = overseer, or bishop).

In general, there was a movement to more democratic church governance, with the Congregationalists going beyond the Presbys. But the Quakers went one step further.