Pages

Saturday, September 19, 2009

How alone is faith alone?

I'm waiting until Candy has doled out a few more installments in The Birth of Both Churches to add comments. As Elena has mentioned, if you really can't wait, we've written about it plenty already.

I did want to talk a bit about what Candy wrote in the comments section, because it ties into a point we have made repeatedly here at VTC. I'll reproduce Candy's comments in their entirety so that they will be preserved, in case we need them again in the future.

Marie asks: Interesting, but there is something I don't understand. As long as you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and the only way to the Father, does it matter what rituals/practices you follow? Why do the origins matter at all? Isn't this just form over substance?

Candy replies:
Marie, that is a fabulous question. Yes, it matters very much to God. You see, Solomon conitnued to believe in Jehovah, but he also ~added~ practices, such as rituals that were used for Baal, Molech, and Milcom worship.

Solomon still believed in Jehovah, but he was including practices that weren't of Jehovah into his religious zeal. The Bible tells us how severely God disproved of it. This led to Solormon's son ripping apart Israel, and it led to the division of 12 tribes into the House of Israel and the House of Judah, and these two houses faught against each other for YEARS, up until the captivity.

Sincereity will never save us. Faith in Christ, and in Him ALONE is what saves us. If one is practicing non-biblical traditions, rites, and rituals, then they are practicing Jesus AND... And even if they are sincere in that practice, they are sincerely wrong, and damned, because God's Word is right there in front of them, but they refused to read and believe it. They chose man's word over God's Word. We are saved by Faith in Christ alone, and NOTHING else.

God gave us the Holy Bible so that we could read it and know how HE wants us to worship Him.

How horrible it is, when people choose to ~not~ read the Bible, but instead follow what man teaches them.

For example, what if you had to leave your children, but you left them a letter that you wrote from your heart. What if your kids didn't bother reading your letter, and they appeared to revere what their friends said about you, instead of reading the letter YOU left them? Wouldn't that just break your heart?

That was a weak example, but hopefully it makes my point clear.

FAITH in Christ means that we live the way Christ wants us to. Christ told us how He wants us to live - in the Bible. Christ specifically spoke out against traditions of men, and He clearly abhorred them.

Friend, we are in a serious famine of the Word of God. I can't think of more than a handful of Christians that I know IRL who have read the Bible! :-(

Shame on us for not seeking God and His Word. Shame on us for following man instead of God.

We need to repent of this, and turn to the Heavenly Father.
She then writes a follow-up comment:

Marie, I'm glad my example was clear.

Yes, we all make mistakes, and that's why God gave us 1 John 1:9. However, the Christian walk also includes growth and spirutual education. This means what when a Christian finds they were doing a practice that is not biblical, they need to stop.

If a Chrsitian was doing a practice they completely, 100%, honestly thought was biblical, but it was not, then that sin will not be imputed to them, ~if~ they are a saved person. It is only imputed to that person as sin, if they find out what they were doing was at enmity with the Word of God, but they continue to follow that ritual anyhow:

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17

Also, don't fall for the Interpretation Game. The Bible is very clear, if we just READ it for ~ourselves~ and not let our mind get cluttered by critics who have twisted the Word and therefore confuse us.

For example, what's hard to understand about the Scripture I just quoted? Does it not say, as clear as the nose on our face, that if one knows to do good, but doesn't do so, then they are sinning?

Yet, a textual critic can twist that little Scripture around to mean a myriad of fables. If you take the Word of God at ~face value~ and just read it for what it says, then you'll see there are no "interpretations" needed. This is why God gives us this beautiful promise:

"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." -Pslam 119:105

How can the Bible guide us, if we can't understand it? LOL

PS - There are some deep meanings in the Scriptures that one won't understand when they first read the Bible. Yet God promises us that if we seek, we will find. Every time I re-read the Bible, I learn more than I did the previous time. It is the Word of God. No one can ever know all of the lessons of the Word, because to our finite minds the Word is infinite. Yet - it never contradicts.
Finally (as of right now) she writes:

Kind of... The basic gist is that if one seeks God - truly Seeks Him, then they will find Jesus Christ and get saved. As a baby Christian, they will still be learning about how God wants to lead them. God will help them grow and learn. The main way a Christian gains knowledge is via the Bible.

If a Christian brother or sister sees their fellow Christian go astray, then the Word says that it's that person's job to tell their friend, to help them get back on track.

Yet, we should be like the Bereans, and test ~everything~ with the Word of God.

If someone tells you that you need to pray to Mary, for example, then search the Scriptures first. You'll find that prayer to anyone except God is something God hates. Therefore, with the knowledge that you are NOT supposed to pray to Mary - if you do so anyway, then you are sinning against God.

On the other hand, if you were raised Catholic, for example, and then a friend led you to Christ, but you continue practicing Cathlic rituals, it is not sin if you continue to seek God, and as soon as you learn (which you will, if you seek) that all of those rituals are not biblical, you should choose to follow God, not man.

Candy has some major contradictions going on here. First, she says that sincerity will not save you. She and Erik have said this many times before. If you are Catholic, but not saved, then you will go to hell. However, if you are somehow a saved Catholic but are still attending Mass and doing other Catholic abominations then that is okay, because you don't know it is wrong.

If you sincerely think you are a Christian, then it doesn't count. If you are a Christian, but sincerely don't understand what it takes to be a Christian, then that's okay. Until you learn that it isn't okay, and then it's not. If you don't know because you refuse to read the Bible, then that's bad, but if you don't know because you haven't yet read the Bible, then that okay, but who knows for how long until it counts as refusing to read the Bible. Clear as mud?

The other, bigger issue, is that Candy feels Catholic practices indicate a belief that we are saved by faith AND (Mass, praying to saints, sacrificing babies to Molech, and other Catholic doctrines) rather than by faith ALONE.

Candy has written previously: You are saved (not "being saved") by faith, not by Mary, rites, Eucharist, mass, works ("good deeds"), rituals, or traditions. Jesus hates the traditions of the Roman Catholic church. We know this because of how much He hated the traditions of the religious people who were around at His time on this earth, the Pharisees.

As I've said before, if being saved means believing that we are saved though God's grace, through our faith in Jesus Christ, as is manifest by our works, then Candy need not fear for the salvation of Catholics. However, if being saved means believing that PLUS rejecting the Catholic Church, then it isn't really being saved by faith ALONE, is it?

Let us look at some of Candy's criteria for being really saved. Because you can claim to be saved, but there are indications if you are not REALLY saved.

Candy's list of what you need to attain salvation:
  1. Pray the Sinner's Prayer.
  2. Produce good works automatically.
  3. Have a "feeling" of assurance of salvation.
  4. Will study Bible intensively every day, reading a King James Bible from front to back.
  5. Have feelings of revulsion towards ungodly parts of your previous life (i.e., nauseated when you listen to rock music.)
  6. Will reject the Catholic Church. If you do not "come out of her" then you are not really saved.
That is a lot of faith AND. In order to REALLY be a Christian, you must have faith in Jesus AND really feel saved, and reject the Catholic Church, and read the Bible, and and and . . . .

The problem that I see in all of this, is that most of it relies on interior motivation. What is the difference between a Christian automatically producing good works in order to store of crowns in Heaven, and an unsaved Catholic doing good works allegedly in order to earn their salvation? You can't tell by looking at two women ladling out soup in the soup kitchen which is the true Christian.

Similarly, how can we tell by looking at Candy that she isn't trying to earn her salvation by wearing only flowing dresses, studying her Bible, homeschooling her children, not allowing her children to participate in Children's Church, preparing healthy meals for her family (listed on a video as what a Christian homemaker does), and trying to pass out tracts? She assures us that she is not being legalistic, because she does not do these things in order to earn her salvation, but because she is a Christian.

Candy always assumes the worst of Catholics. They must be going to Mass in order to be saved. They must be doing good works in order to be saved. But we aren't. We believe we are saved by God's grace. We do these "rituals" because we believe they bring us closer to God, because we are led to do them by the Holy Spirit, and because we are trying to be obedient to God.

Sincerity won't save us. But God's grace will.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

92 comments:

Kelly said...

Going to be out most of this evening, so I'm subbing for comments. Hopefully, everyone else will be out enjoying this beautiful day, too!

just evelyn said...

Oh, my. If my parents (or whoever) died, and left me an extensive collection of letters, I would be thrilled to read them. But at the very same time, I would absolutely treasure time spent with people who knew my parents and could tell me about them! And my parents' friends would think I was Really Weird if I insisted on only reading the letters and ignoring the friends. Especially if the friends told me something not mentioned in the letters, and I told them that not only were they obviously wrong, but they probably didn't even know my parents! Because everything my parents wanted me to know about them was obviously in the letters.

This reminds me of Candy's take on repetitive prayer, where she talks about how annoying it is to hear a child say "I love you!" over and over again. My perspective is 180 degrees from hers on both issues.

Elena said...

This is rather timely. I actually found a bunch of letters written by my grandmother to my mother, and I have been posting them once a week on my other blog. They actually have brought up a lot more questions.

Jesus didn't leave us the bible - he left us the apostles and the church and a way for the apostles to pass on all that they learned to future generations. Candy's assertion isn't historically or even biblically correct!

Paul said...

Elena wrote:
"Jesus didn't leave us the bible - he left us the apostles and the church and a way for the apostles to pass on all that they learned to future generations."
---------------------
Irenaeus:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

New Advent

Paul said...

Elena wrote:
"Jesus didn't leave us the bible - he left us the apostles and the church and a way for the apostles to pass on all that they learned to future generations."
---------------------
"Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible."

Augustine:

"God has been pleased to put in the Scriptures, against which no man dares to speak, who in any sort wishes to seem a Christian), when He had given Himself to be handled by them, that did not suffice Him, but He would also confirm by means of the Scriptures the heart of them that believe:for He looked forward to us who should be afterwards; seeing that in Him we have nothing that we can handle, but have that which we may read. For if those believed only because they held and handled, what shall we do? Now, Christ is ascended into heaven; He is not to come save at the end, to judge the quick and the dead. Whereby shall we believe, but by that whereby it was His will that even those who handled Him should be confirmed? For He opened to them the Scriptures and showed them that it behooved Christ to suffer, and that all things should be fulfilled which were written of Him in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the Psalms. He embraced in His discourse the whole ancient text of the Scriptures. All that there is of those former Scriptures tells of Christ; but only if it find ears. He also "opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures." Whence we also must pray for this, that He would open our understanding.

New Advent

Kelly said...

Glad to see the ECFs agree with Elena's point that Jesus did not write the NT physically himself. Do you disagree?

This thread is for the discussion of the fine line between faith and works. I will delete comments dwelling on the EFC quotes.

Why do you assume Catholics are trying to earn salvation?
How can you judge interior motivation?

Paul said...

"Glad to see the ECFs agree with Elena's point that Jesus did not write the NT physically himself. Do you disagree?"

I agree that Jesus did not "physically" write the NT. However since all Scripture is Theopneustos then in fact Jesus is the primary source of every jot/tittle.

"This thread is for the discussion of the fine line between faith and works. I will delete comments dwelling on the EFC quotes."

Does this include deleting ECF quotes regarding "the fine line between faith and works" also?

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly wrote:

"Why do you assume Catholics are trying to earn salvation?
How can you judge interior motivation?"
-----------------------------------

No one can correctly judge interior motive except God. God is the only true Judge of the state of a person's soul. Man judges the externals but God judges the heart. With that said, people can only judge Catholic interpretation of faith and works based upon Catholic writings/Cathecism. It is these interpretations that may put Catholics at odds with Prostestants. Personally, I think it is irrevelant whether a person is doing good works to be more Christ-like or 'automatically.' A real Christian will WANT to do good works, even if doing good works requires some self-sacrifice, and inconveniences, in other words, is not automatic.

Kelly, please provide some Catholic texts so we can see where the differences in interpretation lies.

Peace.

Kelly said...

I agree that Jesus did not "physically" write the NT. However since all Scripture is Theopneustos then in fact Jesus is the primary source of every jot/tittle.

Elena was pointing out that Candy's metaphor was flawed, because rather than writing a "letter" Himself, Christ told his "friends" what to write. The Catholic Church agrees that the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.

Does this include deleting ECF quotes regarding "the fine line between faith and works" also?

Paul, I want to hear what *you* think, not read large blocks of cut-and-paste text. When you first came here, there was actual discussion. Now, not so much.

I am personally not so interested in the sort of cutthroat debate where we try to prove the other person is damned to Hell. I like discussion. I really appreciate our Lutheran contingent of commenters for that reason. I feel they add a lot to discussion, but we can agree to disagree.

Please tell me what Paul thinks about the post that I wrote. Not Augustine. And not about a tiny part of Elena's comment.

Kelly said...

A real Christian will WANT to do good works, even if doing good works requires some self-sacrifice, and inconveniences, in other words, is not automatic.

I agree with this. In my neck of the woods, I run into a lot of "saved" Christians who feel that they can do whatever they want to in their life and it doesn't matter because they have made a public profession of faith.

On the other hand, the idea that all one needs to do to go to Heaven is "be a good person" is also pervasive in our society, among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Faith without works is dead. If you have a true faith, then you will want to read the Bible, and model Christ though your life.

Kelly, please provide some Catholic texts so we can see where the differences in interpretation lies.

In my next comment, I will provide some excepts from the Catechism, our statement of faith, for discussion. I don't mind if you contribute Bible verses, but please refrain from wandering off on the EFCs, the Council of Trent, etc.

Kelly said...

From the Catholic Catechism #2001: The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"

#1697: Catechesis has to reveal in all clarity the joy and the demands of the way of Christ. Catechesis for the "newness of life" in him should be:

- a catechesis of the Holy Spirit, the interior Master of life according to Christ, a gentle guest and friend who inspires, guides, corrects, and strengthens this life;

- a catechesis of grace, for it is by grace that we are saved and again it is by grace that our works can bear fruit for eternal life;

- a catechesis of the beatitudes, for the way of Christ is summed up in the beatitudes, the only path that leads to the eternal beatitude for which the human heart longs;

- a catechesis of sin and forgiveness, for unless man acknowledges that he is a sinner he cannot know the truth about himself, which is a condition for acting justly; and without the offer of forgiveness he would not be able to bear this truth;

- a catechesis of the human virtues which causes one to grasp the beauty and attraction of right dispositions towards goodness;

- a catechesis of the Christian virtues of faith, hope, and charity, generously inspired by the example of the saints;

- a catechesis of the twofold commandment of charity set forth in the Decalogue;

- an ecclesial catechesis, for it is through the manifold exchanges of "spiritual goods" in the "communion of saints" that Christian life can grow, develop, and be communicated.

#161: Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"

#169: Salvation comes from God alone

#183: "Faith is necessary for salvation. The Lord himself affirms: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned" (Mk 16:16)."

#1544: Everything that the priesthood of the Old Covenant prefigured finds its fulfillment in Christ Jesus, the "one mediator between God and men." The Christian tradition considers Melchizedek, "priest of God Most High," as a prefiguration of the priesthood of Christ, the unique "high priest after the order of Melchizedek"; "holy, blameless, unstained," "by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified," that is, by the unique sacrifice of the cross.

#1741: Liberation and salvation. By his glorious Cross Christ has won salvation for all men. He redeemed them from the sin that held them in bondage. "For freedom Christ has set us free." In him we have communion with the "truth that makes us free." The Holy Spirit has been given to us and, as the Apostle teaches, "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." Already we glory in the "liberty of the children of God."

#620: Our salvation flows from God's initiative of love for us, because "he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:10). "God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19).

Elena said...

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith."

Thank you for making MY point Paul. As Jesus ascended into heaven the leather bound, gold gilded pages of the King James Bible did not plop to the ground from out of the heavens! It was all handed down, compiled and eventually canonized and closed by the Catholic church - and it remained in that format until the Protestant Reformation.

Paul said...

Kelly,
I apologize for trying to demolish the discussion. I will attempt to interact with your posts.

"The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"

This is a great place to start.
Luther in writing to Erasmus praised him for seeing the very heart of their disagreement. Monergism vs. Synergism.
(SueBee may deny this or disagree with it.)
The Reformers and the R.C's never disagreed with the necessity of Grace. The disagreement was in the sufficiency of Grace. Was Grace Operative or was Grace Co-Operative?

Paul said...

Elena wrote:
"It was all handed down, compiled and eventually canonized and closed by the Catholic church - and it remained in that format until the Protestant Reformation."

And when did "it" get canonized?

Elena said...

My perspective is a little different than Kelly's. Maybe it's because of our age difference and my different time of life, but I really am not interested in deep theological discussions right now on this blog.

I guess I am more in a teacher mode as in "This is what the Catholic Church teaches- any questions?" Just as I teach my child "this is how we do long division and get a remainder - any questions?"

So maybe that makes Kelly and me a good match right now? At least it makes this blog a bit more well rounded.

Elena said...

Oh Paul, surely a student of church history such as yourself already knows the answer to that one!!

Kelly said...

My understanding is that Catholics consider themselves monergistic, but non-Catholics often consider Catholics synergistic.

Certainly, Pelagianism was condemned by the Council of Orange.

Paul said...

Kelly,
My friend Turretinfan recently described the following regarding Monergism vs. Synergism:

Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace;
2. The necessity of initial grace; and
3. The general necessity of grace.

Semi-Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace; and
2. The necessity of initial grace.

Semi-semi-Pelagianism Denies:

1. The sufficiency of grace.

In contrast,

We (the Reformed) view each of these positions as deficient. By affirming sola gratia, we affirm the general necessity of grace, the necessity of initial grace, and the sufficiency of grace.

Paul said...

B. B. Warfield described the infiltration of Pelagian error in partial form this way:

But, as we have been told that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, so the Church soon found that religion itself can be retained only at the cost of perpetual struggle. Pelagianism died hard; or rather it did not die at all, but only retired more or less out of sight and bided its time; meanwhile vexing the Church with modified forms of itself, modified just enough to escape the letter of the Church's condemnation. Into the place of Pelagianism there stepped at once Semi-pelagianism; and when the controversy with Semi-pelagianism had been fought and won, into the place of Semi-pelagianism there stepped that semi-semi-pelagianism which the Council of Orange betrayed the Church into, the genius of an Aquinas systematized for her, and the Council of Trent finally fastened with rivets of iron upon that portion of the Church which obeyed it. The necessity of grace had been acknowledged as the result of the Pelagian controversy: its preveniency, as the result of the Semi-pelagian controversy: but its certain efficacy, its "irresistibility" men call it, was by the fatal compromise of Orange denied, and thus the conquering march of Augustinianism was checked and the pure confession of salvation by grace alone made forever impossible within that section of the Church whose proud boast is that it is semper eadem. It was no longer legally possible, indeed, within the limits of the Church to ascribe to man, with the Pelagian, the whole of salvation; nor even, with the Semi-pelagian, the initiation of salvation. But neither was it any longer legally possible to ascribe salvation so entirely to the grace of God that it could complete itself without the aid of the discredited human will—its aid only as empowered and moved by prevenient grace indeed, but not effectually moved, so that it could not hold back and defeat the operations of saving grace.

The Plan of Salvation, Autosoterism, pp. 41-42

Warfield

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly,

Thanks from the posts from the Cathecism. What you have posted so far, I find no fault. Everything is Biblically correct. So, what is the source of conflict? Surely there must be other things in the Cathecism that are considered controversial?

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Elena wrote:

"Thank you for making MY point Paul. As Jesus ascended into heaven the leather bound, gold gilded pages of the King James Bible did not plop to the ground from out of the heavens! It was all handed down, compiled and eventually canonized and closed by the Catholic church - and it remained in that format until the Protestant Reformation."
----------------------------------

Elena, I am curious as to why you insist on saying that the Bible was canonized by the Catholic church. I know the word 'catholic' is sometimes used to mean 'worldwide' but in today's usage, that word specifically relates to the Roman Catholic Church. I prefer to use the word 'Christian' instead of 'Catholic' because the word Christian includes the broad spectrum of Christ followers, not just those from the Roman Church. In addition, historically speaking, there were no 'Catholics' around when the Old Testament was cannonized, and when the New Testament was being written/cannonized. The Old Testament was cannonized by the Jews. The New Testament was cannonized by the early Christians, who by the way were Jewish and Gentile converts to that new sect of Judaiasm called Christianity.

Yes, Christianity is Judaism. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled, in the person of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, no Catholics around. At least not yet.

Peace.

Elena said...

Canonize:

1. To declare (a deceased person) to be a saint and entitled to be fully honored as such.
2. To include in the biblical canon.
3. To include in a literary canon.
4. To approve as being within canon law.
5. To treat as sacred; glorify.

Elena said...

Yes, Christianity is Judaism. Christianity is Judaism fulfilled, in the person of Jesus Christ.

Sorry, no Catholics around. At least not yet


Sorry but the only Christians at the time were CATHOLIC. They certainly weren't protestants!

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Elena wrote:

"Sorry but the only Christians at the time were CATHOLIC. They certainly weren't protestants!"

---------------------------------

Why the problem with Prostestants? Diversity of views has always been present within the Christian church. Nothing new. Members of the early church were not known as Catholics, they were called Christians. Diversification into different sects came later. The 'Catholics' were greatly assisted by the Roman empire in the development of the Roman Catholic religion.

Peace.

Elena said...

Members of the early church were not known as Catholics, they were called Christians.

In practice and belief they were Catholic. And you have a bible because of them.

Paul said...

Elena wrote:
"In practice and belief they were Catholic. And you have a bible because of them."
-------------
Ignatius of Antioch fist used the term katholikos in describing the church. He knew nothing of the ever-evolving gospel of Rome.
We have a Bible because God accomplished his will in exactly the manner and method that he ordained before the foundations of the world.

Elena said...

We have a Bible because God accomplished his will in exactly the manner and method that he ordained before the foundations of the world

We don't deny that. I'm simply saying that God's will was accomplished through the Catholic Church - a point of history that is just factual. You don't even have to like the Catholic church to admit it's role in the development of sacred scripture

Barbara C. said...

DOW,

The thing is there was one main Christian Church. Almost all off-shoots were condemned as heretics. This was until 1054 when the Christian Church split into East and West. The East came to be called the Orthodox Church; the west came to be called the Catholic church.

Objectively depending on which side you come down on, one of the two is the authentic continuation of the Christian Church of the first 1000 years. And no matter what side you pick, they have much more in common with each other in belief and practice than they do with the majority of Protestant denominations that split off of the Catholic church 600+ years later.

So, since Elena (and I and Kelly) believe the Western Church was/is the correct one, Elena is very correct in saying that the early Christian Church was the Catholic Church. (Although objectively, the Orthodox could claim the same.)

Paul said...

"We don't deny that. I'm simply saying that God's will was accomplished through the Catholic Church - a point of history that is just factual. You don't even have to like the Catholic church to admit it's role in the development of sacred scripture"

-------------
Like the catholic church? Actually I love the catholic church. It's the Roman church that I have a problem with.

What role did the catholic church play in the development of Scripture?

It was the people of God who, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, hunger and thirst for the Word of God, and are the ones for whom the Scriptures were given for instruction and encouragement. In other words, the work of the Spirit was “bottom up,” not “top down.” That is, it was the people of God, gathered in worship and service to Christ, who received, passively, from the hand of God by His Spirit, a functioning, sufficient knowledge of the canon. This led then to the outward, official recognition on the part of the ecclesiastical structures of later church history. But the order is important to observe. When Athanasius wrote his 39th Festal Letter in A.D. 367 and listed the same New Testament canon we use today, and the Protestant canon of the Old Testament (with the only exception being the Greek additions to canonical books found in the Apocrypha), he was not “creating” the canon nor the knowledge of it. He was reflecting, as a bishop, the work the Spirit had already been accomplishing for nearly three centuries.

Elena said...

blink blink blink blank stare


I don't need obtuse

I've got teenagers


He's all yours Kelly.

Dr MikeyMike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr MikeyMike said...

Ignatius of Antioch fist used the term katholikos in describing the church. He knew nothing of the ever-evolving gospel of Rome.

Interesting, considering he was martyred in the Colosseum. He was Bishop of Antioch and was reported by Theodoret to have been installed to the position by St.Peter himself.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Barbara C,

Unfortunately, some of the so-called 'heretics' were true believers who were persecuted for their faith. The Roman Church had taken it upon herself to judge and condemn conscience, which is not a perogative of men, but of God. The Bible spoke of a time when the "horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them" (Daniel 7:21). This was describing a time when the true believers of the church were persecuted severely Rome, which dominated them. The persecution of Christians actually began in the 1st Century, and for 3 Centuries it was illegal to be Christian. Constantine then legalized Christianity, after his conversion to Christianity. Constantine then adopted Christianity as the new state religion of the Rome empire, and proceeded to persecute dissenters to his style of Christianity. In Constantine, we see the early seeds of the development of what would become the Roman Catholic Church. A union of church and state.

Thank God those days are over, at least for now. The time is coming however, when persecution against Christians will rise again, when church will unite with state to force their brand of religion on the masses.


Peace.

Paul said...

"Interesting, considering he was martyred in the Colosseum. He was Bishop of Antioch and was reported by Theodoret to have been installed to the position by St.Peter himself."
------------
It's also interesting that Theodoret disagreed with the Vatican I claim of unanimous consent regarding the interpretation of Matt. 16:18. Also, what Theoderet and others believed about Peter's ministry in Antioch may have been influenced by pseudo-clementine.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Unfortunately, some of the so-called 'heretics' were true believers who were persecuted for their faith.

Can you give some examples of which groups you are talking about, please? The reason I ask is because many heretical groups that are sometimes marched around as the 'true believers' in the early church share views that are pretty far out to many modern-day Protestants. Around the Reformation era, things get a little more hazy, admittedly. But persecutions of 'true believers' happened on both sides of that aisle. Look at the persecutions that happened in Elizabethan England, for example. Explore the origins of the '12 Days of Christmas' carol.

The Roman Church had taken it upon herself to judge and condemn conscience, which is not a perogative of men, but of God.

See above. It wasn't just the Roman Church that persecuted other Christian groups.


Also, I like how you buy into that 'role of Constantine in the early Church' drabble. It's .. very "Da Vinci Code"-ish.

Thank God those days are over, at least for now. The time is coming however, when persecution against Christians will rise again, when church will unite with state to force their brand of religion on the masses.

Those days are not over. I have have been picked on Candy-like individuals starting in middle school by people who just have it out for Catholics. These are individuals, mind you, who don't want to 'agree to disagree' on the details of Christianity, these are individuals who pretty much refuse to acknowledge me as a Christian.

Dr MikeyMike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr MikeyMike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr MikeyMike said...

It's also interesting that Theodoret disagreed with the Vatican I claim of unanimous consent regarding the interpretation of Matt. 16:18. Also, what Theoderet and others believed about Peter's ministry in Antioch may have been influenced by pseudo-clementine.

Though I brought up Theodoret, he was more of an 'means to an end' than a change of subject. Let's stick to Ignatius for the time being. Regardless of Theodoret's beliefs or who his influences are, Ignatius was still martyred at the Colosseum. Therefore, he was in Rome for some period. Indeed, Ignatius is reportedly. I do believe that some of his epistles were 'to the Romans', but that doesn't necessarily mean he wrote them during his stay.

Barbara C. said...

DOW,
I agree with Dr. Mikey Mike. Can you give some examples of pre-Reformation era heretics who were wrongly condemned? I believe that Kelly or Elena recently did a post with a link to the heresies condemned by the early Christian Church. Which of these do you think got the shaft?

I seem to remember one group who denied the primacy of Rome...but then you'd basically have to side with the Orthodox church in the East/West Schism.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Below is an excerpt from New Advent website (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15527b.htm) about the Waldenses.

The organization of the Waldenses was a reaction against the great splendour and outward display existing in the medieval Church; it was a practical protest against the worldly lives of some contemporary churchmen. Amid such ecclesiastical conditions the Waldenses made the profession of extreme poverty a prominent feature in their own lives, and emphasized by their practice the need for the much neglected task of preaching. As they were mainly recruited among circles not only devoid of theological training, but also lacking generally in education, it was inevitable that error should mar their teaching, and just as inevitable that, in consequence, ecclesiastical authorities should put a stop to their evangelistic work. Among the doctrinal errors which they propagated was the denial of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead. They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty. Some points in this teaching so strikingly resemble the Cathari that the borrowing of the Waldenses from them may be looked upon as a certainty. Both sects also had a similar organization, being divided into two classes, the Perfect (perfecti) and the Friends or Believers (amici or credentes). (See CATHARI and ALBIGENSES.)

The full text is here.

Also, the history of Constantine and the Roman Catholic Chuch is a well-documented historical fact. I have never read the Da Vinci Code but I have studied church history.

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Here is an excerpt from wikipedia about the Donatists and Constantine.

As a result, many towns were divided between Donatist and non-Donatist congregations. The sect had particularly developed and grown in northern Africa. Constantine, as emperor, began to get involved in the dispute, and in 314 he called a Council at Arles; the issue was debated and the decision went against the Donatists. The Donatists refused to accept the decision of the council, their distaste for bishops who had collaborated with Rome came out of their broader view of the Roman Empire.

After the Constantinian shift, when other Christians accepted the emperor as a leader in the Church, the Donatists continued to see the emperor as the devil. In particular, the birth of the Donatist movement came out of opposition to the appointment of Caecilianus as Bishop of Carthage in 312, because of his pro-government stance. In 317 Constantine sent troops to deal with the Donatists in Carthage, for the first time Christian persecuting Christian. It resulted in banishments, but ultimately failed, and Constantine had to withdraw and end the persecutions in 321.


As seen above, emperor Constantine was accepted as 'leader' of the church, and he went about to persecute the Donatists. The Donatists objected to other Christians who denied the gospel in the face of government persecution.

See full article here.

Peace.

Kelly said...

As seen above, emperor Constantine was accepted as 'leader' of the church, and he went about to persecute the Donatists. The Donatists objected to other Christians who denied the gospel in the face of government persecution.

Sure, 'cause if Wikipedia says it, it must be true!

So, by saying that Donatists were valid Christians, you are saying that you agree that Christians who deny their Christianity during times of persecution have lost their faith and have no hope of repentence? Or are you saying that you agree that a member of the clergy who has sinned is not able to validly perform sacraments, including baptism and transubstantiation?

The Waldensians do not date correctly to be an early group of Christian believers. But perhaps by putting them forth you are saying that you believe there should be a celibate clergy, that Christians should practice auricular confession, be required to live in poverty, not take oaths (such as in court) and be pacifists?

Elena said...

He was reflecting, as a bishop, the work the Spirit had already been accomplishing for nearly three centuries.


Exactly - as a CATHOLIC BISHOP!
Again Paul, without knowing it or meaning to, you make my point.

Dr MikeyMike said...

DOW -- I will have to continue to disagree with your views on Constantine's role in the early Church. He was a powerful figure, yes -- but hardly 'the leader' or someone who 'called the shots'.

You also took 'Constantine being a leader IN the Church' and made it into 'Constantine being the leader OF the Church'. Though I even question him being consider as a 'leader' period. Since you have a Wiki post, I think I will post one too:

The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy.[19] The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops —, rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[20] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrine (dogma) consisted of was for the Church to determine.[21]

I become frustrated with Protestants who are transfixed on Constantine as some 'great corrupter of Christianity' because he was a major political figure as well as a believer. Are they telling me that Henry the VII and other political figures during the Reformation were any less involved/less corrupting if what is said about Constantine is true?

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Dr. Mike quoted:

"The reign of Constantine established a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor in the Church. Emperors considered themselves responsible to God for the spiritual health of their subjects, and thus they had a duty to maintain orthodoxy.[19] The emperor did not decide doctrine — that was the responsibility of the bishops —,rather his role was to enforce doctrine, root out heresy, and uphold ecclesiastical unity.[20] The emperor ensured that God was properly worshiped in his empire; what proper worship (orthodoxy) and doctrine (dogma) consisted of was for the Church to determine.[21]" (emphasis supplied).

----------------------------------

Well said. Did you notice that the quote said that the emperor's duty was to enforce doctrine, and root out heresy? When did it become the role of government to enforce church teachings? I thought government's job was to punish criminals who break the laws of the land, not punish people who have differing spiritual beliefs.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil (Romans 13:3-4).

How is the church supposed to deal with heretics? The Bible gives several ways of dealing with heretics.

1. Avoid them

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them (Romans 16:17).

2. Do not weed them out but allow them to attend services.

But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn (Matthew 18:29-30).

3. Disfellowship them.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself (Titus 3:10-11).

4. Restore them to a right understanding.

Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted (Galatians 6:1).

Nowhere does it say we should get them arrested or punished by the government. Paul admonished the church not to take their grievances to any court of law, but to settle the matter within themselves (1 Corinthians 6:1-7).


Peace.

Barbara C. said...

DOW,

Once emperors and kings felt that their place was ordained by God (Divine Right of Kings) then a lack of separation between church and state seemed completely natural. To be against the Church was to be against the government and vice-versa.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly wrote:

So, by saying that Donatists were valid Christians, you are saying that you agree that Christians who deny their Christianity during times of persecution have lost their faith and have no hope of repentence? Or are you saying that you agree that a member of the clergy who has sinned is not able to validly perform sacraments, including baptism and transubstantiation?
----------------------------------

Kelly it is not for anyone to judge if a person is a valid Christian or not, and then persecute them because we feel they are not 'valid.'

Donatists objected to clergy who had denied their faith during the persecution being restored to leadership positions within the church. Such clergymen had apostasized from the faith in order to save their lives, instead of accepting martyrdom for the kingdom of Christ. The Donatists were correct, because such men could not really be trusted to stand for truth when faced with trials and tribulations.

Just imagine one of your priests endorsing abortions in order to avoid persecution from abortion activists. How would you feel? Would you not feel as if that person had betrayed the faith, and is therefore untrustworthy? How about that Catholic priest, Father Cutie who renounced his vows of celibacy to marry? Many Catholics felt betrayed. Even if such persons repented, their past actions showed their inability to stand up for their beliefs during times of persecution, and thus they cannot be counted upon to stand firm if persecution should strike again.

People who are weak in the faith, should really not be in leadership positions. They put the flock at risk for injury and harm. A good leader will stand up for the flock, as many Christian leaders did during the persecutions by Rome, but a bad leader will desert the flock in times of danger, and leave them to be devoured by the enemy.

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep (John 10:11-13).


I am not saying that such persons have no hope of repentance, but their repentance is to God, not the church. If they confess their sins God will forgive them, but it does not mean they should be automatically restored to leadership position within the church. Not everyone is cut out to be a leader, and maybe being a leader is not an appropriate vocation for that person. A leader needs to be strong, with the ability to stand firm under trials. That person should therefore find some other vocation within the Christian community that best suits their gifts and temperament.

Peace.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Did you notice that the quote said that the emperor's duty was to enforce doctrine, and root out heresy? When did it become the role of government to enforce church teachings? I thought government's job was to punish criminals who break the laws of the land, not punish people who have differing spiritual beliefs.

Agreed, DOW. However, the whole reason I am debating Constantine with you is because of this comment:

. Constantine then adopted Christianity as the new state religion of the Rome empire, and proceeded to persecute dissenters to his style of Christianity. In Constantine, we see the early seeds of the development of what would become the Roman Catholic Church. A union of church and state.

You were arguing that Constantine planted the seeds of the medieval/modern/whatever Church, which is false (as evident in our wiki posts) -- the development of doctrine was left to bishops and other clergy.

Next, you sound as though you believe that Constantine was the first and only ruler to be a bulldog for his brand of belief. Whereas I agree with you that this is not the role of government, I point to you that this sort of 'reverse persecution' is not a solely Catholic issue. Look at Elizabethan England.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Just imagine one of your priests endorsing abortions in order to avoid persecution from abortion activists. How would you feel? Would you not feel as if that person had betrayed the faith, and is therefore untrustworthy? How about that Catholic priest, Father Cutie who renounced his vows of celibacy to marry? Many Catholics felt betrayed. Even if such persons repented, their past actions showed their inability to stand up for their beliefs during times of persecution, and thus they cannot be counted upon to stand firm if persecution should strike again.

He should be defrocked, but I do not believe that any of the sacraments that he performed for me or anyone else would be null and void, as the Donatist's claim.

A good leader will stand up for the flock, as many Christian leaders did during the persecutions by Rome, but a bad leader will desert the flock in times of danger, and leave them to be devoured by the enemy.

There you go with the persecutions by Rome bit again, because surely no Protestant denominations ever persecuted Catholics or even other Protestant denominations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_Laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Dr. Mike,

Persecution from whatever source, is bad, whether from Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, etc.

The spirit of persecution is what drove many to these shores of America (to flee persecution).

Peace.

Kelly said...

DOW, you are starting to change the subject.

You said Unfortunately, some of the so-called 'heretics' were true believers who were persecuted for their faith. You then pointed to the Donatists and Waldensians as examples of these true believers.

I pointed out that, first of all, the Waldensians are not the right time period for a persecution by Constantine. Secondly, both groups have theology which I feel you would not consider compatible with "true believers."

Are you saying that you feel the Donatists and Waldensians are true believers?

The spirit of persecution is what drove many to these shores of America (to flee persecution).

Where they established state religions and persecuted others in their own turn. The early colonies all had state religions.

How is the church supposed to deal with heretics? The Bible gives several ways of dealing with heretics.

While I agree with your criteria for dealing with heretics, this is a very modern view.

The early Christians were persecuted by Rome because they were not following the state religion. When Constantine converted, the entire realm converted with him. That was the established mode of the time.

When Henry VIII "converted," all of England converted with him, or they lost their lives. The German princes backed Luther in a great part because they thought government apart from the influence of the Pope would be more advantageous.

Even the Puritans dealt out the death penalty for witches.

Other than the Waldensians, Anabaptists, and a few other isolated groups, you would be hard-pressed to find "true believers" who followed your modern model. You certainly cannot trace a line of Christians who continuously followed this model of dealing with heretics from the time of Christ until the modern day.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly the model I outlined for dealing with heretics is not modern. It is found in the Bible. That was how the early church dealt with heretics before they started using government to persecute other believers.

A true believer is not a person with perfect doctrine. A true believer is one that honestly and earnestly seeks to know God more and more. A true believer may hold to some erroneus doctrines at first because of lack of understanding, but as that person gets to know God better, error will be left behind.

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" (1 Corinthians 13:9-10).

Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly wrote:

"Where they established state religions and persecuted others in their own turn. The early colonies all had state religions."
-----------------------------------

And that's why we needed a Constitution that ensured religious liberty.

Kelly said...

Then Hilary, I'm really not sure what point you are trying to make.

The Catholic Church was wrong because it mixed government with religion, but so did non-Catholic Christians.

The Catholic Church was wrong because it persecuted heretics, but so did non-Catholic Christians.

So, why are you pointing out how wrong the Catholic Church was in the Constantine era? Where was the true church with existed at that time?

True believers might start off with wrong doctrines, but they will realize their error and change their theology. So, does that mean that the Donatists and Waldensians were not true believers as they did not change their wrong theology?

Are you pointing to the Donatists and Waldensians as being groups of true Christians persecuted by the evil Catholic church or not?

Kelly said...

And that's why we needed a Constitution that ensured religious liberty.

Ah yes, if only the Puritans had the gift of Biblical interpretation. They would have understood God's perfect plan for civil government.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly asked:

Where was the true church with existed at that time?
-----------------------------------

Kelly, I am condemning persecution in whatever form it takes, regardless of who commits it. It is just plain wrong.

You asked where was the true church?

As far as a local, eccelesiastic body of believers, there is no such thing as a true church. All churches are local entities, with both true and false believers interacting with each other. God's true church is the Church Invisible, which is that worldwide body of believers whose membership is in heaven. The true church lies within the heart of the believer.

"For the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21).

Peace.

Kelly said...

Hilary, has anyone ever told you that sometimes you sound like Yoda?

Daughter of Wisdom said...

I am taking that as a compliment :-)

Elena said...

I wouldn't.

Kelly said...

I'm not sure it is either a compliment or an insult. I sometimes find your meaning unclear, but you always sound cryptic. :)

Daughter of Wisdom said...

Kelly,

All I have written has been PLAIN to those of understanding, and a MYSTERY to those who do not understand.

Proverbs 4:4-9:

4He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
5Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
9She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.



Likewise Jesus said of those who do not understand and those who understand:

Matthew 13:13-16:

14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.


Peace.

Daughter of Wisdom said...

LOL!

Elena said...

All I have written has been PLAIN to those of understanding, and a MYSTERY to those who do not understand.

We could say the same DOW.

Kelly said...

So, whatever you say, it is as if we are hearing the Word of God, and if we reject what you say it is as if we are rejecting God, Himself.

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
the members of the Body of Christ are called to speak His word and shine the light of truth, so everything will be exposed for what it is. If a doctrine or statement doesn't stand up to the light of God's word then it is not the truth, and it needs to be shown for what it is, a lie. Hillary is attempting to shine the light of scripture on doctrines and practices to see if they will stand. All disciples of Jesus can and should do this. We may make mistakes in our own beliefs, but God's word won't fail.

Elena said...

Kelly and Barbara and Dr. Mike and I are part of the Body of Christ. We are Catholic Christians. I started this blog because I am not afraid to proudly defend my Catholic faith against someone like Candy who apparently can't stand to have her falsehood exposed because she will not allow correction or rebuttal on her blog.

All of Catholic doctrine can shine forth and is totally in line with scripture, if indeed someone is willing to put down their anti-Catholic background and education to look at it objectively without subjective biases.

God's word won't fail and it has been taught and protected in the Catholic CHurch for over 2000 years.

Now, I will delete any further comments that insinuate that Catholics are lying, or that Catholic doctrine is untrue. Take your hate speech somewhere else. And you can take our prosyletizing with you as well.

However honest discussion and questions about the Catholic faith are welcome.

Jennie said...

Then you shouldn't be afraid of the truth or make fun of a fellow believer for sharing it.

Jennie said...

I said nothing hateful, so don't try to intimidate me please. It is true that if something can't stand up to the scrutiny of truth then it must be a lie. I didn't call anyone a liar.

Elena said...

Yes you did Jennie, and it's one of the reasons that I closed one of the other threads. Don't insinuate Catholics are lying and don't prosyletize or I will remove your comments. If that intimidates you maybe you should re-examine your rhetoric here and your purpose for visiting.

Jennie said...

Elena,
This is what I said over on the other post that you closed:
If someone claims to be infallible, yet contradicts the written scripture, he is a liar.
Don't you agree that this is true?

Kelly said...

Jennie, I can't speak for Elena, but I am not comfortable with calling or insinuating that fellow Christians such as Hillary are liars or being misled by evil spirits because they claim to be able to infallibly interpret Scripture, but are wrong in their interpretation.

I would prefer we speak of disagreements or different interpretations, and in charity, assume that our fellow Christians are honestly seeking the Truth.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
where did you get the idea that I was calling Hillary a liar? Hillary doesn't claim to be infallible, and for the most part she isn't interpreting anything, only quoting scripture.
The later popes, however, are claiming infallibility like that of inspired scripture, yet they contradicted each other as well as contradicting scripture. I know scripture is true, so what else can be concluded, but that what they teach is contrary to the truth?

Elena said...

I know scripture is true, so what else can be concluded, but that what they teach is contrary to the truth?

Well the conclusion I came to is that you don't know scripture as well as you think you do and so you are misinterpreting it, but you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Ugh -- here we go again.

The debate starts out well enough, and then it starts to melt into -- "So you are saying that you are scriptural? Well, then look at Pope So-and-so (or So-and-so-ius .. that sounds more Latin)". From there, it goes to: "Alright, well can you post evidence of this?", and the cycle continues.

Elena said...

If someone claims to be infallible, yet contradicts the written scripture, he is a liar.
Don't you agree that this is true?



If that someone is the Pope and he is speaking on matters of faith and morals he is not contradicting scripture but upholding it. That you don't have the framework to understand what he says doesn't make him a liar.

Jennie said...

Elena,
No, what I think is 'Let God be true, and every man a liar.' We all have various wrong beliefs, but as scripture sheds light on them and the Holy Spirit convicts us, we need to let go of those wrong beliefs.

Elena said...

No, what I think is 'Let God be true, and every man a liar.' We all have various wrong beliefs, but as scripture sheds light on them and the Holy Spirit convicts us, we need to let go of those wrong beliefs.

Agreed. The problem comes when you insist that the Holy Spirit has only convicted you and that only you have seen the light of scripture and that every one else is wrong and has to let go of those wrong beliefs.

Because where I'm sitting it's been an entirely different experience and I am grateful for my faith as a Catholic Christian.

Jennie said...

You guys might like my newest post:
http://pilgrimsdaughter.blogspot.com/2009/09/nuns-with-guns.html

Daughter of Wisdom said...

LOL! I am certainly not infallible. Just because I quote scripture and the interpretation is not understood by all does not mean I am wrong. It just means that it is not understood. I try to make myself as clear as possible, but like a teacher, I know that not all students will understand, and I also do not expect everyone to accept what I say. I know some will reject, but that is all a part of the learning process. I am pretty realistic about such things. If however I am found to be wrong, please correct me with evidence. I am pretty accepting of truth, once it is presented to me. Don't just say I am wrong because you FEEL I am wrong, because I may be right!

Dr. Mike is right. Let us not accuse each other of being more scriptural or spiritual on a facetious level. It is not about personalities here. It is about analyzing and examing certain CLAIMS, using factual evidence.

One of the more successful tricks of the devil is to make personal attacks when he is unable to make a counter argument against facts.

Thanks Jennie for your support. I know you would never call me a liar. It is just so much not like you :-).


Peace.

Elena said...

Just because I quote scripture and the interpretation is not understood by all does not mean I am wrong.

Agreed.

However it also doesn't mean that you are right or that other interpretations aren't just as valid.


Thanks Jennie for your support. I know you would never call me a liar. It is just so much not like you :-).

...unless you're a Pope with an Encyclical she doesn't agree with. Then she's pretty free and easy with the "liar liar pants on fire" routine.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Scripture isn't so hard to understand that I can't see that what Pope Leo XIII said was contrary to it. It is contrary to the very existence and essence of scripture as the Word of God Himself. It is contrary to the fact that God Himself interprets His own word for His people by the Holy Spirit in each believer.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Scripture isn't so hard to understand that I can't see that what Pope Leo XIII said was contrary to it. It is contrary to the very existence and essence of scripture as the Word of God Himself.

See? Now you are trying to bait an argument like some High School sophomore. Rather than pointing out the specific issue that you disagree with, you stick with vagueness like "I disagree with what Pope Leo said", and that certainly comes off (to me at least) like you are trying to pick a fight.

It is also interesting that how one bad apple (or issue in this case) spoils the whole bushel for you.

And if you are referring to Marian doctrine again .. hasn't this been explained time and time again? Now you it seems as though you are -really- being obnoxious.

Elena said...

I agree with Mike -although I think we hit obnoxious months ago.

If scripture is so easy to understand why are there thousands of Protestant denominations? Come on jennie- ya'll clean up your own house first before you tell me how "easy" it is to understand and agree on scripture.

Jennie said...

Dr. M, I'm not trying to bait an argument; I've already explained this here and on another post. I'm just responding to Elena.

Elena,
'My house' does not include every weird sect out there that DOESN'T hold to scripture as the supreme word of God and the final rule of faith and practice. There aren't thousands of protestant denominations, but there are perhaps thousands of groups that DON'T follow scripture and instead follow traditions of men and doctrines of demons.

Dr MikeyMike said...

Dr. M, I'm not trying to bait an argument; I've already explained this here and on another post. I'm just responding to Elena.

My point exactly -- this has already been explained on another post. Stop bringing it up. It's getting to the point to where no amount of explanation will ever be good enough for you. You have closed your mind to it, so it is pointless.

Elena said...

"My house' does not include every weird sect out there "

...chuckle...I was actually thinking of the Presbyterians USA and United Methodists. Like it or not my dear those folks are most definitely in the house of Protestants.

Kelly said...

Kelly,
where did you get the idea that I was calling Hillary a liar?


Well, you thought you were being oh-so-clever by laying the infallibility trap. When we agree that anyone who is claiming infallibility but teaching contrary to Scripture is wrong, then *big surprise* you'll say that's what the Pope does, therefore, he's a liar.

Hillary says that she has the gift of prophesy and Scripture interpretation. You say that the Holy Spirit helps each believer to correctly interpret Scripture. If the Holy Spirit protects you from error, then that is infallibility. You can, yourself, fall into that trap you tried to set for us.

If there is the possibility that you are wrong (and I appreciate Hillary saying that she is open to that possibility, I'm not trying to pick on you, really!) then you cannot claim that you have the only true interpretation and therefore, there is the possibility that our Church is correct in her interpretations.

I have said before, I appreciate a good discussion. I really liked when Candy had her Gospel of John series and she wrote down what she believed, and contrasted that with what the Catholic Church believes.

But Jennie, bludgeoning us over the head with a brick will not convert us. If you keep telling us over and over again that we are being misled by demons, that our Church is intentionally lying to us, etc., then it only makes us completely turn away from anything you write.

If you are going to stay here, then, by all means, lay out your argument. We are all faithful Christians who are doing our best to seek God's Will. If we are open, which we believe that we are, then the Holy Spirit will move us to accept your words. You cannot drag us kicking and screaming there. Just let it rest, and give the Holy Spirit a chance, okay?

Jennie said...

Kelly,
Well, you thought you were being oh-so-clever by laying the infallibility trap. When we agree that anyone who is claiming infallibility but teaching contrary to Scripture is wrong, then *big surprise* you'll say that's what the Pope does, therefore, he's a liar.

Hillary says that she has the gift of prophesy and Scripture interpretation. You say that the Holy Spirit helps each believer to correctly interpret Scripture. If the Holy Spirit protects you from error, then that is infallibility. You can, yourself, fall into that trap you tried to set for us.


I wasn't trying to be clever or set a trap, I was only saying what was obvious to me, and hoping that by pointing it out, you might see it too. By being in opposition to scripture, he is showing himself to be fallible.
Hillary and I don't claim infallibility or that we can't be in error. People that are guided by the Spirit can misunderstand things. We don't learn everything all at once, but the more we seek Jesus in His word, and learn the whole word, the more we will know Him. However, there are things that are clear to those who know Him, and if we see something contrary to the clear word, we are to speak the truth.

Jennie said...

Here's a post by Turretinfan that talks about believers 'making mistakes' even though we are taught by God.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2009/09/dont-be-surprised-if-you-make-some.html

Kelly said...

Hillary and I don't claim infallibility or that we can't be in error. People that are guided by the Spirit can misunderstand things.

Then I guess you should stop telling us that you know your interpretation is correct and ours is wrong because you are guided by the Holy Spirit. If you can err, then it is possible that ours is right.

However, there are things that are clear to those who know Him, and if we see something contrary to the clear word, we are to speak the truth.

If you can't stop speaking the truth, then you'll need to move along to another blog. If you're going to stick around here then you need to stop with the "You're being misled by demons" and "Pope Leo was a liar" routine.

Jennie said...

If you can't stop speaking the truth, then you'll need to move along to another blog.
Kelly, did you read this before you posted it?

you need to stop with the "You're being misled by demons" and "Pope Leo was a liar" routine.
I didn't say anything about being misled by demons on your blog, did I? I know on my blog I talked about that along with lying signs and wonders.

Elena said...

She meant of course, speaking as if you alone possess the only truth.


This is a good example of why threads that veer of course should be brought back in line with a heavy finger on the delete button. And since once more this one has veered, it's history.