DeoOmnisGloria.com

to be double-minded is an abomination to God. faith alone saves you, not works. you can have all the faith that the world requires but what you do with it is another thing. i know unsaved people who every charitable thing imaginable and saved people who won't lift a finger. who is going to Heaven, who isn't? God searches the hearts of men and no work outside of God ordained work assures His liking, the Bible teaches to work unto the Lord. Jesus said that we would do greater works..not our work but His work, which means that first we become His children through our faith in Him.

Paul,
That's an interesting concept, but it totally contradicts the Bible. The Bible teaches that "man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (1 Tim 2:24). I also recommend this article.

Far from being "double minded", this concept is actually Biblical. Perhaps God should have let you write the Bible, then it would agree with your beliefs. It wouldn't agree with Gods, however, which is why God chose the Catholic Church to write it.

We must follow the whole Bible, Paul, not just the parts we like.

God bless,
Jay

my dear jay,
i promise i love the ground you stand on. i couldn't have wrote the Bible because i would have stayed in Heaven from jumpstreet but God thought otherwise, didn't He? my beliefs are His beliefs, it is written that we must be conformed to His likeness (Jesus) who was made in the image of our Father in Heaven. the book you read has to be different from mine, following what you wrote elsewhere. i thank the Catholic whomevers who put the Bible together but i don't believe 3500 years their concern was a denomination. there's that spiritual chelestorol build-up again.......not to get too personal with you, how do you enter God's presence and how does the Bible state to do it? do you meditate on His Word day and night and write them on your heart or do you condemn those who are not Catholic like you? Jay my man, it's all about faith. when Peter doubted he still got out of the boat, but he stepped out in doubt, he asked Jesus was that Him. and Jesus told Him to come, as Peter was drowning (a drowning fisherman?), Jesus asked why did you doubt..... where was Peter's faith.........?

Paul,
I do this not to condemn but to correct. Protestants are under an illusion created by a man, not by God. This man changed the Bible then elevated his version to a level it doesn't belong. Remember, the Bible states that the Church, not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of Truth.

Peter had the faith to walk onto the water, but what if he had decided that only faith matters, not works, and therefore stayed in the boat? Remember, no one else had the faith of our first pope, Peter, to step out on the water.

The Bible writers never conceived that someone would distort their writings and revolt against the Church Christ founded. This is why they don't deal with denominations. Remember, denominations are a new phenomenon started by Luther.

The reason we do this is that you, Paul, and others don't have the fulness of truth. You miss out on the sacraments (which give grace) and aren't able to fully participate in God's plan for your life. I was once in your position, Paul, as a Southern Baptist until I saw the light. I'm praying that you see it as well.

God bless,
Jay

jay,
if you want to walk on water, let's go to minnesota, find a frozen lake and walk on water. you didn't say what the state of the water has to be in, but even in order to to that you have to have faith that the ice does not crack. the fullness of truth lies in Jesus because Jesus is the truth, the way and the life!

I feel that the Catholics and Protestants are reading the same scriptures but INTERPRETING the meanings in differant ways. Who are the Catholics to say Protestants are wrong, and vice versa. We are all humans and we all have differant opinions an points of view. It would be like a republican telling a democrat they are wrong. What is your basis of saying someone is wrong or right? I consider myself protestant, but I don't have a byas towards any of the two faiths. I am an open person and explore both beliefs, because that is exactly what the are... BELIEFS.

The basis for Catholics telling Protestants they are wrong is that its not the individual Catholic who interprets the Bible, but the Pope. The Pope is guided by the holy spirit to always interpret matters of faith correctly. Peter, the first Pope, is exclusively given this power in Matthew 16:17-19.

Katie Jones,
In addition to Tom's point, you can look to Scripture and see that the Catholic Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) and "through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known" (Eph 3:8-10).

Protestants have only themselves to rely on in interpreting Scripture and as Acts 8:30 points out, we cannot understand Scripture without some guidance.

God bless,
Jay

Right on, Jay. I think that it is important for Catholics to focus on the Church as a whole. Without taking anything away from the Pope, and without intending any disrespect to Tom, I think Catholics and Protestants alike can go overboard on the papacy. We must remember that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Peter. The word "Catholic" means "according to the whole" as well as "universal". Christ did not give authority to only one of His apostles; simply a position of supremacy. But He gave all of them His power and authority. Our Church makes decisions corporately as a body of bishops collectively imbued with the Holy Spirit, and has always done so. Certainly the Pope is the ultimate human arbitor as the Vicar of Christ and the descendant of Peter. But to simply say that the Pope sits there writing all of the rules while all of his red puppets and little minions go about doing his will is a grand misunderstanding of the Church that makes bishops practically superfluous from a doctrinal standpoint.

Anyway, Katie Jones, we would all agree with you on one thing: for a Protestant it is simply a belief, and one that is formed out of your own person. For a Catholic, it is faith that is born out of obedience to the Church instituted by Christ.

In Christ,
Dave

The catholic church isn’t the pillar and foundation of truth, they are deceitful liars and you are just another brainwashed individual trying to press your religion on everyone else. Why don’t you just start another catholic inquisition? Kill a bunch of people that don’t believe in your book of lies and maybe people will just convert so they don’t die.
“Split a piece of wood and I am there, lift a stone and you will find Me.” This is what I believe. I don’t need no Bible or church to believe. The Holy Spirit is in my heart, and I believe. You don’t need any middle men.
Have you seen the movie Stigmata? I know it’s a movie, but it points out the true nature of the church, to exist, to dominate. (relating to the pope (or whoever the f***) who tries to kill the chick possessed by the saint, who is trying to get the real truth out, and ending the churches reign) .
Ever since I was small, I haven’t really liked catholics. I know we all believe in God and all that, but the church is so wrong… you trade one man’s rearranged version of the bible for another. Luther had honest intentions, you cannot tell me through all these years every single pope or whoever has.

Jacob's comment is very illustrative of a general proposition. Now I recognize that most Protestants would oppose Jacob as much as I do. But, at the risk of painting with too broad a brush, Jacob's theology is the end of Protestantism. Consider that Protestantism has nothing to counter Jacob with. As a Catholic, I can say "The Church, led by people who are the ordained successors of Christ (a fact that is historically provable), tell me that you are wrong. Thus, you are wrong." But Protestants cannot likewise quote the Bible. Why? Because Jacob has attacked not only the Church, but also "its book." And while the Church is historically defensible, the inspired nature of the Bible is not defensible outside of the Church. How, exactly, do Protestants know that the Bible is inspired and inerrant? How do they know that the 27 books in the NT are supposed to be there? How do they know that no other books are supposed to be there?

You see, the Bible itself only became "the Bible" once it was ratified by the Church. When you remove the apostolic nature of Church authority, you cut off the Bible at its knees! Jacob very correctly identifies the Bible as the book of the Church. An attack on the Bible can only succeed if the Church is first discredited. And Protestantism discredited the Church 450 years ago. In so doing, its founders unwittingly paved the way for the Jacobs of the world to discredit Scripture itself. (Notice that even the lingo is the same: "Holy Spirit is in my heart", "don't need any middle men".) And I'd be willing to bet that the Jacobs of the world are in fact the future of Protestantism.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

I certainly agree that this particular Jacob has quite a bit of learning to do, even more than the rest of us sinners. But I disagree with your characterization of the Bible as the book of the Church, since it is a collection of messages from God. While it may have been assembled by the entire Church, it is wrong to say that the Roman Catholic Church is the only modern body that stems, as in an olive tree, from that early church. That can be seen for example when Vitalian was removed as pope by the Patriarch of Constantinople over the issue of Monothelitism, and finally the split over filioque, which separated the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. All one can do at this point is to choose the branch of the olive tree that one believes best espouses the Truth and work from there.

Jon,

I would certainly agree with you that there are various "branches" of the Catholic Church. And the issue of our Orthodox brethren is difficult and significantly more complicated than the Protestant issue. My point was directed solely to Protestantism, which rejects apostolic authority. The Orthodox churches do not have that problem, so the post is not applicable. By the way, are you Orthodox? There are so few in the west, it's always nice to meet some.

Regarding the book of the Church issue, obviously it originates from God. My point is that one cannot blankly declare that the Bible is authentically God-breathed and yet claim that the Sacred Tradition of the Church is not. It was the Church that established the God-breathed nature of the Bible. Without the one, you cannot have the other. But both ultimately come from the mouth of God.

Regarding your point about Vitalian, I am not sure where you obtained your information, but I could not duplicate it. Vitalian was never deposed as the bishop of Rome, whether by the patriarch or anyone else. Moreover, it is noteworthy that the patriarch of Constantinople supported monothelitism (which even the Orthodox church now acknowledges as heresy), while Vitalian supported the Orthodox position. Regardless, you are naturally correct that the filoque issue is what ultimately divided the Church, and continues to do so.

In Christ,
Dave

what i'm saying is that, what if your church rearranged words, added stuff, took the important things out...you don't know what is what God wanted you to have and what the church has wanted for itself. if something isn't catholic, it's discredited. you don't have to be a catholic to be religious. you say there are many olive branches... and Luther created his own. because of him you don't need to go through no priest or pope to do anything, it's you and God. That is what matters, in the end. so you guys can quote your scripters and whatever trying to be all smart and whatever but to me it's like reading a quacks book on how to be a great doctor. there's some parts that are true and then the rest is all crap.

Jacob,
So basically you're going to ignore Jesus and the Bible and do what you want to do?

God bless,
Jay

Dave,

You claimed that the Church established the God-breathed nature of the Bible. In fact, the scriptures themselves state they are God-breathed.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Paul wrote that well before the need for a canon for the New Testament had developed. The process of canonization simply selected from the available letters those that could be confidently stated as of divine origin.

The above quite seems quite sufficient to "blankly declare" the God-breathed nature of the Bible. As for Sacred Tradition, the preceeding lines from Timothy are

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." (2 Tim 3:14-15)

You will probably view this as support for Tradition, but I don't feel that I know those who created the RC Tradition well enough to place faith in it. The historical incidents that Jacob alludes to are sufficient for me to regard the RC history as more than a little suspect.

My apologies for referring earlier to Vitalian. I should have said Martin (http://www.roman-emperors.org/Constan2.htm).

Finally, sorry, but I'm not Orthodox. I'm a member of a Presbyterian church that follows the Westminster Confession. I do however enjoy reading this website as a way to increase my own understanding of the Bible. Thanks.

Jacob,

Jon,
You're quoting New Testament Scripture that refers to the Septugiant - the Old Testament books. When the Apostles were writing the New Testament, they didn't realize they were writing Scripture - it wasn't until almost 300 A.D. that the New Testament was officially canonized as Scripture.

Dave's point is the same as St. Augustine's: "I would not believe the Bible were true if the Church did not tell me so." This is important because Scripture does not contain a list of appropriate authors or books that should be included. We must trust that the Catholic Church compiled the book as God intended - basically when we say that the Bible is the infallible Word of God, then we assert that the Catholic Church has the authority to decide this.

This also calls into question Martin Luther's actions - he removed books from the Old Testament (he had to in order to make some of the claims he made) and added a word to the New Testament. So protestants must also assert that Martin Luther's changes were divinely inspired, despite the heresy that plagued his life. The Church at least can point to Scriptures that state She has the truth - Luther can do no such thing.

God bless,
Jay

Jon,

Your argument is circular. Paul says, "Scripture is God-breathed." How do you know that this statement is itself God-breathed? You must accept the proclamations at Hippo and Carthage in the 390's A.D. That itself is proof positive of the validity of Sacred Tradition. Otherwise, every single Protestant must decide for themselves what is and is not Scripture. And I have no doubt that will happen very soon. Jacob has already gone down that road.

Regarding Martin, I'm not sure what your point is. The Eastern Church fell into heresy and sent Martin into exile because he would not back down from the truth. That happened to numerous popes. It did not change their status as pope. And, it only goes to prove the infallibility of papal teaching. Perhaps I missed what you were trying to say.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave and Jay,

The only way out of the circularity of the Church and Scripture is through faith. The question then is whether to have faith in those who gave their lives for the Savior they personally witnessed or those who made pronouncements from the relative safety of a Christian empire.

Why should I accept proclamations from Hippo and Carthage, when I can read Paul himself? "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service." (1 Tim 1:12). Or Peter, "Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters." (2 Peter 3:15-16).

I think it is a very worthwhile exercise to think critically about each passage in the Bible to see if you understand and accept it, independent from outside authority. Of course one needs help in understanding much of it, but it was very important to me to decide for myself if whether I believe each part.

My point in bringing up monothelitism was to establish just how short in history was the theological unity of even the orthodox part of the visible Church. Futhermore, if the situation of Martin provides proof of papal infallibility, then what about Honorius, as described here (search for Honorius). In 680 Honorius declared that the Apostolic Church of St. Peter had never fallen into error, and yet his position on monothelitism was opposite of that to later popes such as Martin. Various authors wiggle out of that in different ways, but in my mind the credibility of Apostolic succession has decayed, as all flesh does. The Scripture is the word of God and does not decay.

As regards to Luther, all he did was to cast doubt on certain previously accepted books. He had the benefit of an extra thousand years of experience to judge the inspirational effect of those books. In the interim, most people lived in too much fear of the Church to speak openly of their doubts. I highly recommend you read the history of the process whereby the Bible was translated into English by John Wycliffe, and you will see why many consider that led Luther to his ideas.

Luther was undoubtedly a product of both Wycliffe and his later disciple, Hus. Regarding the website you gave for papal falibility, it is very interesting. I do appreciate at least that it acknowledges different views, both factual and interpretive, on the events in the lives of each of those popes. The true story of Honorius is particularly fascinating (he was a unique kind of scoundrel before becoming pope), and I will tell it when I begin my series on the papacy.

Most troubling about your comments, however, is that you tacitly admit exactly what I stated was the danger of Jacob's position. You place in your own hands the determination of what is and is not Scripture ("Why should I accept proclamations from Hippo and Carthage, when I can read Paul himself?") Your recourse to Paul, as I'm sure you know, is completely unavailing since Paul never said which books were and were not inspired. Thus, you have elevated your status to one who can decide what is and is not infallible. Consider the ramifications. What will your standards be? Martyrs only? All of John's writings are out. Apostles only? Goodbye Luke, Mark, Acts, James, Jude, and potentially Hebrews (even more if Paul was not a "true" apostle). Or should it be anyone who knew Christ on earth or was taught by such a person? Welcome the writings of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, and other documents such as the Didache, the Protoevangelium of James, and potentially the gospels of Thomas, Barnabas, Wisdom, and Mary Magdalene. Is this getting complicated enough for you? This is only the beginning.

Jon, this is a very serious issue, and I am not being the least bit flippant. How do you propose to deal with this without submitting to Carthage and Hippo? Bear in mind that even if you accept the Bible but still reject the Church, you pave the way for others to say, "Sorry Jon, only the book of James should be in the New Testament." You have no authority to counter such a heretical position. How are you going to deal with this? Going outside the Church leads to madness and confusion. I think 450 years of Protestantism have taught us at least that much. If not, the next 450 certainly will.

In Christ,
Dave

Dave,

God has inspired authors to write and speak his word outside the confines of the Bible, even to this very day. The Bible is simply a collection of his writings that we can have the highest confidence come from him. As you point out, we don't know the human author of some such as Hebrews, but years of prayer has shown them to be God-breathed.

What matters is whether the writing follows what Jesus told us through the Apostles. Paul said "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:8) "I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11-12)

Anyone who accepts the word of God through Paul can decide through prayer if other writings are worthy of study, or more conveniently, simply follow the guidance of teachers whom they trust. The confusion and chaos that is typical of human nature, not just Protestants, is best confronted with humility and perserverance. It's not up to Jon what other people accept as the truth. The Holy Spirit will bring people to Jesus as God wills.

Jon,
So how do you condemn one who reads reincarnation into the Bible? How do you argue against the preacher who died the other day while handling a snake in church? Both believe they are interpreting the Bible as the Holy Spirit is leading them to. There are 20,000+ protestant denominations at this point; can you say the Holy Spirit is leading all of them to truth? We know from Jesus that God wills the Church to be one: "Let them be one as you and I are one."

Secondarily, the Bible has more authority than the words of an individual preacher. We know that it is the infallible Word of God, but as Dave points out, we only know this because God's Church said so.

Ultimately you must accept the Church if you accept the Bible. Or you must read through all of the Early Church Writings including the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. and decide what is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is a daunting task . . .

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

It is not up to me or anyone else to condemn others.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Luke 6:36)

Nor is it up to the Church.

"If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!" (2 Cor 3:9)

Our Lord will judge us.

"But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned." (Mat 12:36-37)

I don't see where in the Bible it says we have to get every point of theology exactly correct. We are often warned about endless genealogies, discerning the likeness of God, and so on. I think the main requirement is pretty simple.

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." (John 5:24)

I certainly agree that the Bible instructs us to accept the Church. I just don't agree that it specifies any particular congregation or denomination.

"Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." (2 Cor 3:17)

Jon,
How about this one:

John 20:23. [Jesus speaking to the apostles] "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

By the way, I didn't mean "condemn" in that way, I meant: how do you tell a Mormon or a Jehovah's Witness (who don't even believe Jesus was God) that they are wrong? If it's up to the Holy Spirit leading an individual believer, you don't know: perhaps the Holy Spirit is leading them into more truth than He is leading you? In other words, how do you explain the confusion and disarray among protestant denominations?

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

The words of Christ in John 20:23 are spoken to the Apostles (actually the NIV translates it as disciples) behind a locked door. What Christ says there is strikingly similar to to what he says to all his disciples in Matthew 18:18, "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." To make sure it is understood that this refers to all his disciples, he follows this with "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

I'm puzzled by the interpretation of John 20:23 that so soon after the crucifixion Christ would give the power of heavenly forgiveness to Peter and the others who had denied him. They way I read it is that he had just told them to "Receive the Holy Spirit," meaning that they are to do as the Spirit instructs them. In that sense, if they forgive anyone his sins, it is because the Spirit has already. Likewise, I read Matthew 18:18 in a way that avoids giving men power over heaven. The word 'will' does not mean causation here. For example, if you look under a rock there will be a bug. That doesn't mean you created the bug. What Jesus was saying in Matthew 18:18 was that if we follow him, the judgements we make will be in accordance with him in Heaven. Human forgiveness is totally different. That is something we do because each of us is a sinner and every other one of us is loved by God also. (As an aside, when I was first learning the Bible not that long ago, Matthew 18:18 was the verse cited to show the inerrancy of the Bible. That never made sense to me. The verses I gave in previous entries here are much more to the point for that.)

To your other question about whether Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, are closer to the truth than I am, I'll quote John. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." (1 John 4:1-2). On matters that are explained clearly in the Bible, we can decide on that basis. For other matters, we just can't and simply have to love one another.

Jon,
I'll address the comments in order. First, exactly! Christ is only speaking to the apostles (the first Bishops), not to regular people. In Matthew 18:18 He is only speaking to Peter, not to everyone. In John 20:23 he extends some of the power (the power to forgive sins) to the rest of the apostles.

To really understand the keys of the kingdom, you must understand the Old Testament and how they were used by David. Basically, the person who has the keys acts in the place of the King while the King is away. He can pass laws and judgements as if he were the King. This is what Jesus does in Matthew 18:18 to Peter. I don't think the verse can be any clearer: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven." Clearly "whatever" (no restrictions on this) Peter ("Rock") binds on earth shall (this is a strong word that does imply causation) be bound in heaven.

On the JW question, the JW's believe they have tested the spirits and believe they chose the "correct" one - the one the Holy Spirit led them to choose. How can you disagree?

God bless,
Jay

Jon,

More importantly, your reference to refuting JW's with the "Bible" brings you full circle. You have already stated that there is no one who can authoritatively declare what is and is not the Bible. Don't you see the illogical nature of what you are saying? First, the Bible is to be determined by each individual. Then, you can use the Bible to refute false doctrine. What if they don't believe the Bible is what you think it is? You have nothing to convince them with. Moreover, you have given them the very tool of their escape by acknowledging that their ability to determine what is and is not Scripture is no better or worse than your own. Talk about uncertainty...

In Christ,
Dave

Jay,

How do you figure that in Mat 18:18 that Jesus is speaking to Peter? The same words were spoken to Peter in Mat 16:19, but in Mat 18:15-20 Jesus is making it clear that the same applies to all disciples.

There is an interesting list of the English translations that have been assigned to that verse here. There does not appear to be any consensus on the direction of causation. What is clear from Mat 18:18 is that it is not unique to Peter or any particular Church.

Dave,

It's not up to me to convince anyone of what is in the Bible. I can only draw a person's attention to Scripture. It is up to the Holy Spirit to testify to them. It does not even appear to even be God's will that the Holy Spirit convince them of his word if they don't want to be convinced. He loves us all, and yet he waits for us to open our hearts to him. Sin has given us the "tool of our escape," as you put it, and God will save only those who resist its temptation.

The Bible itself says we should stand on faith, not authority. Peter tells Elders to not be "not lording it over those entrusted to you." (1 Pet 5:3), and to the rest of us: "Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings." (1 Pet 5:8-9). And if you are worried about uncertainty: "Humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you." (1 Pet 5:6-7)

I think it is funny how many times you talk about Paul. You elevate him to a really high status, and for good reason. Paul was amazing in his mission to give the gentiles the good news. After starting many different congregations throughout the known world, he began recieving news of dissentment within the different locations. Paul admits that without dissentment, how can we tell who is with God and who is against? Paul tells his audience that they should stay away from dissenters. Concerning Paul's letters, Peter actually warns believers that Paul's letters can be misunderstood and confusing, especially because people will use them for their own agenda. As such, it simply comes down to listening to Paul: Stay away from dissenters. In order to dissent, one must have first been part of a church. As such, is it possible that over 30,000 different view points can be right? According to Paul, no. Christ tells us that his Church will be a city on a hill that cannot be hidden. While Paul was pretty darn cool, Christ said it best. Since his Church is a city on a hill which can not be hidden, we simply turn to it for guidance. And back to Paul, where, again, did his final journey take him? It's so crazy how the Vatican literally sits on a hill...

"But the anointing which you have recieved from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." - I John 2:27

I wish to add, please stop this bickering. For Jesus said: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

~ Jesus

That doesnt make much sense, nobody on this blog said they didn't love their neighbor. In fact if you believe your neighbor isn't doing what they need to be doing wouldn't it be your duty to tell them if you truely loved them? Didn't Jesus tell us to preach his word?

We are saved by faith alone. John 6:46, Jesus says, "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life." If we must do works to be saved, aren't we putting our trust in ourselves instead of God? If we are saved also by works, doesn't that mean that Christ's death wasn't good enough for the sinner to be saved? We as Christians are required to do good works because Jesus does command it of us when he tells us to love our neighbor, but we are not required to do good works to have eternal life.

-Chuck

Hi, my name is Angie and I’m twenty years old. I have a love for the bible and it's wonderful message. I've been reading a bit about your conversation and your numerous beliefs and notions and i just thought that i would let you know what my point of view is on certain matters. (if you choose to read them or not...they are directly quoted from the bible so if you have your bible handy, you can look them up as well.) Ta.

THE LUTHER QUESTION

Well in agreement to what you were saying...Luther was insistent on the concept of "Justification by faith alone" that in his translation of the bible, he actually added the word 'alone' to Romans 3:28. He was also suspicious of the book of James for its statement about 'faith without works is dead'. (James 2:17,26) What he actually failed to recognize was that in Romans, Paul was speaking of the Jewish law - Romans 3:19,20,28.

So? What does the bible mean? Which is right? Are we declared righteous by faith or by works? Well the harmonious answer from the bible is that both are correct.

THIS IS AN EXTRACT FROM THE 'WATCHTOWER LIBRARY'....this is what it has to say.

For centuries the Law that God gave through Moses had required Jewish worshipers to make specific sacrifices and offerings, to observe festival days, and to conform to dietary and other requirements. Such “works of law,” or simply “works,” were no longer necessary after Jesus provided the ultimate sacrifice.—Romans 10:4.
But the fact that these works performed under the Mosaic Law were replaced by Jesus’ superlative sacrifice did not mean that we can ignore the Bible’s instructions. It says: “How much more will the blood of the Christ . . . cleanse our consciences from [the older] dead works that we may render sacred service to the living God?”—Hebrews 9:14.
How do we “render sacred service to the living God”? Among other things, the Bible tells us to combat the works of the flesh, to resist the world’s immorality, and to avoid its snares. It says: “Fight the fine fight of the faith,” put off “the sin that easily entangles us,” and “run with endurance the race that is set before us, as we look intently at the Chief Agent and Perfecter of our faith, Jesus.” And the Bible urges us not to ‘get tired and give out in our souls.’—1 Timothy 6:12; Hebrews 12:1-3; Galatians 5:19-21.
We do not earn salvation by doing these things, for no human could ever do enough to merit such an astounding blessing. We are not worthy of this magnificent gift, though, if we fail to demonstrate our love and obedience by doing the things that the Bible says God and Christ want us to do. Without works to demonstrate our faith, our claim to follow Jesus would fall far short, for the Bible clearly states: “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead in itself.”—James 2:17.

I just thought that information might be helpful to you just as much as it was for me. Anyway…if you have any further questions feel free to let me know ok. Simple questions these days seem to really confuse people…but if you look towards what the bible states…how can you be wrong? If you are wondering what God’s purpose for the earth is?, Why do we grow old and die? What is our future? If God exists…why is there so much suffering? – if you want answers…just look towards the bible. And if you want me to find the scriptures for you…it would be my pleasure. To be fulfilling the scripture in Matthew 24:14 is certainly a great privilege.

Angie,
Don't forget John 6! We must eat Jesus' flesh and drink His blood in the Eucharist.

By the way, I recommend you read this article on the Jehovah's Witnesses and follow that with this article on the 144,000 elect.

God bless,
Jay

Hello everyone. I've looked at this site from time to time, posted on it a long time back, and I figure it is time for another post. Let's talk about authority. I intend to focus mostly on the Gospel of Matthew.

The Bible says that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. We are left with, for brevity's sake, 3 basic possibilities. 1.) The Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of truth 2.) One of the Protestant churches is the pillar and foundation of truth 3.) The church, the pillar and foundation of truth, is invisible, so it can include the members of various doctrinally different (and contradictory) denominations.

I will start with Option #3. If the church is invisible, we can't come out and say Catholics are right or a particular protestant denomination is right. A Lutheran, and usually mainline Protestant view of this is the following:
"We believe that the holy Christian Church is a reality, although it is not an external, visible organization. Because 'man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart' only the Lord knows 'them that are his.' The members of the holy Christian Church are known only to God; we cannot distinguish between true believers and hypocrites. The holy Christian Church is therefore invisible and cannot be identified with anyone church body or the sum total of all church bodies. " (Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod)

I myself find the "invisible church" option offensive. Biblically, one knew if one was a member of the church by virtue of their baptism. For Catholics, at least, baptism leaves an indelible spiritual mark. For the earliest Christians, baptism was the sign of entrance into the community, entrance into the CHURCH. So in the biblical sense, you knew that someone was (potentially) in the church by virtue of their valid baptism. With that in mind, they could sin to an extent that they would still be part of the church; obviously Paul's letters are not to perfect, angelic communities but to churches of the whole Church, full of sinners and saints. The only way by which one could, AFTER baptism, lose membership in the church, was excommunication. Interesting enough, in one of the most commonly used passages used for the proof of the visible church, we see the exact PROCEDURE by which baptized Christians would be removed/excommunicated.

Matthew 18:15-17
" 15"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Can an "invisible church" be appealed to? Hardly. This passage implies that VISIBLE people of a VISIBLE church could be sought ought and appealed to. If the church is the pillar and foundation of truth, than the ruling the church gives should be correct, as it is guided by the Holy Spirit. That being the case, is there not a difference between appealing to different visible churches? Yes, for they have different doctrine, and God is NOT a doctrinal indifferentist. To even know if you are IN the church can end up being appealed to a visible church. A baptized infant, in the church? Yes, for the Catholics; No, for the Baptists. The Holy Spirit is NOT the author of confusion, and there is a silly little law of logic out there called the Law of NON-CONTRADICTION. This necessarily implies for our theology that, if Jesus IS TRUTH itself, then what is not truth is against him; that being the case, false doctrine is adversarial to our Lord. The truth can be known and should be known, and its antithesis, doctrinal error, is an affront to our Lord. That the Church MUST be visible and that it MUST have correct doctrine therefore go hand in hand.

Christ founded a visible Church commissioned to act upon his behalf until the end of time (Luke 10:16) - (to the seventy-two)"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me." The previous verse from our Lord shows that rejecting Jesus' followers implies rejecting him. If not rejecting the aggregate of his followers, the church, likewise rejecting Him? If that is the case, we had better be verrrrry sure we are in the church we believe to be correct.

For the Church to be invisible implies that it may be hidden; hidden from outsiders (which is contrary to the truth that the Gospel should be spread to all) and hidden in its full form from its own members (which is so silly I won't even comment). What did Jesus say in the Similes of Salt and Light?

Matthew 5:14-15
"You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house."

The last time I checked, neither you nor I (through natural means) could see invisible light (obviously). To call the church invisible is to shove it under the bushel basket, or worse, to not even be able to find it in the first place in order to hide it. The church is on a lampstand, giving light to all. On the top of a hill, a mountain, even! (Interesting how the Vatican sits on top of a hill)

Ultimately, the concept of the "invisible church" is a cop out for those who follow proposition #2.) "One of the Protestant churches is the pillar and foundation of truth." For the historical record bears out that the Catholic Church reaches back to the First Century. (Anyone who wishes to dispute this, please see the various Epistles of the CATHOLIC Bishop Ignatius of Antioch around 107 A.D.)The Protestant Churches, ALL OF THEM, can be shown to have had their historical origins at the time of the Reformation and NOT before. SOME heretical ideas that SOME of those churches believed may have come from before, but there is no direct line of succession. Thus the Protestant is stuck lamely arguing that the church of the first century was their particular church (as the Baptists do) which then hid out under different names for 1,500 years. That means that Jesus church apostatized (an unbiblical notion) or that we can find some sort of link of succession. Completely and utterly historically bogus.

The main thing in the Gospel of Matthew that signifies the Catholic Church and not its Protestant rivals is the concept of the ministerial priesthood, which Protestants (other than Anglicans) reject wholeheartedly. The verse most familiar to Catholics and Protestants in this area (and, unfortunately one we should rejoice over more rather than bicker) is that from Matthew Chapter 16.

Matthew 16:17-20
"Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld (hell) shall not prevail against it.

First, let's take a look at our first area of Catholic-Protestant controversy:
And so I say to you, you are Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld (hell) shall not prevail against it.

The Catholic view is that Jesus is changing Simon's name to the Rock, and upon that very rock the church is to be built. Peter comes from the Greek Petros, whereas rock comes from the Greek petra. Petros is simply a masculine version of petra; it also means rock.

Even taking that into account, many Protestants will argue that there is no LINK between Petros and petra in this verse. The rock of the church is held to be Jesus himself, Peter's confession, etc.

Now, let me just show that while the Catholic Church holds Peter to be the rock, many Protestants have as well. That is not to say they accept what we Catholics would consider the logical end results; it simply means that in contrast to many Protestants, they are not trying to read their own interpretation into the text.

JOHN BROADUS
( NINETEENTH-CENTURY CALVINISTIC BAPTIST)
"As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession" [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356]

CRAIG L. BLOMBERG
( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)
"The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification" [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252]
J. KNOX CHAMBLIN
( CONTEMPORARY PRESBYTERIAN)
"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself" ["Matthew" in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742]
R. T. FRANCE
( CONTEMPORARY ANGLICAN)
"The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254)
HERMAN RIDDERBOS
( CONTEMPORARY DUTCH REFORMED)
"It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter" [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303]
DONALD HAGNER
( CONTEMPORARY EVANGELICAL)
"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

All things considered, obviously one can say that Petros = Petra in this passage, that Peter is the rock of the church, without becoming a Catholic. That being the case, our emphasis should be on what FOLLOWS.

"I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Guess what? This is an example not only of a commission, but is a fulfillment citation, in a sense. It is linking directly back to the Old Testament. Standing clearly in the background of Matthew 16:19 is Isaiah 22:20-23, which relates the installation of Eliakim as custodian of "'the key of the house of David.'"
Isaiah 22:20-23
"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."

When Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, he means business. Eliakim was being made the master of the palace, the prime minister of the Davidic Kingdom. In the ancient Near East the office was widely established. Joseph was master of the palace of Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen. 41. In addition, the Davidic Kingdom had a Queen Mother; the Mother of the King was Queen of Israel, and the wife of the King was considered a princess.

Jesus is a Jewish Messiah and of the line of David. He is creating (eternally) a Davidic Kingdom, in which he is the King and the owner of the Keys, and Peter is the Prime Minister or Custodian of the Keys. (And for all of you with qualms calling Mary queen of heaven, she is the Queen Mother in this case).

According to the Book of Revelation, (Rev. 3:7) Jesus is "the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens." So he OWNS the keys. Yet he is still free to charge another, namely, Peter (and his successors) with the stewardship of the keys and of the Church.

So we see Peter is given stewardship of the kingdom/the church by virtue of the keys. So what about the binding and loosing? Well it obviously also has roots in Isaiah, who says, "when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." So Peter is the rock of the Church, the custodian and steward of the Church, yet what does it mean to say he can bind and loose? For isn't that the point at which Protestants say "woaah there," because of their opposition to the Catholic ministerial priesthood and ecclesiastical authority, especially papal primacy?

When all else fails, learn Greek. Matthew 16:18–19 uses a very rare Greek construction—the future perfect periphrastic tense—which employs the future tense of the verb to be along with the perfect participle. According to Hewett:

"This tense . . . occurs rarely in the GNT (Greek New Testament), but the student will do well to be familiar with it. Consider Matthew 16:19 (two examples) and 18:18 (two examples): ‘Whatever you bind on the earth will have been bound [estai dedemenon] in heaven and whatever you loose on the earth will have been loosed [estai lelumenon] in heaven.’ The construction declares that a completed heavenly action and its continuing results will come to exist on earth upon the completion of a future earthly event"

This means that to bind and loose in Matthew 16:18 (applied to Peter alone) and Matthew 18:18 (applied to Peter and the other apostles) is not simply to declare what God has already decided. It implies authority. Full spiritual authority infuses binding, or loosing. But binding or loosing of what? Namely, sins.

Now wait a minute. Peter and the other apostles were given a completely spiritual authority to bind and loose the sins of others? Sounds too good for the Catholic cause to be true, seeing as how it, and no Protestant denomination, practices Sacramental Confession to a priest.

Let's take a quick look at the Gospel of John, Chapter 20
John 20:21-23
"The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. [Jesus] said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit." Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."

How much more explicit can Jesus get? The Apostles here were given the authority to FORGIVE, and RETAIN, sins. The model of the address follows the exact same pattern as that in Matthew. Instead of bind and loose in the Gospel of Matthew, we have retain and forgive in the Gospel of John. This would tend to strongly suggest that Peter & the Apostles spiritual authority to bind and loose means the spiritual authority to leave unforgiven, or to forgive, the sins of others.

It is not an issue of confessing directly to Jesus or not because if the binding and loosing authority is granted by Jesus to his Apostles (and logically, to their successors, otherwise the authority is effectively useless), then confessing to an apostle or a modern priest IS confessing to Jesus, for he had told his disciples, "Who receives you receives me."

This being the case, it seems clear mainly from the Gospel of Matthew, the main Gospel of the Church, from the other Gospels, and from common sense and simple, unbiased reasoning that Jesus established a true, visible, eternal Church, one led by his followers who would be endowed with the spiritual authority to forgive and retain sins themselves. To call the Church anything but Catholic is to ignore the facts.

I hope you all enjoyed my post, I know it was a little long, and for those who didn't enjoy it, I hope you at least got something out of it. We Catholics are not as ignorant nor unsupported by scripture and history as many of our critics claim.

Post a comment