November 28, 2003
A Letter from a Convert
I read this letter in a book entitled, "Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic" by David B. Currie. It is on Scriptural Authority and it is excellent. I will quote the section in its entirety here.
"On this subject of scriptural authority, let me begin by quoting from a letter I wrote to one of the pastors of the Baptist church we attended immediately before reconciling to Catholicism. The letter deals with the unresolvable problem of Protestantism: authority. It was one of several letters I wrote during the time I was leaving the board and then the church itself. My reading of the Old Testament that I mentioned in the second paragraph of the following extract was actually the first step in my pilgrimage to Catholicism. If not for this issue, I might still be an Evangelical with strong Catholic sympathies. The Eucharist showed me why I should be a Catholic. The Protestant problem with scriptural authority showed me why I could never remain a Protestant, Evangelical or no. The letter has been edited for its inclusion here.'So that you better understand, let me explain the progression of my thinking to you. When I started this pilgrimage, I accepted the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura, or "only Scripture" (Scripture is the Christian's final authority for his faith).
Several years ago I set a goal for myself of reading the entire Bible through in a year. I chose the NIV Bible because I had not done much reading in that version up to that time. As I read the Old Testament, I was struck by several major issues. The most revolutionary for me was that I saw that no one could have established or maintained Judaism in the way God desired from the data found only in the Bible. There were too many holes and gaps: so much was assumed. I saw that a tremendous amount of what was involved in being a God-fearing, God-pleasing Israelite must have been passed down from generation to generation in an oral instruction (tradition). You want just one example? Try to reconstruct the process of offering a sin offering to God from the Old Testament alone. You can't get to first base! Reconstructing worship that would be pleasing to God from the Old Testament alone is impossible. There are many such examples.This fact bothered me tremendously. It is hard for me to express in writing how unsettling the implications of that insight were to me. The God-ordained religion that Moses had helped to set up required the faithful transmission of oral tradition from generation to generation. Otherwise, the practice of Judaism in a way pleasing to God would have been impossible. I had always thought of the Jews as "people of the Book", yet the Book was not enough! This flew in the face of everything I had ever been taught. I knew it struck at the very heart of sola scriptura by illustrating the necessity of an authoritative oral tradition.
And yet, for us Christians in this age of grace, had not Jesus changed all that? Hadn't Jesus condemned all the traditions (binding oral tradition) of the Jews when he taught here on earth? The next step in my thinking came when I understood that the answer to that question is an emphatic "No." This was not my own insight; I encountered it in a verse that had been pointed out by Scott Hahn.
Jesus actually commanded the Jewish people of his day to obey the Pharisees' traditional teachings, orally transmitted: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you' (Matt 23:2-3). But the seat of Moses itself is not to be found anywhere in the Old Testament! The seat of Moses was a product of that historic oral tradition so important to the Israelite faith. Jesus gives the authority of tradition his unqualified approval and commands his contemporaries to obey tradition's precepts. They are not given the option of obeying only those traditions they could justify with a "chapter and verse". Jesus explicitly included "everything they tell you". Nor are there and "ifs, ands, or buts" to qualify the obligation to obey. The main problem Jesus had with the Pharisees is evidenced in the rest of the passage; they did not obey their own teaching. The authoriatative nature of tradition is expressly taught here by Jesus himself.
We Evangelicals have always (rightly, I think) made a rather large point of the fact that Jesus gave his approval to the Old Testament books by quoting from them. We view that as his vote of confidence in their inspiration and canonicity. How could I have gone to Bible school, Christian college, and seminary without having this verse hit me between the eyes before? It establishes the fact that tradition (along with Scripture) had an absolutely valid right to my belief and obedience if I were living in the time of the Old Covenant. The Protestant dichotomy between truth found in Scripture and truth taught verbally by God's leaders through the generations had no place in Jesus' thinking.
How about the New Covenant? Did Jesus make the statement he did about tradition just for the benefit of the Jews hearing him (the Old Covenant was almost over, after all). Did the Holy Spirit inspire Matthew to record that statement of Jesus with no view of how the Church might interpret it? Or was Jesus stating something about tradition (remember, that is just God's truth passed down in oral form for generation to generation) that would set the stage for his greatest creation, the Church?
The fact that there was a tremendous amount of Jesus' life and teaching that was never written down cannot be denied. 'Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written' (John 21:25). The writer of any given book of the New Testament chose, under inspiration, for the available data in order to fit the purpose of his letter or book.
Simply because something was not chosen for inclusion in a book did not mean it was no longer true, or that it was not actively taught by the apostles in the first century. In fact, in the case of epistles, the reverse would seem to be more plausible. Many of the most common and well-known practices and teachings of the early Church would be the least likely to be included in any of the writings of the early Church for the simple reason that they would be least likely to be misunderstood or called into question and thus require a written reinforcement or correction. This has been called the "occasional nature" of the New Testament.
I could not avoid the possibility that tradition was important and acceptable. I started to enumerate in my mind the Catholic traditions that Evangelicals unthinkingly accept, such as worship on Sunday and the canon of the New Testament. (There are even some unbiblical traditions of Evangelicals, such as teh popular election of pastors, elders, and deacons.) But Scripture pushed me to go one giant step farther. I have now come to the firm conclusion that the New Testament clearly and positively teaches that we are under the obligation to obey the verbal teaching (tradition) of the Church, just as we are under the obligation to obey clear mandates of the inspired New Testament. Disobedience of the one is just as serious as disobedience of the other.
A Scripture verse my be in order: 'So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter' (2 Th 2:15). The verbal teaching by mouth (oral tradition) has equal authority with the written teaching of Paul. This verse, even if it were the only one on this topic in the entire Bible (it is not), would mortally wound the Protestant view that Scripture is all we need to know of the will of God for our salvation.
Elsewhere Paul instructs Timothy to take this truth he has learned and find men capable of protecting it and passing it on (note the emphasis on the oral nature of this truth): 'And the things you have heard me sayin the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others' (2 Tim 2:2). This is a natural extension of Jesus' command to "go and make disciples." Christianity is a living religion, protected and passed on by people, not paper. We are not to be merely people of the Book but the people of God. Nowhere does Paul imply that the written word is to be used against the verbal tradition or the men entrusted with its protection. It would take the Gnostic heretics to think up that strategy. It has been a plague on the Church ever since, starting its use against the Apostle John himself.
The verse I always used to quote on the sufficiency of Scripture actually reinforces the Catholic view: 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness' (2 Tim 3:16). The is useful for all these, but this verse certainly never promotes Scripture as the final authority for our faith.
This is why I said what I said in my previous letter: 'To paraphrase Protestants, only these doctrines taught in the Bible are to be trusted for our theology. This very statement, however, is logically self-destructive! The simple fact is that (according to your own criteria) this statement cannot be trusted, because it is not taught in the Bible. The Protestant view of the Bible is unbiblical. Your view of Scripture is unscriptural.' I have concluded that, concerning scriptural authority, the Bible clearly teaches the opposite of what the Protestants are trying to say it teaches.
If that makes you feel a bit queasy, then believe me, I know how you feel. That is precisely the point at which I went into the library last spring, diligently (shall I say even frantically?) looking for a way out of this corner. Protestant theologians have no answer. If you don't believe me, spend some time looking for yourself. Read only Protestants. I did. You will find most of them don't even deal with the issue. Those who do will admit they have no good answer, but they take the Protestant view concerning Scripture by faith.
You mention the Trinity as an example of a doctrine we both ascribe to, yet it is not mentioned in the text of Scripture. For clarity's sake, we must distinguish between the teaching of Scripture and the mentioning of a specific theological word in Scripture. I believe the Bible does teach the substance of the Trinity, even though it does not use the word 'Trinity'. This issue of biblical authority apart from and above all other authority is an entirely different issue. The Protestants have used as the basis for their whole system of authority an idea that is not only not mentioned but not taught in the Bible - anywhere. If you think that this is, then show me. That is precisely what I have been asking the leadership of this church to do for several months.
In college I majored in philosophy. I remember the fascination I experienced when we studied the person who says, 'I will accept as true only what science can experimentally validate as true.' That person's worldview (rather common among Americans today) is self-destructive, because the statement itself cannot be validated by its own criterion. If you read the quotation again, you notice that it cannot be scientifically proven. The statement is outside the realm of science. Yet that is what the person is claiming to reject, all truth outside the realm of science. So the modern worshipper of science has accepted a logically invalid premise on which to base his beliefs. His system cannot be true, because the foundation is internally inconsistent. What he is really saying is, 'I will accept as true only what science can experimentally validate as true - except for this one statement.'
Another example of this error is the relativist hedonist who says, 'There are no moral absolutes.' The hedonist is in logical trouble because the very statement is a moral absolute that there are no moral absolutes. His system self-destructs. It cannot be true regardless of how popular it is in America today. What he is really saying is 'There are no moral absolutes...except for this one.'
Another common example of this problem within the very root of a statement or system is the person who says, 'all generalizations are false.' This very statement is, of course, a generalizaation, and so the statement is nonsense. It self-destructs. He is really saying, 'All generalizations are false - except for this one.'
The Protestant is in exactly the same logically invalid position as are the people in these three examples. Nowhere does the Bible teach that Scripture is the sole authority for faith. Authoritative? Yes! Only Scripture? No! It is not only that the word is not used, as with the Trinity; it is that the very concept is unbiblical. The Protestant is really saying, 'Only doctrines explicitly grounded in the teaching of the Bible are ultimately trustworthy - except for this one.' The system cannot be true with an internal inconsistency such as this.
The Bible does give us a way out: 'the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15). Christ set up his Church, living from generation to generation, to be the guardian of his truth. The Church is the arbiter of what is true and what is not. It uses the Bible and reverences it, but it must not place the Bible into a position the Bible itself specifically rules out - that of being the only source of authority in a Christian's life.
The issue is not whether our view of the Bible is 'high' or 'low' but whether our view of the Bible is biblical. Unless you can show me how I am mistaken, I can only point out the obvious: the Protestant view of Scripture is unscriptural. If that conclusion is true, the whole system of Protestantism, logically speaking, comes crashing down upon it adherents, with eternal consequences.Your friend and brother in Christ,
David B. CurrieP.S. I have not here dealt at all with how the earliest Christians viewed the issue of scriptural authority. What did they teach regarding the truth and where to find it? I will quote only one early Father, but he is representative. Ignatius was a leader of the Church in Antioch, a martyr by the act of Emperor Trajan. He wrote these words with ten to fifteen years of the Apostle John's death (and so after the New Testament canon was completely written): 'The bishop embodies the authority of God the Father,...show him every mark of respect...defer to him' (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, 3). And again: 'It is proper for you to act in agreement with the mind of the bishop; ...by your unity taking keynote from God, you may with one voice through Jesus Christ sing a song to the Father...It profits you, therefore, to continue in your flawless unity, that you may at all times have a share in God' (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 4). Passages such as these are what prompted the statement in my previous letter: 'For fifteen centuries the bishop was the final authority. Along came the Protestant reformers and set up a new authority.'
The pastoral staff contacted me after receiving this letter and promised an answer. I waited months for an answer of any sort. I was surprised when it never came. My Catholic friends were not. They knew there was no answer."
Okay fellow bloggers...a challenge! Can any of you give Mr. Currie an answer? I boldly say that you can't! Go ahead...do the research. This is just another foundation shaker....just like Jay's article on Sola Scriptura. It's amusing to me how several of you attempt to pick apart doctrines like the virginity of Mary and Purgatory (unsuccessfully I might add) but you are silent on this issue... In truth, it makes all of your "biblical" agruments null and void. Answer this or concede that you have no foundation. This is the challenge to all Protestants reading this post.
Your brother in Christ,
Joe
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Hi Jay and Joe. I will defend Sola Scriptura at another stage. However, I would like to refute Purgatory and the other theological implications of that doctrine.
For the sake of those who may not be familiar with Catholic thinking on these topics: Catholicism teaches that after death, some people are sent to a place called purgatory for further purification before entering heaven:
"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. " Pg. 2658, #1030 "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect..." Pg. 268-269, #1031
Did this critical doctrine come from God, or is it another tradition of men? Here' s your answer, right out of the Catechism: "The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent." Pg. 268-269, #1031 Is it unreasonable to ask where a group of men got their information about the afterlife to formulate such a doctrine?
Precious Roman Catholic, if you are praying for loved ones you believe are in purgatory, you need to be aware that God didn't tell you they were there, a group of religious leaders did:
"But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory..." Pg. 249, #954
If you suffer, it's not a gift: What makes this doctrine even more disturbing is that the Bible never indicates such a place exists. Neither does the Bible teach that further purification after death is necessary to earn going to heaven. On the contrary, God's Word declares that salvation is a free gift: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23
"...by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18
Would an honest, loving God offer you eternal life as a free gift - then make you suffer to earn it - then lie about it in His Word? "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8 If the Bible is to be believed, then there is no need for further purification for those who die in Christ. They have already been justified by Jesus: "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Romans 5:9
"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" Romans 3:24
The Apostle Paul drives home this same point: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus..." 1 Corinthians 6:11. True Christians are already purified because Jesus put away all sin on the cross: "...but now once in the end of the world hath he (Jesus) appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Hebrews 9:26. God's children are not required to suffer for salvation because they have been bought and paid for: "For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's." 1 Corinthians 6:20
The price was the blood of Jesus Christ: "...feed the church of God, which he (Jesus) hath purchased with his own blood." Acts 20:28
If the Bible is so clear on this subject, why did the Catholic church institute a doctrine that has persuaded faithful members to give multiplied millions of dollars to the church to have prayers and Masses said on behalf of departed loved ones? You must answer that for yourself.
Now, at least you know that the doctrine of purgatory was hatched from the minds of mortal men: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Romans 8:1
In Christ,
Simon
Joe,
Brother, let me comment further on the topic we were discussing several days ago. As,you know, the Catechism requires allCatholics to "venerate" statues, or images of Christ, Mary and others: "Sacred images in our churches and homes are intended to awaken and nourish our faith in the mystery of Christ. Through the icon of Christ and his works of salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred salvation, it is he whom we adore. Through sacred images of the holy Mother of God, of the angels and of the saints, we venerate the persons represented." Pg. 307, #1192
Regardless of what statues are intended to do, one thing is certain - they transgress God's instructions. When God gave the ten commandments, the second one was: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:" Exodus 20:4
God also ordered: "Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth." Deuteronomy 16:22 The Bible concludes that those who make or have statues have been corrupted: "Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves... Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female..." Deuteronomy 4:15-16
God states His position again: "Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee." Deuteronomy 4:23
God's Word also expressly forbids people from bowing down to statues, which is customary in the Catholic church. Whenever you see a picture of the pope bowing before a statue of Mary, you should think about this verse of Holy Scripture: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God..." Exodus 20:5 In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul explains why God was so adamant about idols: "What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?... the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils (demons), and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils." 1 Corinthians 10:19-20
Behind every idol is a literal demon, and God does not want anyone fellowshipping with demons. No wonder God forbids the use of idols: "Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:4
God hates idolatry: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater... with such an one no not to eat." 1 Corinthians 5:11 "For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:5
Here, God declares that idolaters will not enter heaven. The next verses warns: "Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience." Ephesians 5:6. Is the Catholic church deceiving you with vain words? You must decide that for yourself.
Origins of this doctrine need to be understood. Catholicism does not even pretend that this doctrine came from God: "Following the divinely inspired teaching of our holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church (for we know that this tradition comes from the Holy Spirit who dwells in her) we rightly define with full certainty and correctness that, like the figure of the precious and life-giving cross, venerable and holy images of our Lord and God and Savior, Jesus Christ, our inviolate Lady, the holy Mother of God, and the venerated angels, all the saints and the just, whether painted or made of mosaic or another suitable material, are to be exhibited in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and vestments, walls and panels, in houses and on streets." Pg. 300, #1161
This doctrine came from the "holy Fathers" and "tradition of the Catholic Church." You are expected to believe that these holy Fathers were "divinely inspired" to violate God's Word. Can you accept this? The psalmist teaches us even more on the subject: "The idols of the heathen are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. They have mouths, but they speak not; eyes have they, but they see not; They have ears, but they hear not; neither is there any breath in their mouths. They that make them are like unto them: so is every one that trusteth in them." Psalm 135:15-18
In other words, as an idol is deaf and dumb, so everyone who makes idols or trusts in them is devoid of understanding. This is a powerful warning from a loving and compassionate God.
The Catholic church contends that idols will "awaken and nourish" your faith in "the mystery of Christ." But God's Word forbids their use. Who will you obey?
"Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 26:1
"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men..." Mark 7:8
Joe, I have analysed your arguments with both myself and with Marc. You spend alot of time responding subjectively using statemes about experience and history that neither prove your position or really disprove it either. The problem is that I dont think you understand your bible well enough to give an informed biblical opinion.
God Bless
Simon
I can give Mr. Currie an answer. Before I do however, I would like to point out that Mr. Currie seems to have based his "reconciliation" with the Catholic Church on some rather shaky ground. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Currie was ever a believer in Sola Scriptura, or whether he actually even understands what the term implies. To begin with, there are several interpretations of Matt 23:2-3, none of which to my knowledge have ever led to the conlcusions that he seems to draw apon. All he has to do is read a little further in the passage and he will find that Jesus is not speaking of obedience to tradition positively (see verse 5 and 6) What surprises me even further is that the moderators of this site would post such a weak argument on this site in the hope of furthering their refuting of Sola Scriptura.
Although in parts, quite an intersting read, Mr. Currie's story, niether philsophically or exegetically answers the question that it raises..."Does the bible stand alone as the authority?"
No one is refuting the idea that there is authority in oral tradition. What is at stake is how "much" authority should one place in tradition and why. In the passages he quotes, Paul is arguing for the importance of handing down traditional teachings and values. No one in my camp will deny that. But there is a qualitative difference in the credence one gives to oral tradition handed down from generation to generation by sinful men. Of course catholics believe that the popes (starting with Peter who even admited to Jesus that he was a sinful man) have somewhere along the line inherited this capacity for infallability. Many of your own Popes in the past have eserted themselves as being the final authority on earth over the souls of men. The whole idea or "The Church" having authority has taken away from what Jesus came to do and put it back into the hands of men.
Please answer this question: If you believe in the infallability of apostolic succession, that must also mean that all the evils that The Church has poured out on mankind through history have been warrented or justified?
Perhaps you should agree that as a true catholic you really have no basis for using the bible to argue your case, because you are not allowed to interpret it for yourself anyway. Think on some of these observations:
Are Catholics able to interpret God's Word for themselves? "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 30, #100 Can only the pope and the leadership of the Catholic church properly interpret God's Word? Let's go to the Bible and see how God feels about this teaching. When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people: "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11 In other words, they interpreted the Scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit. "And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" Mark 12:24
Why did Jesus chastise the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures if it was impossible for them to interpret them? And why did Peter, Catholicism's first " pope," declare the following? "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." 2 Peter 1:20. Why does Paul instruct us to study the Bible if we can't interpret it? "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
Jesus admonished the Jews to: "Search the scriptures..." John 5:39 Why would He do that, if He knew they couldn't interpret them? Who does the interpreting? The Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit, not a group of men, will interpret Scripture for God's children and will help them to understand all things: "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John 14:26 "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth..." John 16:13
The Apostle Paul recognized that the Holy Spirit was the One who taught him: "Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Corinthians 2:13 "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God." 1 Corinthians 2:12
Why are Christians commanded to memorize the Scriptures if they can' t understand them? "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee." Psalm 119:11"Keep my commandments, and live... write them upon the table of thine heart." Proverbs 7:2-3
The following verses of Scripture should alarm anyone who believes they need a church to interpret the Bible for them: "These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie , and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." 1 John 2:26-27
Could God's position be any plainer? Why is the Catholic church so determined to interpret the Scriptures for you? Is it because they want to control you and keep you in bondage to Catholicism? Are they afraid that if you read the Scriptures for yourself, you might discover that Catholic doctrines are contrary to God's Word? Do you really believe that all non-Catholics are groping around in spiritual blindness, needing the Catholic church to interpret the Bible for them?
You must settle these things in your own mind, but your most important decision is: "Who will interpret Scripture for you... the Holy Spirit of God or the Roman Catholic church?" Your answer to that question will determine who you will obey and eventually where you will spend eternity:
"O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. " Psalm 119:97-99
I think I have given a substantial response to the question being asked. I dont think I need to give you more biblical passages that speak of the Scriptures as being the final authoritity. You have seen them all and still you point to Martin Luther and others who only put into motion an idea that goes back long before the Catholic Church ever existed. Of course you will all be able to find fault with Luther, just as I can find fault with your papal history. But neither argument is really addressing the question at hand. Only the bible can do that.
Regards in Christ
Simon
Posted by: Simon at December 2, 2003 02:35 AMSimon,
First, I am really praying for your conversion. Like Saul you have a lot of zeal, it is just clearly misdirected.
1) In reference to Purgatory, I think Jay's article provided both a biblical foundation and a logical explanation. It wasn't just a group of men who clearly defined this teaching, it was the Pope in union with bishops in a council of the Catholic Church, just as previous popes and bishops had defined the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the dual nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, the use of Sunday as the day of worship, and so forth. All teachings that Protestants accept yet that are not clearly laid out in the Bible.
2) I would agree with you on the use of one word, and one word only, in your comments about images. Idolatry. That is the worship of some thing. CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP MARY, THE SAINTS, OR ANY IMAGE, BE THAT IMAGE OF JESUS OR ANY ONE ELSE! Why can't you understand this?! You apparently have a Cathechism of the Catholic Church, so show me in the Catechism where Catholics are instructed to worship images....
Venerate means, literally, to reverence or revere. An image of Jesus should be revered, for it is an image of the Son of God, but that does mean we worship that image. When Catholics kneel before an image we are not worshipping that image rather we are asking our Mother Mary or a particular saint to pray for us and help us, or if we kneel before a Crucifix we are not worshipping the Crucifix rather we are praying to and adoring Christ in spirit and truth. Again, please note that we are not worshipping the image. As the Catechism states:
"Adoration is the first attitude of man acknowledging that he is a creature before his Creator. It exalts the greatness of the Lord who made us and the almighty power of the Savior who sets us free from evil. Adoration is homage of the spirit to the 'King of Glory', respectful silence in the presence of the 'ever greater' God. Adoration of the thrice-holy and sovereign God of love blends with humility and gives assurance to our supplications" (CCC, pg. 632, 2628).
3) What in the world are you talking about in reference to Matthew 23:2-3, please don't make random comments like "there are several interpretations of Matt 23:2-3, none of which to my knowledge have ever led to the conlcusions that he seems to draw upon". What interpretations and what do they say? Try providing support for your comments. David Currie's letter is full of biblical texts supporting the fact that the Bible is not the sole authority on matters of truth. Again, you and Marc, have failed to provide one scriptural revference that clearly and concisely supports your position, a fact that I have gone to great pains to point out, yet both of you fail to acknowledge.
4) 1 John 2 - It is ironic that you should reference this chapter of John's first epistle. The context of this chapter is a warning against antichrists. He clearly indicates that instruction proceded their knowledge.
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us" (1 John 2:19).
He is clearly referencing a unity of sorts and considering the overemphasis within the New Testament on the Church, it is clear what he means. He is focusing on how one can know an antichrist, "he who denies the Father and the Son" (1 John 2:22). He goes on to support both apostolic tradition and his own authority when he states in his third epistle:
"I have written something to the church; but Diotrephes, who likes to put himself first, does not acknowledge my authority. So if I come, I will bring up what he is doing, prating against me with evil words" (3 John, verse 9). Here he clearly shows that there must be some sort of hierarchy within the Church. Note that he states that he (a bishop) is writing to the church. He is giving instruction, no different than the role of bishop now.
5) In reference to your comments on suffering, and I quote:
"If you suffer, it's not a gift" posted above in reference to purgatory but stated as a fact.
I'll let you meditate on this:
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of the Church, of which I became a minister according to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations but now made manifest to his saints" (1 Colossians 1:24-26).
So Paul suffers gladly for the "Church" of which he is a "minister". So suffering becomes a part of ministry. Suffering is a part of the life of the Christian and a gift from God.
Christ would not have said "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matthew 16:24, also, Matthew 10:38-39 and Luke 14:27) if suffering was without value.
The cross entails suffering, look where Jesus went with His cross, and He commands us to follow him. So suffering does have value, whether in this life or in the next. Purgatory is the suffering of joy, because it is there that Christ purges away all that keeps us from Him. Purgatory is a direct sign of the mercy of God.
I will say this, I get tired of all the jumping around you and Marc do, as do many of our readers. Some have even openly complained about the inability of both you and Marc to stay focused on the topic at hand. I have had a lot of interaction with Protestants over the years and, unfortunately, I have found this to be a common trait. Instead of being able to clearly address the issue at hand they jump from one topic to another, often showing that they never attempted to read (or listen) nor understand the initial argument. Try to stay focused, brother. One issue at a time. We are willing and ready to cover them all and will be posting additional articles on all the areas of Catholicism you are questioning.
In Christ,
Joe
Simon,
Are your comments only for Jay and Joe? Because they are overwhelming to me, so many subjects at once. (and why 3 looong postings in a row?) I've noticed that you seem to ask the same questions of this site over and over again, no matter how many times your question has been answered. Joe and Jay are very kind to continue answering the same questions, I wish they would refer you to the article where that topic is already covered. There are already numerous postings on this site explaining the Catholic Church's oppinion of many topics you skip around. If you really want to know, then would you please read those articles and then post your questions there? For example, you brought up suffering in one of your postings above. Jay wrote a beautiful article,"Meditation on Suffering" filed under Catholic Life. It seems to me that Joe more than adequately addressed suffering in his response to you above as well.
I would like to address this, too, because your comment disturbed me. You wrote that suffering is not a gift- Where did you get that from? Comments like that discredit you in my mind, why would you even write that knowing how many unbelievers could read your words?
It makes no sense for any Christian believing that Christ was crucified. That he suffered on the cross for us, why should we not GLADLY suffer for Him? It is the very least that we can do. Since my conversion to the Catholic faith, this realization alone has given me so much grace, it truly changed my heart!
(Thanks be to God!)
Another comment you made that is completely untrue is that Catholics are not allowed to interpret the bible for ourselves.
YOU WON'T FIND THAT IN THE CATHECISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!
Look up Sacred Scripture in the Cathecism. You will find a plethora of instruction to READ the bible. One especially beautiful instruction is:
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful... to learn 'the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,' by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. 'Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ'"
The Cathecism is a wonderful tool! It guides us as the Sacred Scripture does to follow God's word!
I pray for you Simon because I see in my own life the graces that have poured out when I opened my heart and my eyes to the truth. Come and see for yourself the fullness of the mystery of Christ! I am praying that God will lead you to truth! God Bless you and keep you. You are clearly a man of great faith, keep digging!
Posted by: krista at December 3, 2003 09:19 AMKrista,
To begin with, the questions that I am asking are rhetorical. I am very familiar with Catholic doctrine. I am not seeking to understand it further, rather, I am pointing out its inconsistencies. I have read numerous books and articles by catholic theologians and I have also perused the material written by Jay. If any of you have taken anything I have written with any degree of seriousness, you would discover that I am most certainly answering the questions being raised by the discussion. Please go to the posts I have made on Sola Scriptura. There you will find that I have answered the questions both historically, biblically and philosophically. A few of you accuse me of “jumping” around, “side-stepping”, or just avoiding the topic altogether. It appears your own logic must be eluding you. At every juncture of my argument, I have taken the time to quote the Catechism and then point out where it conflicts with the bible. I have even shown you where the bible continues to compliment itself regarding its own authority. Yet you are obviously still confused by the line of reasoning. You ask protestants to give their response to a topic such as Purgatory, yet when we do so using many verses of Scripture (rather than just one or two) you accuse us of avoiding the issue!
Krista, Let me explain what I mean here by pointing to just a few of your own responses to my post. Both you and Joe (I will address both of you here) have been concerned about my comments regarding suffering. But nowhere did I say that suffering has no value. On the contrary, any serious protestant believer understands the verses that you quoted. I most certainly believe that suffering is unavoidable in the life of a Christian. Moreover I agree with you that we must face our trials with joy and even rejoice when we face sufferings of many kinds. But nowhere does the bible suggest that suffering is a GIFT in the way you have been taught to see it. Furthermore, both of you have completely side-stepped the focus of my argument, which was on the specific Purgatorial nature of suffering, not suffering for the gospel. There is a big difference between enduring suffering for the gospel of Christ (which is what Paul is talking about in Philippians 1:29) and actually suffering for your own salvation. Krista, if I have discredited myself to you by these statements, it must mean that the bible is also discredited for you as well. Because, I repeat; NO verse in the bible states or even alludes to suffering as being a GIFT that we must endure salvifically either for ourselves or anyone else. Suffering is a reality we must endure; it was a result of the Fall, it wasn’t God’s plan from the beginning. We will all still suffer in this life, but SALVIFIC suffering has been completed through the Atonement of Christ (Hebrews 9:26, 10:10).
Take note of these verses: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23 "...by the righteousness of one (Jesus) the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Romans 5:18. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:" Ephesians 2:8. Why would God give you a Gift of suffering for you own salvation as well as the salvation of others, when he has already given you salvation through Jesus as a free GIFT? Seems rather contradictory doesn’t it? Would an honest, loving God offer you eternal life as a free gift - then make you suffer to earn it - then lie about it in His Word? I think not!
Dear Krista, you might be allowed or even encouraged to read the bible, but you are most certainly not allowed to INTERPRET the bible for yourself? If so, the Catechism must be contradicting itself again; or, perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with it: "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." Pg. 30, #100
The Catechism repeats the same doctrine using different words: "For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God." (Pg. 34, #119)
Therefore, the Catechism concludes that the one final authority is not the Bible, but the current teaching of the Catholic church, since she is the only one qualified to provide an "authentic in-terpretation" of God's Word.
Krista, your own statements to me reveal that you are uninformed regarding your own doctrine, or you simply don’t care to ponder the fact that the Catechism makes the issue of interpretation very clear.
My dear sister, may the lord bless you and keep you; may he cause his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you; may he lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace (Numbers 6:24-26)
In Christ,
Simon
Simon,
So why are you here if you aren't looking for answers...simply to be divisive? If you were sincere about the truth you would be open.
1) Sola Scriptura is the pivotal point to this entire discussion. Whether you like it or not...period. If Sacred Scripture is not the sole source of truth then the Church proclaiming that Purgatory is a true spiritual state should not be an issue. Since we have shown you multiple verses that support the Catholic Tradition that both Scripture and Tradition work together within the Church as the foundation of truth then any of your comments, as lengthy as they might be, are invalid. So let's recap one more time....
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter."
- 1 Timothy 3:15 "...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth."
These two verses alone support the Catholic position, not to mention the multiple verses referenced by Jay and David Currie in his letter that I quoted. Regardless of what you might claim above, you have not given us clear and concise Scriptural verses to support your argument that our faith is based on the Bible alone. This is my final challenge. Bulletpoint out the verses in the Bible that clearly state that the Bible is the sole source of authority or concede to the fact that the Bible never states it.
2)Purgatory does not in any way contradict any of the verses you quote attempting to make do just that. Just because God promises us eternal life as a gift does not mean that purgatory isn't necessary. Heaven is for the holy...period, we are purified in purgatory of those things that keep us from God, note that we chose these things in life, therefore, God in His Mercy, purifies us of these things in the life to come. No one has responded to the verses I quoted from the Gospels supporting the doctrine of Purgatory. Matthew 18:32-35 states: "Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
Please note that Jesus even clarifies this doctrine for His listeners by saying "So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you..." indicating a future event. Purgatory was accepted and taught by the Early Church Fathers as well. So keep arguing for the sake of arguing but this does not contradict the Bible.
3) I will quote you here: We will all still suffer in this life, but SALVIFIC suffering has been completed through the Atonement of Christ (Hebrews 9:26, 10:10).
It is St. Paul that contradicts you here:
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of the Church" (1 Colossians 1:24) Please note that St. Paul "rejoices" in his suffering and that he suffers for "them" (the Catholics he is writing to) and "for the sake of the Church" (all Catholics). I don't know what level of denial you have ascended to, but this is perfect clear.
I have no intention of letting you continue to post on this blog if you are not willing to deal with the issue at hand and give us bulletpoints of the biblical verses that support Sola Scriptura.
I do this in charity for we have many sincere people coming to this site seeking truth, not your interpretation of it.
In Christ,
Joe
Joe,
Originally you told me you enjoyed the conversations we were having. Now you are threatening to ban me. I haven’t seen Marc around lately. Did he get banned as well? All theological arguments sooner or later become divisive Joe. I am not here to incite some kind of mass rebellion against the Catholic Church. It is a discussion forum. The idea of a discussion forum implies that people can comment freely regarding the issues at hand. However, you are increasingly becoming less tolerant of my views. You continue to say that you are getting sick of the discussions because we are apparently not answering the questions. Well, my answers to the topic on Purgatory, was taken from an article I wrote several years ago on the topic. That article received applause from many denominations. I You may not agree with what I am saying, but rather than responding like a true scholar, you are now threatening me with a ban, unless I comply with your version of how the topics should be answered. This attitude itself is unscholarly.
I will answer your long awaited question on Sola Scriptura. There is no place in the bible that specifically states that Sola Scriptura is to be accepted as a doctrine. Are you satisfied now? However, I will also point out that nowhere does the bible speak of the church or any man (apart from Jesus Christ) as being the custodian of truth either. Sure, you can squeeze a few verses into saying something for you. But the facts remain. Nowhere does the bible teach the idea of Catholicism. If it does, show me where! You own comments prove your inability to grasp the gravity of your own argument. Joe, you said, “Paul rejoices in his sufferings for “them” (meaning the Catholic Church). Paul was writing to the Colossian believers. There was no such thing as the Catholic Church in those times, because the doctrines that make up “Catholicism” were long off being developed. Can’t you see the errors in your argument here? Now where does this leave us? It still leaves us where we started--with the bible. Now if you would like to quote from the Apocrypha as well, that is fine. I am familiar with it. However, if you still don’t think that I have made it clear enough, I will make bullet points with scripture on every section of your Purgatory Doctrine as well as on the topic of Sola Scriptura.
Now I would like to respond to some of your comments from an earlier post. On the one hand you agree that Catholics do bow down to Mary and statues, but you say you don’t worship any of them. It is strange you say this because the word “worship” in basically any language, is expressed by a physical “act” of falling on ones face (or kissing) or kneeling before the object or person being worshiped! Yet you say you are NOT worshiping when you bow or kneel before them. This has to be one of the most contradictory statements I have ever seen.
Again, you comment on my words regarding Matthew 23:2-3. So are you trying to say that you don’t believe there are differing opinions among scholars regarding this verse? Or are you really trying to say your only source is the Catholic Church, so there is only ONE interpretation? I can give you several interpretations of that verse if you like. But before I do, you should perhaps read on past verse 3 and see what the periscope is really talking about. You also say that Mr. Currie’s letter is “full of biblical texts.” He quotes “FIVE” verses in the whole letter, and only 3 of them really related to his argument. Come on Joe, any scholar would agree that in a letter of around one thousand words, five verses certainly don’t equal a letter “full of biblical texts.” Joe, your logic is not scholarly.
-Simon
Simon,
You say "no where does the Bible speak of the church . . . being the custodian of Truth," but what about 1 Tim 3:15 where the Bible clearly calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of Truth"?
Also, we've quote a number of verses that show not only that there is a Church functioning in the Bible (with Peter as it's head), but also that Catholicism is prevalent, such as in the requirements of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood; the power of the keys of the kingdom, etc.
Finally, I would suggest you also read the writings at and around the time the Bible was written, these virtually all discuss the Church and have significant statements about the Eucharist, confession, etc. There is not only a Church functioning during Acts, there is much evidence to support its existence.
God bless,
Jay
Simon,
Please...my logic isn't scholarly.
You state that the Bible is the sole source of authority and that David Currie's argument is weak because he only quotes 5 verses...
You haven't been able to quote one verse to support Sola Scriptura. Then you go on to admit that Sola Scriptura isn't even biblical:
I will answer your long awaited question on Sola Scriptura. There is no place in the bible that specifically states that Sola Scriptura is to be accepted as a doctrine. Are you satisfied now? However, I will also point out that nowhere does the bible speak of the church or any man (apart from Jesus Christ) as being the custodian of truth either. - 12/04/2003 Simon responding to Joe’s comment
Jay in turn replied to this comment by saying:
You say "no where does the Bible speak of the church . . . being the custodian of Truth," but what about 1 Tim 3:15 where the Bible clearly calls the Church "the pillar and bulwark of Truth"? Also, we've quote a number of verses that show not only that there is a Church functioning in the Bible (with Peter as it's head), but also that Catholicism is prevalent, such as in the requirements of eating the flesh of Christ and drinking his blood; the power of the keys of the kingdom, etc. Finally, I would suggest you also read the writings at and around the time the Bible was written, these virtually all discuss the Church and have significant statements about the Eucharist, confession, etc. There is not only a Church functioning during Acts, there is much evidence to support its existence. - 12/04/2003 Jay’s comments to Simon’s comment
So who is not be scholarly here...I'm thankful that you finally admitted that the Bible is not the "sole source of authority" as most Protestant denominations proclaim. As Jay states clearly above the Bible points to the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of truth".
In Christ,
Joe
Simon,
I would like to address one of your statements regarding worship - you said Joe was being contradictory in saying that we didn't worship our statues when "worship" is equated with a physical act such as kneeling etc. So therefore by Catholics' actions before statues even though we say we are not worshipping them we are. Worship is an act dwelling within your soul, heart, mind, and body - manifesting itself at times through words, song, and outwardly actions such as kneeling, bowing, kissing, etc. like you stated. However, these outwardly actions are also signs of respect and reverence which are not equated with worship. It is customary for ballroom dancers to curtsy and bow to one another before they start their dance, does this mean they are worshipping one another? It is also considered a sign of respect to kiss the hand of a distinquished politician or to bow to them, does this mean we are worshipping these people? What about kings, queens, princes, etc. if we greet them by bowing or by kneeling are we worshipping them or showing an outwardly sign of respect? My husband proposed to me while he was kneeling before me, does this mean he was worshipping me? I think you get my point. Also many people associate kneeling with praying (a conversation, talking)which as Catholics we believe, as stated previously on the site, that you can ask saints in heaven or angels to pray and intercede for you. So if you do see a person kneeling before a statue in Church they are not worshipping that particular statue but rather have found a quiet spot to pray hence noted by their physical act of kneeling. The awesome thing about God is that He is everywhere so we are not limited to only worshipping Him in certain "physical" acts or positions.
when you talk about the Scriptures (Holy Bible), you're talking about the words inspired by God Himself that was put into the hearts of men to be used as a reference guide to all believers. God talks to the hearts of men and from there everything else is affected. the Bible is not going to tell you everything just like the news or any other media source will. if that's the case does it say David didn't write all of Psalms while running from Saul,no, but how many people read them without realizing that? without faith it is impossible to please God and without true whole hearted praise and worship, you will not feel His 'presence' in your life. God desires an intimate realationship with His children that is not found in any doctrine, commentary or article to be read because His love is really indescribable. the Bible explains our origin, our story, our instructions, our hope, the reasons why we should be encouraged and most of all God's love for His creation. nothing more, nothing less. your life as a believer should reflect your relationship with Jesus. if you know Him as well as you should, then your lifestyle refects it in your actions, responses to situations, your attitude towards others and most of all your dependance on the Father for everything. Jesus taught the disciples how to pray, that's it! but they through obedience layed hands, raised the dead and established the church... what does your lifestyle reflect, are you obedient to God's instructions or do you live like this applies and this doesn't. put God where He belongs at the center of your life and discover the person that He desires you to be............
Posted by: paul baccus at December 22, 2003 10:56 AMPaul, two questions:
The corollary is: If not, are you really following God or just making your own path. In the end, I can prove that in the Bible Jesus intends to build a Church. I can also prove He intends for it to last forever. Finally, I can show you what the Church would like and it is identical to the Catholic Church. The question is: do you really care what God wants? Or are you just following your feelings?
1 Tim 3:15.
God bless,
Jay
jay i love you,
yes you should follow what the Bible teaches because Jesus is the Living Word, He didn't ask that you believe just in Him, He said to follow Him. what kills me though is doctrine, read
2 Timothy. we are the Church (the temple of the Holy Spirit) not a building or a particular way we praise and worship but we are one body with many parts. the Bible also says, where the leadership goes there goes the people. i didn't see denominations in the Bible but it does talk about doctrines true and false and fake leaders. not every church is big, has wealth or comes to us by media all for a reason. for that matter go get the scientologist-lol. read Ezekiel 34, John 10, Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 4. catcheism, the book of mormons, the book of latter-day saints are like what to the Bible, cousins, they share same blood-not the same descriptions? i don't know. use your imagination, that's why God gave us one. God's so simple when it comes to belief in Him that all He ask is that we just believe. i'm not knocking denominations because i pray for all ministries that teach salvation through Jesus Christ because only drawing closer to Him will reveal exactly who the Father is therefore blessing you through His power (the Holy Spirit) with awesome spiritual gifts. not because you ask but because you hunger a deeper understanding of Him. put the mess to the side and pray that God reveals His plan and purpose for you, Jesus already footed the bill so pick up your gifts of unlimited potential. you are my brother, we come from two different backgrounds so with us apart satan has a chance but together........read Ecclesiates 4. men of God who follow Him (Jesus), substitute their circumstances and thoughts with His grace, mercy and love and you would too just to follow His Spirit. the book of Ephesians shows how church in some places still is.....and will be no matter what because it is written. we will die go to heaven and in His presence give Him, His desire our praise and worship, forever and ever.......
Paul,
You are proving Jay's point...
You're right, their is no mention of denominations in the New Testament that's the very reason Jay "came home to Rome" so to speak. It is in the Catholic Church that you find the unbroken link to the Church found in the New Testament, that was the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Your comment that:
God is so simple when it comes to belief in Him that all He asks is that we believe.
is not only antibiblical but illogical. If this were the case both the writers of the Old and New Testaments were wasting their time laying out specific instruction as to how humanity is to follow God.
I would also like to point out, again, as I have in multiple posts on this blog, that the Bible never even refers to using the Bible as the sole source for truth and guidance. In fact it states that it is not the sole source of truth (2 Thes. 2:15). Not to mention that fact that all Christians have trusted the Catholic Church to assemble the Bible and define it as the Word of God. Just think about it.
You conclusively reduce faith to matter of relativism..."what do I perceive God wants". The proper theological, philosophical and logical question should be "what does God want and how am I to know it". The answer is revealed in His Son, Jesus Christ. Who, for one reason or another, chose men to lead the people of God in the form of the Church. As He said in Matthew 16, He will build His Church on Peter. The Catholic Church is the only church that can say they hold to the foundation Christ laid.
It's not a mess...it's a reality and a necessity.
I will pray that God might give you the grace to see this.
Joe
Posted by: Joe at December 28, 2003 02:07 PMhow can you think that just believing in God is illogical when what you are refering to Old Testament versus New Testament. Adam walked with God in the Garden, and Adam lived 930 years, spanning a few generations. i do believe in that time he shared a story or two with his children on and about following God. so before the Son they only knew God. in today's society people who don't understand the Son (Jesus) can still understand the Father. so when i say believe in God, i'm talking about people who desire to know the Father who will in turn teach them about the Son and He will teach them about the Spirit who will teach them everything else. Solomon wrote that,"the fear of the Lord is beginning of wisdom." so in reference to what i wrote, seek God the Father, not some other false diety and He will reveal Himself to you. Jesus said,"no one comes to the Father but by Me." now you're talking about a place in the Kingdom and Jesus also stated,"that those who are called by name are sent to Him by the Father." to believe in Jesus starts with believing in God, that's what i'm saying.
Posted by: Paul Baccus at January 2, 2004 01:09 PMPaul,
If the context you are stating this in is that you can know God through nature and rational thought I would agree. St. Paul said as much in Romans 1. But you have to know the Son to know the Father. Jesus stated as much to the apostles when He said no one can come to the Father except through me. I think something you miss entirely is the fact that you wouldn't even know of the Father nor the Son if Jesus hadn't founded the Catholic Church, for it is the Catholic Church that has safeguarded the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity and the Bible itself down through the ages. Think about that.
In Christ,
Joe
re-read Romans 1 and look between the lines. Paul told them that since creation that the presence of God has been known to man through His works and people chose to go their own way aborting a place Him in their lives. God not Jesus but through Jesus, the Gospels, salvation and the power of the Holy Spirit is all possible to digest for the redeemed man.
Posted by: paul baccus at January 5, 2004 09:13 AMI think I'll simply read what St. Paul wrote...since creation that the presence of God has been known to man through His works, i.e. the works of creation or nature. So St. Paul is saying that God can be perceived through the natural order. Please note that he doesn't say the Father...he says God. In the Old Testament God wasn't called Father (though a comparison to a father does exist). It is only through Christ that we come to know God as Father for it was a natural, logical conclusion since Jesus is the Son of God.
By the way the Father and Son are one as we are told in John's Gospel. Therefore Jesus is God and therefore equal to the Father. That is why we believe in the Blessed Trinity; one God, three Persons. You seem to imply that God the Father and God the Son are not equal. If so that is a grave error and makes you a deist not a Christian. Is this so, do you believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one and equal?
In Christ,
Joe
yes i believe that they are one, i comment on so many different articles on this site i can't remember each one. i'm at school right now with no Bible in hand but over the weekend the Holy Spirit had me read Romans 1 and my mind was blown away on the statement about the due penalty for the wayward man..... that's how real all of this is to me Joe. it's Spirit-led.
Posted by: paul baccus at January 5, 2004 12:41 PM
