DeoOmnisGloria.com

I think you are exactly right, but it is extremely difficult to get a Protestant Christian to hear (or read) these arguments if they aren't ready for them.

Posted by: Ell at February 9, 2004 04:35 PM

I agree. Our goal here is to simply plant the seed . . . and let the Holy Spirit work on the conversions!

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 9, 2004 05:01 PM

OK, I'll bite.

1. The Trinity

There's quite an interesting discussion here. I'll just quote the clincher.

Isaiah 48:12
"Listen to me, O Jacob, Israel, whom I have called: I am he; I am the first and I am the last."

He continues,

Isaiah 48:16-17

"Come near me and listen to this: "From the first announcement I have not spoken in secret; at the time it happens, I am there."

And now the Sovereign LORD has sent me, with his Spirit.

This is what the LORD says- your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel:
"I am the LORD your God,
who teaches you what is best for you,

Some other evidence is listed here.

JOHN 1:14,18 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

JOHN 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, He shall testify of me.

2. The Sabbath

Galatians 3:23-25

"Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law."
The new day of worship is Sunday according to Acts 20:7 and 1Corinthians 16:2.

The The Westminster Confession of Faith talks about that here.

3. The Church.

The Presbyterian Church government rules are given here. No mention of a scriptural basis for the selection of pastors is claimed, as there is no mention of church organization in the New Testament.

Posted by: Jon Cohen at February 9, 2004 11:31 PM

Jay mentioned 6 things and you only replied to 3, one of which (the one about electing priests) you said that there is no mention of it in the new testament, then why not follow the rules laid out in the old testament? That was a completly nonsensical answer. So AT BEST you explained 2 things that protestants follow that are based on the Bible (ironically these are two which Catholics also accept). But the major differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations you did not address. You didn't say anything about Sola Scriptura which is one of, if not the biggest difference between Catholics and Protestants.

Another one I would like to ask you about is "Faith Alone". Believing that you reach Heaven by faith alone is a tradition that Protestants follow from a man whereas the Catholic belief where you also gain entrance into Heaven through Good Works came from Jesus. You can site the KJV referance to "faith alone" but that is not true biblical evidence because it was not in the original Bible, and was added by a man who never heard Jesus speak, never given authority on an issue like that by Jesus or was never taught by the apostles and immediate followers of Jesus himself like the early church founders and writers of the books in the bible were. Conversly the Catholic belief comes from the mouth of Jesus himself. (take for example Matthew 25:34-46)

Posted by: Tom Ace at February 11, 2004 02:31 AM

I have responded in this post on my blog, if anyone is interested.

Posted by: David Heddle at February 11, 2004 08:33 AM

Y'know "Protestants" aren't a homogenous mass, yet you talk as if we were.

"However, what protestants don’t realize is they also trust in tradition"

Well, this one is well aware of that.

"I think you are exactly right, but it is extremely difficult to get a Protestant Christian to hear (or read) these arguments if they aren't ready for them."

I read and hear. Am I ready? If so, for what?

Adam

Posted by: Adam Tinworth at February 11, 2004 11:51 AM

Point well taken, Adam: not all protestants are alike. My point was rather that protestants adhere to sola scriptura and sola fides - the basis of the reformation - and thus they are similar.

The question is: Did God intend to build a church and, if so, what is that Church?

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 11, 2004 12:05 PM

Adam,

I think the "ready" that Ell refers to is readiness to explore the Truth that the Catholic Church is the true Body and Bride of Jesus Christ, made up of His holy saints, inspired and animated by His Holy Spirit, and possessed of the fullness of His Gospel.

The pattern that we usually follow here is to explore the doctrine of sola scriptura, which, though Protestants are certainly far from homogeneous, is the basis of the entire Reformation (sorry for that word, Jay). There are numerous articles discussing the fallacy of the doctrine, not the least of which is that the doctrine itself is found nowhere in Scripture. Another fundamental problem is that Scripture was not compiled until the latter part of the 4th Century, and even then was only compiled by the Catholic Church.

After refuting the sola scriptura idea, we move on (somewhat ironically, I guess) to look at the Church as presented in Scripture. Looking objectively at that Body, it must be compared to the church as represented by Protestants versus the Catholic Church. Then we move to looking at the Church historically as it moves through time, demonstrating that the Protestant groups were formed out of a rejection of authority rather than a return to it.

After that, doctrinal issues, starting with the extent of the Church's authority, are considered. This, anyway, was the process of my own reconciliation from my Protestant faith to the Catholic Church. It all starts with greater awareness and understanding of Catholic belief, which softens the Protestant heart that is so often steeped in suspicion and bitterness towards Catholicism (mine certainly was).

The "readiness" is the removal of that suspicion so that our faith may be discussed with an open heart and mind in the manner discussed above. If you are ready, I encourage you to explore the conversation strings in this blog discussing sola scriptura and why it fails. If you already agree on that point, move to the next step, and so on. Thanks for posting, Adam, and please ask more questions as you read.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 11, 2004 01:50 PM

Just to add my 2 cents:

Sola scripture while a big subject during the reformation is not the dividing point for most of my fellow protestants.

For someone who did not grow up in the Catholic tradition prayer Saints does not make sense. Yes, I understand that the blessed virgin is holy but why would I seek her blessing over the members of the Trinity or seek to get to the Father or Son through her instead of directly. This may sound a little too secular but in buisness whenever possible you always talk to the boss.

Moses never asked Noah for advice or help, nor did any phrophet seek the deceased in prayer.

Back to the original message on protestant traditions.

1. The persons of the trinity are all over the bible. The word trinity may not be there just like many other phrases but the concept is.

2. Church attendance while part of the Sabbath is not the same as the Sabbath. Very few Christians are willing to make the commitement of getting home before friday sundown, comtemplating God and refraining work for the next 24 hours. Maybe we would all be better of as society if we did that but even Jesus worked on the Sabbath. I observe services on Sunday because that is the day my Lord rose.

3. This one takes a bit of faith and understanding of the way God works. The creator of our universes doesn't goto Africa to help children dieing from AIDS/HIV nor does he breakdown the Iron curtain to preach the gospel to russian kids. He uses his Church to do that. In that way we have the scripture, ink and paper have no power it is the ideas contained with in, understood and practiced that are powerful.

4. Proverbs 7 states the importance of scripture. I believe in the Bible as absoulute truth not sole truth. You or I can provide truth through our own relationship with the holy spirity but that truth must conform with the scriptures.

5. See above

6. Rember a Pastor is not the same as a priest in your tradition. Personally I don't see the difference between a congregation/elders seeking the Lord in prayer voting on a pastor in comparison to the way your Pope is selected by the Cardinals. But if you don't grasp the concept of holy scripture inspired by God, this may not make sense to you either.

I know have I written a lot here but I'm curious to hear responses from you all. There are many tings I don't understand but I'm willing to listen. I would love to hear your thoughts on being born again and having a personal one to one realtionship with God.

Posted by: stan at February 11, 2004 03:35 PM

Stan,

Thanks for the comment. I'll try a modest response.

1. The idea of the Trinity is definitely not clearly presented in Scripture. A few verses on this subject will demonstrate my point:

Jesus was "the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15)

Jesus was "the beginning of God's creation." (Revelation 3:14)

"There is one God, and one mediator between God and men, a man, Christ Jesus..." (1 Timothy 2:5-6)

Jesus was the "only-begotten Son" of God. (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9)

In prayer to God, Jesus said, "You, the only true God." (John 17:3)

Jesus responds to someone who called him a good teacher, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)

Jesus declares, "What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me." (John 7:16)

Jesus states, "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

As some history on this subject, consider that the doctrine of the Trinity was not even formally developed until the 4th Century (see the Council of Nicea). Do you know why it was developed? Because a group called the Arians had clearly enunciated the position that the Son was NOT God, and that He was inferior to the Father. And here's the real kicker: they relied for the doctrine on a primitive concept of sola scriptura. That is, they did not accept Church tradition, instead opting exclusively for the writings of the apostles. Their legacy can still be felt in the doctrines of the LDS church and the Jehovah's Witnesses, both of which would use all of the Scripture shown above to support their beliefs. Bottom line--the Trinity is definitely based largely on the teachings of the Church!

2. Regardless of why you observe Sunday worship, it cannot be disputed that it appears nowhere in Scripture. In other words, it is tradition, exactly as Jay stated.

3. I'm not sure how your comment addresses Jay's point, but I did appreciate you understanding that God uses His Church, not paper and ink. Christianity is a religion of Christ's Body and Bride, not pen and paper. Christ gave His authority to his Body, who in turn wrote and compiled the Scriptures. If you accept that, my friend, bravo for you. But that is decidedly not what Protestant culture teaches.

4. Again, you appear to accept Jay's point. Sola scriptura is not scriptural, and the Jews never had any such notions. If you agree on this point (i.e. that the Church has teaching authority) than your thinking is decidedly non-Protestant. Consider that your own leaders do not think that they have any sort of apostolic calling. Of course Scripture is inspired and infallible. Nobody here disputes that.

5. See above.

6. Protestant churches elect their leaders. Jay is not making any normative or value based assessment here, merely saying that this process is non-scriptural (i.e. based on tradition). As a side note, the "election" of the Pope is not some democratic process. Rather, the Cardinals convene. On a slip of paper, they write down who they understand the Holy Spirit to be calling to the post. If there is even one piece of paper that contains a name different than what all of the other Cardinals have written, the papers are burned and the process begins again. In other words, unanimity is necessary to demonstrate the leading of the Spirit. Your comment about Catholics understanding Holy Scripture are uninformed. Our fathers wrote and compiled the Scriptures. They have interpreted them for 2000. They have loved, cherished, preserved, and obeyed those Scriptures for two millenia. Surely we understand just how inspired and infallible those Scriptures are better than anyone!

Thanks for posting, Stan. I look forward to hearing more from you.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 11, 2004 04:32 PM

First time visiting your site. You guys rock! Way to defend the Faith!

Posted by: larry at February 11, 2004 09:18 PM

The one theological point I'm fairly sure of is that we are all wrong in one way or another.

Just as His Jewish contemporaries were largely blinded to the reality of Jesus the Messiah. It is very likely that most of us are missing a lot of the picture. When we get to heaven (in my view, by faith alone that is evidenced by good works), I believe we will all be stunned and awed by the absolute perfection of "God's theology".

We will eternally praise God for His graciousness in accepting us given the time here on Earth we wasted constructing and defending various theological idols- Catholic, Protestant, or whatever we may have labeled them.

Does arguing over the details of theology fit into the commandment to love God and love one another? Please let me know if it does because that may be an important part of theology that I don't understand.

Posted by: Trey at February 12, 2004 01:45 AM

Trey,
The point isn't to "argue" over the details of theology. Think of it this way: if everyone had to cross over a dangerous river and you had a boat, would you tell others that your boat is the safest way? Would you argue that they would be more likely to survive if they took your boat? If you would not, it seems to suggest that you don't care about others. If you would, some would say you're just being argumentative.

Christ established the Catholic Church (Matt 16:18) as the best possible way to get to heaven. Yes, it is possible outside the Church, but without the sacraments it is not easy. The point of this blog is proclaim the truth of the Gospel to man - including the the truth that the Catholic church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15). We are following the command of Jesus to evangelize the world, because we care. And we can be sure we are right, since the Church we are a part of is the pillar of truth (according to the Bible) and the gates of hell shall not stand up against her.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2004 08:20 AM

Thanks for the responses Trey & Jay.

Am I ready to accept the Catholic church as the one true church of God? No. Am I ready to accept the Protestant churches as the true churches of God? No.

I tend to believe that two bodies of people standing and shouting at each other "NO, we're the ones who have got it right" is no way to promote unity and reconciliation in the body of Christ.

You only have to look at the recent meetings between the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury to see that more work is being done by our spiritual leaders to move the body together through discussion and discovery than is being done by people "on the ground" trying to disprove each other's view of faith.

But then, I founded Kingdom Come to try and promote understanding between denominations. Sometimes I found as a free church member I often had more in common with the Catholic poster than some of the Protestant posters. Somebody suggested initially that perhaps Catholics should not be considered Christians, which horrified me.

An ecumenical viewpoint? Perhaps. But I'd rather be here, reading these thoughts rather than staying in a small playground of "my" denomination, whatever that may be.

Posted by: Adam Tinworth at February 12, 2004 08:49 AM

Adam,
One point: Catholicism is not a denomination. It's important to note that the Catholic church was founded by Christ and can trace it's lineage back to the 12 apostles (Peter was the first pope).

If I believed that Catholicism was a denomination, you might have a point: each would be free to select their own, following the Holy Spirit. But what's clear is that the denominations have split from the True Church over various issues. Catholics don't have to prove "we have it right" - it's upon the dissenters to prove that the Catholic church had it wrong for 1,500 years and they suddenly have it right. That's not why we're here: we're here to offer you the Truth: Christ founded the Catholic church and preserves her from error.

Would we be following Christ if we held our silence? No, the message of Christ was the truth at all costs. I admire your ecumenism and I do think it's important, but am I willing to water down the truth to entice others to believe? No. Sorry.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 12, 2004 09:55 AM

Adam,

It seems clear that you reject the authority of the Church. In its most basic form, that is really Protestantism. While dialogue is admirable, you must believe something. Either the Catholic Church is the one true Body and Bride of Christ or it is not. If you believe that it is, welcome home. If not, no matter how you try to worm around it, you are in the Protestant camp. But at least be honest about it; do not confuse ecumenicism with fence sitting. I can guarantee you that the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury don't!

I only say this because I was always a non-denominational believer, and towards the end of my Protestant days, I even accepted Catholicism as holding much Truth. And if you are Protestant, this is really not so bad, because Protestantism gives you the freedom to believe whatever you want about the Scripture. But once Catholicism is thrown in, the non-denominational thing is a no-man's land. A place of wandering intellect, beneficent intentions, and no place to stand. The Catholic Church is radically different because she alone claims to be the one true Body of Christ. She alone claims the sole power to interpret Scripture. She alone claims to be the temple of the Holy Spirit. These claims stand at the heart of the Church and represent the deepest mystery of what the Church is. As such, she cannot be trifled with, dabbled in, or borrowed from. She is not some salad bar where you can take what you like. She is the Virgin Bride, wholly devoted and consecrated to her betrothed. She is not an it or a denomination, but a living, breathing creature.

The ecumenical movement is not some sort of grand compromise. Rather, it is an olive branch of understanding offered by the Church so that all who claim the name of Christ might recognize the fullness of the Gospel contained within her and thus join her. That is precisely what this site is meant to do. You do not have to become part of the Church, and no one here will try to force you to do so. Many of our own journeys took years, and we understand all too well how lengthy, laborious, and difficult that journey can be. However, we are now seeing the abundant reward that the journey has to offer. Our goal is only to demonstrate to others the reward of the journey in the hope that a seed will be planted to spur them on their own journey home.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 12, 2004 10:43 AM

This is just so sad. Salvation is a gift. It has nothing to do with us. Jesus died to pay our debt that we could not pay ourselves. When someone offers a gift, you don't have to do anything but reach your hand out and accept the gift. What an awesome God we have that loves us so much that he GAVE his only son. Those who have accepted this GIFT, HAVE eternal life. I don't recall making anyone work for the gift I have brought to them. God, our Father, has given us a gift. The ONLY way to the Father is through the Son. NOTHING to do with us. It is there. We accept it, take it, make it ours. A GIFT! Someone has left me a gift at the Post Office. All I must do is go pick it up!
By the way, people can make the Bible say just about anything. That's humans doing this. Having accepted the gift of salvation, read the Bible and let the Holy Spirit teach. Check it out! What does God have to say to me? Salvation is a gift!!! I HAVE eternal life!!! Praise God!!!

Posted by: Simple at February 12, 2004 10:45 AM

Dave,

Thanks for your response, you are right that I don't argue against Jay on every point in my previous responses. I was just trying give my opinion on each tradition.

Just to give you all little background. I'm 25 from the NY area I have been a active born again Christian for the last 8 years. My exposure to Catholism is limited to Catholic H.S. and University. I have a tight knit group of friends in christ, many of them were Catholic. Unfortunately most catholics I have met don't display the depth knowledge I have seen here about their religion. Most of the converts to my Pentacostal church were living life as a Catholic or Jew in name only. They observed traditions and not a relationship with the Lord. Offcourse such phenomenon is prevalent in all faiths.

Msg to Adam
I admire you conviction, I knew of some Catholic priest in academia at my university who believed that the death of our Lord was an accident and taught whole lessons using Harry Potter. Stay the course,stay in prayer and if you question anything seek the Lord first.

Posted by: Stan at February 12, 2004 11:22 AM

"because Protestantism gives you the freedom to believe whatever you want about the Scripture"

This is, in fact, nonsense. I'm sorry, but if I rolled up to my church and announced that I'd decided scripture meant that I could leave my wife and sleep with whomever I wished, I'd be in for some pretty serious rebuking and correcting.

For what it's worth, the church I attend was founded on doing good works. It was intially a school for the poor children of London before the government provided any social care or education. It has remained a Christian community as the original purpose has become irrelevant. We have a good relationship with the local Catholic and Anglican churches, yet is a member of neither. We are a "free" church, in the sense that we consider ourselves Christians and give our first allegiance to Christ.

Sure, I'm a Protestant by virtue of being "not Catholic", but then the Greek Orthodox church might have some issues with that as a definition.

And anyway, doesn't this illustrate my previous point that Protestants (much like Catholics) aren't a homogenous mass?

I think many Protestants would argue that your idea that we're all "salad bar" Christians, picking and choosing what we like from scripture to bear no relationship to the Christians lives we live.

Which brings me back to my original point: sometimes Catholic beliefs about Protestants are just as wrong as Protestant beliefs about Catholics.

Seeking to understand a denomination you are not part of is not "a grand compromise" or "fence sitting" but the recognition that Christ is at the centre of our lives and that communication with other believers always opens the door to futher understanding and growth in faith.

Posted by: Adam at February 12, 2004 12:06 PM

Adam,

First off, let me say that I "understand" all too well. I have been a Christian my entire life. My father was a Protestant minister, and my younger brother has followed in his footsteps. My own journey to the Catholic Church began as I preached the Word to Catholics, whom I perceived as having missed the point. So, respectfully, please do not label my points as "nonsense". I speak from a wealth of experience and from a very full understanding of Protestant belief in its strongest points.

Protestantism does allow every person to interpret the Bible for themselves. You seem to be confusing "Protestantism" with "Protestants". Certainly, there are Protestants who impose their own readings of Scripture on others. Thus, you would be condemned for leaving your wife or sleeping around on her. My point, however, is that this sort of rebuke lacks legitimacy. The paradox is that the Protestant culture leaves Bible interpretation up to the individual. A converse way of saying that is they do not believe that Scripture interpretation belongs exclusively to a Pope, set of bishops, or particular church organization. Even Anglicans and Lutherans would not lay claim to such an exclusive interpretive power. Having rejected the notion of exclusive interpretive power as residing in a group of chosen elect with apostolic calling, interpretation is left to the individual.

That having been said, each denomination, including yours, claims authority to declare the meaning of Scripture to its people. Thus, your denomination would rebuke you because you belong to that denomination and are not following its teachings. However, this form of authority is derived not from God, but rather from the collective assent of the people. That is, the members of that denomination have certain fundamental beliefs regarding Scripture that they hold in common, which is why they formed that denomination (notice that the key word is "fundamental" beliefs). Now, you may observe that many denominations do in fact decry certain activities or beliefs of other denominations. Homosexuality and abortion are two very good examples. The paradox of this position, however, should be clear. The denomination itself does not claim any particular apostolic power to declare the meaning of Scripture to the world. And the reason it does not make such a claim is also readily apparent: to do so would be to claim Catholic authority without any of the historical legitimacy of the Catholic Church.

This is a short explanation of how and why Protestantism does in fact let you believe whatever you want about the Bible. If you can fault my logic, I invite you to try. However, your challenge is to demonstrate how Protestant culture offers any normative understanding of Scripture. This is the key. If it does not and cannont do so, you must agree that interpretation is open. And if it is open to something, it is open to anything, especially if you can point to no authority capable of limiting that interpretation. And, as I have stated in other postings where I issued this challenge, let us refrain from pithy remarks that "God limits the interpretation". That solves nothing in the here and now, as it simply leaves it up to each individual to understand "God's" limitation.

Incidentally, and by way of contrast, Catholic teaching does not depend on individual assent (in case you were going down that road). Certainly those who do not believe as the Church teaches can leave. However, the Church was not and is not formed around the personal mores of its constituency. That is why the Church has held to the same teachings on such hot button issues as homosexuality, abortion, birth control, female ordination, etc., for nearly 2000 years, while Protestant denominations less than a few hundred years old fall by the wayside on these issues. The dogma of the Catholic Church has remained impervious to the social changes of the times because its dogmas are not drawn from the people. Rather, they are declared to the people, who can either accept it as God's Word, or reject it. Protestant denominations, however, must change as culture changes, because their doctrines are drawn from the assent of its members. That is also why dissenters in the Catholic Church cause so much scandal. Stan's remark on the Catholic priest and the "cultural" Catholics as I like to call them are examples of people who do not submit their hearts and minds to the teaching of the Church. They are so scandalous precisely because they are not submitting to the Church, whose most basic position is that she alone speaks with the voice of God.

In any event, I would very much appreciate a response as to:
1) Whether you can offer any normative interpretive mode of Scripture.
2) If so, to whom was the apostolic calling for disseminating this interpretive mode given to.
3) If not, how does Protestantism not permit each indivdual to interpret Scripture for themselves.

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. The Orthodox Church is a special situation of dispute among the bishops. Both Eastern and Western churches, however, agree that the Church is the pillar of Truth that holds an authoritative and exclusive apostolic calling. This is a complicated issue best left to a different posting.

Posted by: Dave at February 12, 2004 01:27 PM

Jay,

How do you conclude that "the message of Christ was the truth at all costs"?

Jesus said the greatest of all commandments is to love God and love one another. Isn't that THE message of Christ? And a commandment no less, not a suggestion.

Is it possible to love at "all costs"? It seems to me that if the relationship ends up being a cost, there can then be no love.

I appreciate your zeal for the Roman church, but don't understand how such an attitude will build relationships that allow people to receive Christ.

I know several people who came to Christ under the pastorship of the infamous Bob Tilton- a character whose theology is suspect to say the least. But these same people show Christ's love to others in ways that continually challenge me and my life of constant sin.

Is it possible to discuss theology without putting forth the non-loving attitude of "we're right and you're wrong"?

Please forgive me if I've done just that in this post.

Posted by: Trey at February 13, 2004 01:04 AM

Jay,

Please excuse my back to back posts directed at you, but carefully rereading your response to my original post brought up some questions that I would love to have answered since I've long wondered about at least the first of the two cited verses. I am no Bible scholar and I just happened upon this blog last night because I wasn't sleeping well.

I don't understand how Matthew 16:18 sets up the Roman Catholic church as "the church". My reading is that Simon Peter in that verse is the first "born again" person when he confesses that Jesus is the Christ. Doesn't recognizing Jesus as Christ confer memberhip into His church?

Peter appears to me to be "the rock" in the sense that he is that first load of concrete laid in the foundation by being the first believer. But the choice of where to drop that first load of concrete is arbitrary. A solid foundation is formed with lots and lots of concrete (full of rocks) spread widely over the surface and in direct contact with it. A foundation that sits on a single rock would fall down in a minute- which I believe we see happen to Peter three times not long after this conversation with Jesus.

So how does this verse confer any "specialness" on Peter beyond his being the first believer in Jesus as Christ (including the idea of "first pope")? Did Peter advance the cause of Christ more than others (say Paul, Billy Graham, Mother Teresa, John Paul II)? Did Jesus give "the keys to the kingdom" to Peter individually? or to a succesion of Popes? or to every believer?

As for 1 Timothy 3:15, what evidence suggests that the reference is to any global institutional church?

It appears to me that this is a reference to local communities of believers who cumulatively, not corporately, form the "church of the living God". The context of that verse is a discussion of overseers and deacons, and both are specified as married men, and that could be interpreted as disqualifying this as a reference to today's Roman Catholic church.

I pray that I've posed these questions in a loving way. They may sound rhetorical but these are real questions to which I would much enjoy hearing answers. Thank you.

Posted by: Trey at February 13, 2004 03:06 AM

Can the restlessness be a result of the hunger we have for the meal we can smell but not yet see...still, we know it's there...I trust we will pray for one another and ourselves...God bless...

Posted by: jtm at February 13, 2004 04:07 AM

jtm,

If your post was directed at my reference to not sleeping well two nights ago, could you please explain it? I don't understand what you mean. Thank you.

Posted by: Trey at February 13, 2004 08:39 AM

Trey,
Let's start with the Peter issue. In Matt 16:18, Jesus is speaking to Saul directly. He (Jesus, God) renames Saul "Peter", which in Aramaic is "Rock". So Jesus say, "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church." God only renamed two people: Abraham (father of many) and Peter (rock). In both instances the renaming indicates their new position within God's divine will. We can look at the early part of Acts and see the Apostles gather together and pick another to fill the "seat" of Judas Iscariot. If Judas, the traitor's seat must be filled, I think we can safely assume that the Apostles view their role as a continuous one and that their seat will be filled when they die.

This is a quick overview, but we've written some other articles that take this further in depth: 50 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy and The Primacy of Peter in particular.

In terms of 1 Tim 3:15 there are several things to think about. First, the Bible is calling the church "the pillar and foundation of Truth." As a protestant, I always believed the Bible held this place, so the verse was a little shocking to me. Can it apply to the individual churches? I don't think so and here's why. First, individual churches tend to interpret the Bible differently - completely differently in some ways. If each church is the pillar of truth, it seems God would have to ensure their fidelity to truth - no two churches could contradict themselves. If they did, it would indicate a lack of truth on someone's part. Second, we can look through the Bible and see that Jesus intended to form "a" church. Back to Matt 16:18 ff, Jesus promises that the "gates of hell will not prevail" against His church. This certainly seems singular. In addition, before the Crucifixion Jesus prays that we might be one, as He and the Father are one, which also indicates the singularity of the church. Third, if every church held truth, it would become relative - you don't like what this one says, go to that one. In the Bible we are told that if your brother sins and won't listen to you, take him to the Church and let them deal with it. This only works if there is one church: otherwise your brother could just go to another church and avoid the problems. There are other reasons, but these are three basic ones. We also have an article on this: The Visible Church and the Bible, which goes into more detail.

I think jtm was referring to the Eucharist. If you read John 6:46 and following, you'll note Christ's insistence that we eat His flesh and drink His blood, which Catholics follow. jtm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's suggesting that you are seeking God and hungry for the Eucharist.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2004 09:18 AM

Jay was of course referring to Simon rather that "Saul" in the post above. Trey, if this is honestly a subject in which you have a great deal of interest, I strongly urge you to read "Upon This Rock" by Steven Ray. This book is far and away the most in depth treatment of Peter and the papacy I have seen. Ray has a talent for thoroughness, and the book is probably more than 50% footnotes, all of which are invaluable. I read the bood before deciding that the Catholic Church really was the Church of the Bible, and it was instrumental in my journey home. Ray begins with a thoughtful and lengthy treatment of Peter in Scripture, progresses to early Church writings that very clearly demonstrate its understanding of Peter's unique position, and ends with an overview of the papacy from Peter to the present. It is remarkably well-written, quotes extensively from both friendly and non-friendly Protestant works, and is a must read for anyone interested in this subject.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 13, 2004 11:33 AM

Okay- so your evidence suggests that Peter was not only the first believer but the most important one. But does Abraham (whose name was also changed)stand differently before God than Moses or any other biblical person? Is Peter more in line with God than Paul?

My meta-question is not the specifics of churches and denominations, but where do we each stand before God?

After reading the above references I much better understand where you're coming from but still am not swayed. What about Jesus' actions and attitudes toward the "church" of His day? Historically hasn't the Catholic church been as "Phariseic" as the Pharisees of His day?

What is the phrase- you will know they are Christians by their love? Has the historical Church of Rome been characterized by love?

How can such a human institution do anything but reflect human sin?

Is it possible that, just as the Jews were expecting a political messiah, that Roman Catholic believers have an expectation of an institutional church?

If Jesus does endorse an institutional church, why did he not form one in his lifetime?

Jesus lived and taught on a human scale. He sent his disciples out to do likewise. If the gospel is simple, why must there be an institutional behemoth dispensing it?

God's love is the ultimate chain letter. Ane we can keep sending it over and over again because no one can ever get enough of His love. Isn't it more in line with Jesus' testimony- his life, death, and resurrection, for it to be dispersed from millions of individual "nodes" rather than from a central "server"?

We are called to serve one another. Doesn't the creation and maintenance of an institutional church take away time that would be better spent ministering to each others needs?

Through Him, with Him, and in Him, in my experience the only way to live. Is an institutional church necessary to do this?

Posted by: Trey at February 13, 2004 12:21 PM

Trey,

One quick comment on your points. Wouldn't you agree that Scripture always refers to the Church as the Body and Bride of Christ? Doesn't Paul say that we have many parts, but make up one body? Doesn't Christ say that we are to be as one? Doesn't Paul explicitly decry the evils of denominationalism?

You are right to suggest that humans invariably radiate the sin that they are steeped in, and frequently the individuals in the Church do just that. But if it is love you are talking about, more frequently the individuals in the Church radiate that love for Christ. Consider the list of Catholic saints whose very lives are the models of love! Brother Lawrence of the 17th Century is such a wonderful example. A Carmelite monk whose passion for Christ was exceeded only by his humility and lifelong lowly position in his monastery (a dishwasher!). What I am saying is "yes, the Gospel is preached by every Catholic!" That's what this Website is here for.

The "institution" problem that you refer to does not lessen the role of the people, but rather gives them direction. A Body that is trying to go in a thousand different directions is not a body at all. The Catholic Church is not a "human institution", but one that Christ did Himself create. He went so far as to say that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. And far from giving the keys to everyone, he told his disciples exclusively, "'If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.'" (John 20:23). The Church is the temple of the Most High God, with the Holy Spirit as its soul and Jesus Christ as its head. It is not an amebous mass of individual organisms, but a grouping of cells that collectively form something much larger than their individual parts.

Moving forward with that example, the cells in my lungs are no more or less cells than those in my feet. But those in my lungs perform a more vital role to my survival. If my feet fail, I will flounder, but not die. If, however, my lungs fail, my life will end. So it is with Peter and the papacy. Peter is no more or less a saint than anyone else in Heaven, nor is he, as an individual, more important. However, the role he played (i.e. as a lung) meant that the entire Body relied on the faithful performance of his function in order for the rest of the Body to survive.

To say that an "institutional church" takes time away from ministering to the needs of others is a paradox. The needs of others cannot be ministered to unless the ministry consists of Truth. (The LDS church ministers to peoples' needs, but lacks Truth.) The institution as you call it (though in reality it is more akin to the lungs or heart of the Body) is what makes the ministry possible. Without it, our lifeblood, our airsupply, is cutoff. In that hazy state of semi- or unconciousness, our perception of Truth is dimmed, darkened, or altogether twisted. Only when the Body functions as a whole, as all bodies are meant to do, can we perform like a champion athlete.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 13, 2004 01:45 PM

Trey,
Dave covered this well, but just to emphasize: Jesus did not write a book or compile the Bible while on earth. Do we need it? Abosolutely. Then how much more do we need the Church that Jesus did found while on earth (Matt 16:18)?

The institutional church is important primarily in one role: it is the dispenser of the Sacraments. Read the last half of John 6 and notice how important the Eucharist is to Christ (He lost all of His disciples except for the twelve over it). The Church is the organism by which we receive the Eucharist and many of the other sacraments - this is the reason it is absolutely necessary to us.

God bless,
Jay

PS - Sorry about the Simon/Saul mistake; sometimes I type faster than I think!

Posted by: Jay at February 13, 2004 02:04 PM

Some definitions of what these words mean to me:

church- the worldwide brotherhood of believers, hereinafter referred to as WBOB

Church- the Roman Catholic Church, hereinafter RCC

local church- a local congregation of any persuasion, hereinafter LCC

denomination- a protestant denominational body, hereinfter PDB

I don't understand, based on the overall character of God revealed in scripture and creation, where anything other that WBOB constitutes the church that Jesus references.

The LCC is referenced repeatedly in the epistles and Revelation.

Where are the direct references to RCC and PDB? Don't they both stand on shaky ground?

The articles here do show that you can extract an argument for the existence of the RCC from scripure, but, in any analsis of a text, isn't the meaning that is most congruent with the central theme the most viable?

And the central theme is that we are commanded to love God and love one another- something that can be done without either RCC or PDB (or LDS).

And how are institutionalized sacraments superior to personalized sacraments?

My RCC confirmation certificate says that on a certain day many years ago I was blessed by the Archbishop and was "filled with the Holy Spirit". A day I can barely remember. About 18 years later, I do remember being filled with the Spirit in a real and dramatic experience, not that far removed from the experience of the upper room. So was I filled with the Spirit at the hand of the bishop or in a personal miraculaous way by God directly?

The first event changed nothing. The second changed everything.

This is not to say that RCC and PDB and any other church institution have no value. They have value and should be supported by their membership, and I have been and am a contributing member. Anything that helps us be better Christians is good. But why would an all-powerful, omniscient, omnipresent God trust his work to any human bureacracy instead of working directly?

We are one in the Spirit. Isn't worshipping God by turning our minds to Him here in the blogoshpere an example of a valid form of communal worship that requires no RCC or PDB?

Posted by: Trey at February 13, 2004 02:45 PM

Trey,

Let me give you a single example in Scripture. Acts 15:1-35. Read and meditate on this example of the Church in action.

Paul: Apostle to the gentiles. Author of nearly half of the books in the New Testament. Received a personal visitation from Jesus Christ Himself. Was (probably) caught up into Heaven in his spirit. Died a martyr's death. Undoubtedly one of the single most influential men in the history of the world.

The great Paul gets into a dispute about what should be taught to the gentiles. What will he do? Appeal to God alone, as you suggest? Boldly claim that he speaks with God's Spirit and is not to be questioned? Will he shrug it off and say "You interpret things your way, and I will interpret my way"? No on all counts.

Paul's response is to appeal to the "institutional" Church. Paul recognizes that God does place certain people at the head of His Church, and gives them authority to declare righteous and holy doctrine. And so, in that vein, he appeals to that authority. The rightly appointed bishops, Peter, John, James, etc. then deliberate the issue. James, as the bishop of Jerusalem, then renders the decision of the counsel (notice only after Peter has spoken).

Paul understood that what might appear to others as "bureaucracy" was nothing of the sort. It was, instead, God Himself acting through His appointed representatives. To label this a human institution is to ignore the miracle of God's abiding Holy Spirit. Much as you would like to claim the same measure of Holy Spirit for "PDB", that claim rings hollow in light of the myriad of differences among the 20,000 various brands.

Consider more deeply Jay's comment regarding the church shopping problem. For a Protestant, unlike for Paul, there is nowhere they can turn for apostolic authority.

Regarding your experience of the Holy Spirit, both experiences may very well have been valid. There are many Catholics who came out of a Pentecostal Church, even after experiencing miraculous healings in those churches. The Holy Spirit can and does work in the lives all Christians, and indeed even at times among the unsaved. But those workings are diminished in their power and meaning because they remain unconnected with the lifeblood of the Church as represented by the Eucharist (and other sacraments) and "pumped" out by its heart, the priesthood.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 13, 2004 03:29 PM

Dave,

My reading and meditating on Acts 15:1-35 resulted in an affirmation of my current view.

In verse 3 they are sent on their way by the LCC at Antioch.

In verse 4 they are welcomed by the LCC in Jerusalem.

In verse 22 the LCC of Jerusalem, referred to as the whole church, sends some of their own men back to Antioch. If that LCC was the RCC, why would they distinguish "own men" since all believers would be their own men?

In verse 30 another reference to the LCC of Antioch.

The fact that Paul took the dispute to another LCC for guidance does not imply that LCC to be permanently pre-eminent.

Where did I suggest to appeal to God alone when matters are disputed?

Thousands of independent LCC's far and wide exist and correspond regulary with one another, the RCC, and PDB's. The body holds the body accountable. There is widespread unity and agreement on the fundamentals of the Christian faith, even as there are multitudes of disagreements on the finer points- hence my first post.

My understanding is that the downfall of the aforementioned Bob Tilton was initiated by another Christian ministry, not ABC News.

Doesn't "church shopping" occur within the RCC?

I know that my family did not oft darken the door of the local parish, instead opting for faithful participation in a congregation at the local university.

I don't think I, or they, make a claim for the presence of the Holy Spirit in a PDB. Isn't the Holy Spirit in the individual believers, not the corporate bodies?

Thank you for participating in this conversation, right or wrong on these points, it has refocused me on God.

Posted by: Trey at February 14, 2004 12:30 AM

Dave,

It seems I read Act 15:7-9 a little differently than you.

"The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us."

Here we have a momentous theological debate, where the person you claim as have a standing, so special above all other men that it is passed down 2000 years, saying "he has made no distinction between them and us."

The apostles and elders decide, after obtaining consent of the while church, to choose representatives. Sounds to me like they were Presbyterians.

Posted by: Jon Cohen at February 14, 2004 12:33 AM

Jon and Trey,

Interesting readings, both. More interesting, however, that neither of you acknowledge or address the authoritative proclamation of the counsel at Jerusalem. Also interesting that you do not address the fact that the counsel's decision remains in Scripture (i.e. still considered authoritative by Protestants). This is hardly a decision of some LCC. Care to disagree? Let's behave like reasonable men--offer me a single example of an LCC decision carrying as much authority! The Catholic Church is full of them; PDB's, zero.

And, Jon, as long as we are on the subject, I still have not received a response to my challenge. As I have done on several different post strings, I again invite you or anyone else to respond. The challenge is this: Offer a normative mode of Scriptural interpretation that is clearly God-breathed. Without it, any scriptural interpretation is "valid", because there is no earthly authority above the interpreter himself.

The trick is that Jay, Joe, myself, and others have offered clear Biblical support for why the Church is the ultimate authority. We have given historical examples of infallibility, not the least of which is the unfathomable miracle that her dogmas have never been undone (try checking that against Protestant history). Nonetheless, to the extent you reject this God given authority, it is up to you to present the alternative. Yet your factional denominations offer no such authority. Lacking legitimacy, they are unable to counter the dark advance of sin masquerading as freedom, in the form of sexual liberation, nominalization of the sacraments, and general moral relativism. I continue to offer the challenge, despite no takers, because it demonstrates the unavoidable failure of the rejection of the one true Church. Why, pray tell, do all of the "liberal" Protestant churches get it so wrong? And remember, no appealing directly to Scripture as they have as much right to interpret as do you...

Patiently in Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 14, 2004 02:07 AM

Dave,

Why do you not answer most of the specific questions I ask? Why do you not ask me any questions?

I feel like the replies I receive are largely RCC boilerplate rather than specific answers to real, non-rhetorical questions.

Can you convey your view in a loving, gentle way that leads me to the Truth?

And if it's not possible to convey it that way, can it be the Truth?

Do you feel your posts are loving?

Are my posts loving?

Is how we relate to one another more important that what we relate to one another?

In love,

Trey

Posted by: Trey at February 14, 2004 07:04 AM

Trey,

All of your questions are based on your intrepretation of love. Love seems to mean for you this sentiment of not speaking the truth but rather of making everyone feel good and emotionally at peace. This is not love.

St. Paul wrote:

Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. - 1 Cor 13:4-7

The discussion on this blog, though at times very pointed, are driven and led by love. It is our love for God, for His Church, and for our fellow man that inspires us to write. It is out of love that we correct those who are "wrong" in the foundations of their beliefs. It is out of love that we speak the truth, for Jesus has commanded us to do so. I cannot look to a Protestant brother or sister and not speak the truth, for I love them and want what is "right" for them.

In reference to peace I will simply quote our Lord Jesus Christ in terms of spreading the truth:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matt 10:34

The Catholic Church has had to defend the truth of Christ since its very foundation, just read the New Testament. It is out of love that we do this.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at February 14, 2004 09:42 AM

I had considered posting an excerpt on 1 Corinthians 13 in my last post since love means to me exactly what that scripture says. But since the folks here seem to be very well versed, I though it superfluous and potentially arrogant to reference it.

Since you have brought it up, are the majority of pro RCC posts here kind and gentle?

Or do they insist on their own way?

Should not loving correction be done in a loving way- that was the focus of my last post.

Is it not arrogant to respond to questions with assertions about the primacy of the RCC instead of at least attempting to answer the actual questions?

You are not convincing me with your assertions and I would be surprised if you convinced anyone else either.

It's an old saying, but people have to know how much you care before they care how much you know.

Telling me to "just read the NT" is rude. It implies that I have not read the NT even as I have already identified myself as a Spirit filled believer. Likewise putting your definition of what you think love means to me and then proclaiming "not love".

If you want to know my definition of love, or anyone's definition of anything,isn't it more loving to ask rather than assume?

If this forum exists to share the love of RCC should it's contributors not do it in a loving way?

Posted by: Trey at February 14, 2004 11:22 AM

Trey,

The posts here are loving, and simply speaking the truth in no way is insisting on one's own way.

In reference to asking you to read the New Testament, it wasn't meant to be rude, but rather is a challenge to you and any others to actually read and understand the New Testament. We will at time speak "hard truths". If it makes you emotionally upset, that is something you have to deal with. Do you consider the following comments to be rude:

Get behind me Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men.
- Matt 16:23

But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he bcomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Woe to you, blind guides...You blind fools!...You blind men! Matthew 23:15-16, 17, 19

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleaness.
- Matt 23:27

You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit.
- Acts 7:51

So why would Jesus use such hard language with the Pharisees? Wouldn't He have done better to take a different approach, a more compassionate approach? Scripture states clearly that shortly after this they began plotting to kill Him. And in Acts, after St. Stephen made the above statement, they stoned him to death. The reason is conviction, and contrary to your opinion, it is effective with some, as witnessed to in Sacred Scripture and on this blog. There are many who have found the posts we write to be very informative and profound. For those that reject the truths of the Catholic Church, I say we should expect as much, for Christ told us that it would happen.

I'm sorry if reading these things makes you upset, but, by your previous posts, I can know that the love you claim we lack cannot be the same love that Christ preached. It is sometimes hard, but if it brings about the salvation of souls then it is for the glory of God.

I would say that for those that are upset or offended in anyway by our posts, it will nonetheless remain a nagging thought in the back of their minds, in fact, I would say that is why many of them keep coming back. The truths of the Catholic Faith are appealing simply because of the fact that they are true.

Our motives are based in love and our goal is to lead all those who visit this blog to Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at February 14, 2004 12:42 PM

Since the focus is on the Church, could anyone please clarify which Church is represented by the seven angels and the seven churches in Revelations chapter 2 and 3.

If it is supposed to be one corporate church body, why are there seven different angels or churches and why not an address to one angle and church - especially if considered one?

Posted by: JOJE at February 16, 2004 06:27 PM

Joe, Dave, and Jay:

What is your objection to engaging in a true converation on this subject rather than a debate?

When someone is speaking to you in person and asks a question, do you answer the question or start quoting scripture?

In a conversation do you listen carefully to the other party or make assumptions and assertions about how they feel?

(Joe, I'm not the least bit upset or offended by any of these posts)

If the purpose of this forum is to reach out to non-Catholics with the message that the RCC is the way to go, I believe you'll have much more success by engaging in conversations than point-by-point debates.

The love I keep talking about is the love that thinks more highly of the other person and is willing to take the time to meet them where they are rather than jumping to "this is the Truth and this is the reason why".

Don't debate, relate.

Posted by: Trey at February 16, 2004 11:30 PM

Trey,

This is Dr. Frasier Crane... I mean this Dave. All the same, I'm listening.

As far as I can tell, answering questions is precisely what we are trying to do. Sometimes that is difficult when a poster asks 30 questions in a single comment, many of them totally unrelated to the others. What I would propose is that if you have questions, look through the old posts. To the extent you find something on point that does not answer a question you have, add a comment on that article asking your specific question. Any questions? :-)

In Christ,
Dave

P.S. On the debate vs. relate issue, I will be posting an article sometime this week.

Posted by: Dave at February 16, 2004 11:45 PM

By and large, these specific questions have evolved into a single meta-question.

What are you guys trying to do here and if it is to convert (plant the seed of) people to the RCC why do you belive your tactics here have any chance of working?

The actual smaller questions are my way of suggesting to you that if you want to reach someone like me you need to break it down to a one-on-one conversation.

Why not let a conversation with a real live Protestant be your "article". But I don't think you'll ever keep a conversation of posts going unless you refrain from "read this or look it up here" posts.

If I'm missing it by not being part of the RCC, I really want to know. But the only way I'll ever know is if someone takes the time to go through it step by step.

Posted by: Trey at February 17, 2004 12:27 AM

Trey,
Coming from our side, we've written numerous articles on most subjects of interest. It's difficult to rewrite the articles over and over, so we simply refer you to them - it's also cleaner since the articles are given more time and often come across better than a post.

Basically, we're suggesting to you two things. First, Christ established a Church while on earth. Not many dispute that it was the Catholic church. Second, the Catholic Church offers the sacraments, which help you tremendously in your path to God. It's difficult to go step-by-step since every protestant has a different set of beliefs and each puts importance on different things. So we try to answer your questions and point you in the right direction with our articles. The reason we quote Scripture so much is because protestants typically only respond to Scripture. If I simply answer a question, the immediate response is "Where is that in the Bible," so I just point it out immediately (I think all of us have experienced this).

We are listening to you, Trey, and attempting to answer what we interpret as the core questions. We focus on sola scriptura and sola fides quite a bit since these are the tenets of the protestant reformation. If you admit that sola scriptura is untenable, then you must then decide what is the source of truth. If you realize sola fides isn't Biblical, then suddenly the protestant reformation is clearly wrong.

We do heed your advice Trey. Perhaps today I'll post an article that leads step by step through the rationale for coming home to the Catholic Church. I will post it as an article, however, so that others will read it as well (very few people read through the comments!).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 17, 2004 11:12 AM

Write your articles but I think it is poor stewardship of the time God has given you compared to reaching out to those in need of the
Gospel.

As much as Protestants may not read comments they probably aren't going to respond to articles that attack Protestant beliefs.

Why pour energy into a cause that doesn't build the kingdom but trys to shift people from "one team to another"?

Doesn't the RCC acknowledge that many non-Catholics have salvation?

Posted by: Trey at February 17, 2004 08:55 PM

Trey,

So what are you suggesting....that we allow our Christian brethren to remain in ignorance of the Truth? I hardly see how that would be fulfilling the mandate of the Gospels. If proclaiming the Truth is a waste of energy, I wonder what how you feel about the Apostles and all the early Christians who were even willing to risk the possibility of death in order to spread the Truth of the Gospel. That is simply what we are doing here...attempting to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the reality that He founded "one" Church, the Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at February 17, 2004 09:22 PM

Trey,

You need to check yourself: you're hyper-evangelical attitude suggests that all activities outside of bringing non-Christians into the fold are not worth our time. This is a decidedly un-Christian belief, and since you have shunned our use of Scripture, I will not patronize you with the Bible verses. You're suggestion, however, would bar the ministry of pastors, Sunday school teachers, seminary professors, and countless others, which is terribly misguided.

Bear in mind that Paul spread the Gospel in the Temple. Remember that in Paul's time, all Jews were considered the people of God, not just those who believed in Christ. In fact, Christianity was a Jewish phenomenon for the first few decades. Peter and Paul were simply Jews that believed in Christ as the Messiah. Their evangelization was originally not to the "unsaved", but to those who were already saved, but cut off from the fullness of their salvation. That, my friend, is precisely what we are doing.

Protestants believe in Christ and baptism in His name. But they are cut off from the fullness of their salvation by way of the Church and the Sacraments. These were the tools, the paths, that Christ gave to His people to access His free gift of grace on the Cross. We are holding them out to all who will listen. Your suggestion that it is without worth stems from your lack of understanding of what it is that we offer. So, to some degree, your hostility is understandable. But your lack of recognition of the gift will not lessen the value of Christ's one true Body and Bride, and the grace of her Bridegroom, which she offers to her people.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at February 18, 2004 11:25 AM

It might help to not be working with incorrect understandings of sola Scriptura supra omne, and solus Christus-sola Gratia-sole fide.

The first is that God's words are a higher source of authority than even the traditions of men, as we see over and over in Jesus' dealing with the traditions of the elders, which they claimed came from God through Moses, but wasn't actually written down. This might sound somewhat familiar to you. . .

The second is that we cannot ever fully pay the price for our guilt. Christ did that on the Cross, and He did that completely. It is a finished work. That is, as far as I know, also official Catholic magesterial teaching. So is it also that it is by grace, and that that is received by faith. The idea that we are saved by performing good works (how much is enough? That is the question that drove the OCD-suffering Luther mad.) is not Catholic doctrine, may have been taught in some form by Peter Lombard and other scholastics of that period, but has been repudiated by the Catholic Church. I think that you will also find that from Luther on, faith was never alone. But that works don't atone for the guilt of our sin.

As to Christ founding the Roman Catholic Church, I think you will find that the patriarchies of Jerusalem, Antioch, Moscow, etc, disagree rather strongly, as do the Copts, the Syrians, the Chaldeans, the Armenians, etc. etc.

There were numerous other errors of fact in the list you came up with. Would it hurt your cause to correct them?

Posted by: Steve at February 19, 2004 11:36 PM

Steve,
I understand exactly what sola scriptura is, but I don't understand your issue. Sola scriptura teaches that "all things necessary for salvation and concerning faith and life are taught in the Bible clearly enough for the ordinary believer to find it there and understand it" (Robert Godfrey Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible). Do you disagree with this? (This is the historically correct understanding of this protestant doctrine).

Sola Scriptura is not Biblical in the least. There have been numerous attempts over the years to develop a Biblical rationale for the doctrine, but this is impossible - the Bible teaches that the Church should occupy this position in the Beliver's mind (1 Tim 3:15).

In terms of Sola Fides, just because some Catholics believe something doesn't make it true. You must view what the Church teaches and has always taught, but you must also understand that works are necessary for our salvation (see James - the NT book that Luther disliked greatly). You cannot work your way to heaven, but you can't simply believe your way there either.

Finally, you suggest there are other "errors of fact" in my post - please point them out rather than simply making a blanket generalization that I'm incorrect.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 21, 2004 12:54 PM

Mat 16:23

Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Which church is represented here - one church or all the churches?

Love (1 Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at February 29, 2004 12:32 PM

JOJE,
Actually that doesn't refer to a church, but to a man, Peter. Even the pope sins and has a confessor. Note that after his resurrection (and after this) Jesus, the True Shepherd, made Simon Peter alone His earthly shepherd in John 21:15-19.

The reason Peter's sins are expressly pointed out is precisely because of his position - Jesus renamed him "Rock" and declared that He [Jesus] would build His [Jesus'] Church on Peter. It's funny, but I think the Biblical writers felt they were very clear in this. You're taking a verse out of context and trying to make it mean something else entirely. Try again.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at February 29, 2004 02:48 PM

Jay,

You may have a different Bible or quote, because your reference, John 21:15-19, does not have the word "Rock" in it. In fact the last verse of your reference i.e. verse 19 reads: Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, "FOLLOW ME!"

However, instead of "Rock" it does have "Feed" - which is what you and we others on the board are attempting to do!

BTW, Mat 16 has "rock" not "Rock" and "Satan" not "satan."

Love (Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at March 1, 2004 10:49 PM

JOJE,
You should read John 21:15-19 again. Jesus tells Peter (which means "Rock") to "Feed His [Jesus'] sheep" and repeats it. You, along with every other believer are sheep following the True Shepherd, Christ, right? So what does Jesus mean when He gives this responsibility to Peter? My point is that this verse reinforces and underlines Peter's responsibility as the leader of the Church on earth. He is called to "feed" us, the sheep.

The Bible is clear: Jesus founded a Church and put Peter as it's head. I recommend you read these also:

• 50 Biblical Proofs of the Papacy
  
• The Primacy of Peter
  
• Matthew's View of 'Church'
  

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 2, 2004 02:17 PM

Jay,

Having the Pope represent Peter as head of the Catholic Church is a choice and maybe good in some respect, but is not something to be dogmatic about or making it the principal of the Christian faith - which is Christ Jesus!

The verses you quote can be viewed in a different context when related to Peter who - earlier willing to lay down his life for Jesus Christ - denies him three times before the crucifixion. Here, after the Resurrection the Lord is questioning Peter about love, what it entails - feeding others and even death (verse 19).

Earlier in John 13 Jesus says: "I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. ...... But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

Peter has not replaced the Holy Spirit!

Posted by: JOJE at March 2, 2004 11:43 PM

JOJE,
I never suggested that Peter replaced the Holy Spirit. Actually I believe the Holy Spirit uses Peter in a unique way, since God made Peter the head of the Church. If you look in Acts, when the Holy Spirit arrives we see the Spirit use Peter as His mouthpiece on earth, which is very descriptive of the role Peter has.

Jesus tells Peter alone to "feed his sheep" - Christ Himself is clearly passing authority to Peter, just as He did in Matt 16:18 when He tells Peter "You are Rock and on this rock I will build My Church." Jesus follows this by giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" that can bind and loose on heaven and on earth.

Notice in Acts that Peter is the first to perform a miracle after the ascension of Christ, the first to raise the dead, the first to preach to the gentiles, etc. Peter is the first among equals (the apostles) and the Holy Spirit uses Peter in a very unique way.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 3, 2004 07:41 AM

Jay:

I never said you suggested anything! The point being that the Lord Jesus is with us in the Holy Spirit at all times, thus his delegating his powers to one human does not arise - he uses everyone in a UNIQUE way.

This does not diminish the office of a pope, bishop, pastors, teacher, etc. Nor does it deny the fact that the SEVEN churches in the book of Revelations are more than one church.

About "feed his sheep" - (as said earlier) it was Peter (not another disciple) who denied Christ after claiming his love for him earlier. Thus after the Resurrection Jesus addresses Peter on love and lays down what it entails to love him - feed his sheep.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at March 3, 2004 09:52 PM

JoJe,

It appears as though no one commented on or tried to clarify the meaning of the seven churches and angels that you posted in a message Feb. 16. So I thought that I could explain. First of all, I’ll clarify the meaning of the seven different churches, different in no means by faith and beliefs but by location, location, location. All of the seven churches, Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea, all were named after cities located within a fifty-mile radius in Asia Minor. Why would John write to these seven particular churches? Well, since Christian Tradition identifies the Apostle John, the Disciple whom Jesus loved, as the bishop of Ephesus, one of the seven churches addressed in Revelation, it is highly likely that the seven churches were under the authority of John as Bishop of the early Church. We can also see why John would be chosen to deliver such a pastoral message as we find in the letters to the seven churches and in Revelation as a whole. Furthermore, each letter is typified with an address; description of the exalted Christ; blame and/or praise for the church addressed; threat and /or admonition; and final exhortation and promise to all Christians.

Besides the churches, John also addresses the seven angels of these churches. Throughout the Bible, the Old and the New Testament, angels were thought to be in charge of the physical world: “After this I saw four angles standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth so that no wind could blow on the land or sea or against any tree.” (Rev. 7,1), in charge of nations (Dn 10,13; 12,1), communities (the seven churches), and in charge of individuals: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.” (Mt. 18,10) Therefore, John is simply acknowledging an accepted Jewish and Christian belief that angels have a major role in the physical world. Others solutions that clarify, not as soundly as the one explained above, but clarifying nonetheless are that seven is the biblical number suggesting fullness and being complete, in this way, John would be addressing the whole Church, or that the “angel” of each of the seven churches is a personification of its pastor or a personification of the spirit of the congregation. For anyone who finds Revelation bizarre and challenging, I recommend reading Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, which provides a compressive meaning behind the mysterious last book of the Bible.

On a side note, you might say I’m contradicting my original clarification of the seven angels by supplying other possibilities, but in the words of Scott Hahn, “ Scripture’s riches are boundless. The earliest Christians taught that the sacred text operates on four levels, and all of those levels, all at once, teach God’s one truth-like a symphony.

God Bless,
Joachim

Posted by: Joachim at March 4, 2004 10:11 AM

Joachim:

Thanks for responding. However, though John is writing, it is "I am the First and the Last" commanding him to write "Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later" (Rev 1:17-19 NIV).

Thus John is not acknowledging a Jewish and Christian belief, but narrating everything as commanded.

Apparently it also reflects that the body of Christ represents more than one church - with the number seven, as you have mentioned representing fulness, completion or full group - thus addressed multi-individually.

Love (Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at March 4, 2004 08:59 PM

JOJE,

I think what you are driving at is really more an issue of semantics. You do not really believe that there are seven churches, do you? Wouldn't you acknowledge that the Church is one? That Christ has one Body and that being His one Bride? If that is the case, we agree that the Church is one, regardless of denominations.

The very same thing can be said regarding the Catholic Church. She is one, as she is the true Body and Bride of Christ. Nonetheless, she has many parts in many locations. The bishops of every diocese are literally equals with the Pope; the Pope is merely the first among those equals. Moreover, unlike the Pope, individual bishops acting independantly can and have fallen into heresy. Finally, it is very easy for a Catholic to notice differences in the strength of the Church in different locations. The Pope himself has called Americans "cafeteria Catholics", in reference to their propensity to pick what they like from Church teaching and leave the rest behind.

Turning to Revelations, it is therefore easy to understand why Christ would address individual dioceses. They all have their own character and degrees of faithfulness. Notice, however, that Christ does not address "the Church of Paul", "the Church of John", or "the Church of Peter." Instead, he addresses the church at a particular place. That is precisely how you would envision a description of the Catholic Church. It is the Church everywhere, but when referring to a specific group, it is the Church at that particular location.

It is also fascinating to note that denominationalism is not limited by geography, unlike the references used in Revelation. If these were denominations, Christ could not have used a geographic bearing, because there would have been multiple denominations in each place.

And now for the coup de gras: It is indisputable that denominations were already in existence when Revelation was written. Paul's epistles prove this point, but more importantly, the letters to the seven churches include reference to them. Christ tells the churches to stay away from the doctrines of the Nicolaitans. Historical records show that the Nicolaitans were a heretical sect of early Christianity, one of more than a few different sects. Now, if Christ was speaking to a unified church, he would address particular groups of people in the Church by geographic location, which is precisely what he did. If he was addressing particular denominations, he would have addressed them by their affiliation, which he also did; but only to denounce them. Notice that Paul does the exact same things in his epistles: to the church or saints in each particular location. His only mention of denominations is also to denounce them. Harping on the Pauline epistles once more, it is clear from his letters that the various bodies in each location all had their own individual qualities and problems, and Paul's letters were very personalized to each church.

In short, the fact that the church exists in different locations with different bishops and each with their own unique character does not detract from the Catholic dogma of a single organic whole. The reality of the seven churches of Revelation is that they reflect in many ways the condition of the Church even today.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at March 4, 2004 10:28 PM

JOJE

You are right that John was told by God, “The First and the Last”, what to write in Revelation: “Write down, therefore, what you have seen, and what is happening, and what will happen afterwards.” (Rev. 1,19) These three commands given to John by God make up the three parts of the book of Revelation, the vision (10-20), the situation in the seven churches (chs. 2-3), and the events of chs. 6-22. Therefore, what John writes under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to the seven churches and angels is what God, through the use of John as His instrument, wanted those congregations under John’s spiritual authority to hear. In other words, “what is happening” is basically what God’s Will was at the present time for the unified Church He had established while on earth. I say for His Church and not churches, because these were all unified in their faith and beliefs of the Catholic Church, and also in reference to the explanation that God, through John, in fact was speaking to the entire Church not just the seven. (The explanation of the number 7 Biblical meaning) The seven churches under the pastoral guidance of their Bishop, John, are a microcosm of the entire Church as it was then and now.

By my comment about John acknowledging the Jewish and Christian belief about the angels having charge given by God over the physical world, nations, communities, and individuals, I was simply pointing out that John was stating a widely accepted Biblical truth. I, however, did not state that God through John is saying this, but I meant it, since the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church teaches that the Bible in its entirety is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

In regards to your conclusion that the number 7 in its Biblical meaning proves that the Body of Christ represents more than just one Church, I along with the Church disagree. How can representation of many churches with differences in faiths and creeds in any manner or form be compared to the unity of one body, especially the Mystical Body of Christ? If anything, many different churches with varying faiths and beliefs bring about confusion and division among the faithful. All of mankind belongs to the Mystical Body of Christ, yes this is truth, but the Mystical Body of Christ is represented by only one Church, the Catholic Church, and all belong in some way whether they like it or not to the Church founded by Jesus. Reason shows that there can only be one Body and one Church with a unified faith and set of beliefs represented in the Mystical Body of Christ, the most perfect example of fullness. While on earth, Christ strongly conveyed His desire for His flock to be united in Him, through His Church.

On another side note, before the other day while I just happened to be reading a religious book dealing partly with Revelation, I had never heard of the seven churches along with their angels, and the explanation for them. It just so happened that on the very same day of reading this, I looked through the articles on this site. To my surprise I found a two-week-old comment pertaining as to what these same seven churches and angels meant, and if they could be clarified. The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, eh?

God Bless,

Joachim

Posted by: Joachim at March 5, 2004 12:17 AM

Dave / Joachim:

We will continue to disagree, as we are set in our ways, teaching or interpretation!

Your are willing to claim that "You are Rock and on this Rock I will build my church" (Matt 16:18) pertains to Peter. However, if someone says that if Peter is the rock on which the church is built, and since the rock on which something is built represents the foundation, obviously Peter is the foundation of the Catholic church and not Jesus who apparently is just the builder building Peter on the rock, you will again say it is an issue of semantics. Though in fact, just as a building is admired with its builder forgotten, you are more focused on Peter and the church here on earth rather than Jesus, whom you only claim to be the builder.

I claim what Peter claimed “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matt 16:16) to be Rock or Foundation on which Christ has built his Church. And since both the Foundation or Rock and the Builder are seated in the Heavenly realm, my focus and admiration is for what is there and which never changes. Unlike the rock on earth that keeps changing with the passage of time and, along with it its laws – which are recorded in history!

Kindly do not dismiss this as semantics.

There are many churches and all have the same faith and creed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” If not then they certainly cannot claim to belong to the Body of Christ.

In fact we are all churches – “DO you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?” ( I Cor 6:19).

If there were one church we probably wouldn’t have had the liberty of this discussion, to venture into the scriptures and to get to know the Lord Jesus Christ in an intimate and more personal way.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6)

Posted by: JOJE at March 9, 2004 11:30 PM

JOJE,
If you claim Peter's statement to be the "Rock," then why did the disciples begin referring to Simon as "Peter," which is "Rock"? The issue is that Jesus renamed Simon to Rock and followed this event with "and on this Rock I will build My Church." Note that the Church is Jesus' and we believe He is the "cornerstone" (Eph 2:19-22), but Jesus decided to use Peter as the earthly builder of His Church.

In terms of Churches, there was only one for 1,000 years and then only 2 (who were very close in doctrine) for almost another 500. Christ prays that we would be "one" as the Trinity is one, so that others may believe (John 17:20-23). The division between churches is not valuable or good in any way. Christ established one Church, which we know is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim 3:15) through which the "manifold wisdom of God might now be made known" (Eph 3:8-10). There are Scriptural verses which don't make sense if there is more than one real Church on earth (see Matt 18:15-17, for example).

If there were only one Church, Christ's prayer would be fulfilled.

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 10, 2004 09:59 AM

Jay:

You claim Peter the "rock" and Jesus the "Cornerstone." Implying the "Cornerstone" is built on Peter the "rock" or base. You have the freedom to believe that, which also non-Christians claim – that Peter, Paul, etc. made Christianity and not Jesus!

If one believes that after Christ's Ascension, something else needs to be done, other than believing and following him, then clearly Christ did not do enough and as such cannot be the Redeemer and Mediator. For such, a mediator in the flesh, on earth, is required!

Christ accomplished everything - not through efforts of men. Abraham and Sarah tried to make a son through their own effort, and mankind is still facing the consequences!

The simple focus on "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matt 16:16) by churches and what he accomplished - makes them one, not doctrinal issues or a building or organization. Because all who believe in Christ Jesus are one in him.

John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."

This is not to diminish what Peter did in spreading the Gospel, but the facts is that we have direct access and the Church is primarily for fellowship! Because the veil was torn by the Cross of Jesus.

Love (I Cor 13:4-6a)

Posted by: JOJE at March 11, 2004 08:49 PM

JOJE,
First, Christ said that Peter was the Rock, not me. And I never suggested that the "Cornerstone" of Christ was built upon the "Rock" of Peter - you made that up on your own.

Second, God choose to go through the Church, I didn't choose it for Him. Ultimately God can make this decision - we cannot understand all of His decisions, but clearly God intended for us to accept the sacraments through the Church.

Finally in reference to John 16:13, notice that Jesus isn't speaking to everyone, but to the apostles, the bishops of the new church. The Spirit of truth is guiding the Catholic Church into all truth (1 Tim 3:15).

God bless,
Jay

Posted by: Jay at March 12, 2004 09:07 AM

Jay:

You'r going in circles with a rock!

Also in saying: "we cannot understand all of His decisions, but clearly God intended for us to accept the sacraments through the Church" you contradict yourself!

Jesus Christ came for EVERYONE and thus speaks to everyone - even NOW through the Spirit of truth! It is your choice if you don't want to have an intimate relationship with Him and understand all things - through the Spirit of truth.

If the churches don't have the Spirit of truth, how can they guide the people properly? Rather it misguides and flip flops ever so often - through history!

How long has there been Christ's love in 2000 years? Only bloody wars throughout Europe! Did Christ teach that?

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. BY THIS all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Your obvious reply will be: This COMMAND is for the Apostles and is NOT in the sacraments! Which is basically the reason there is, and has been, so much chaos - not only the world over but even in Protestant and Roman Catholic churches - even after so much social services!

Love (I Cor 13:4-8a)

Posted by: JOJE at March 13, 2004 09:01 PM

JOJE,

So Jesus' prayer in John 17:21 is irrelevant? That we are to be "one" as He and the Father are "one"....

You are one running around in circles...Jay is focusing on the fact that Simon's name was changed to Peter (i.e. Cephas(Hebrew) - Rock).

So let's talk about circles...answer these simple questions:
1) Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole source of authority?

2) When was the church you belong to founded?

3)Who founded your church?

4) Why did they found it?

5) What did Christians for the first 300 years follow since they didn't have the Bible (considering it wasn't compiled until 392 A.D.)?

6) After you have answered all of these...explain how all those who are illiterate (keep in mind, that was and is most of the world's population even to this day) would have known Christ if the Bible was the sole source of authority? They learned about Christ and Sacred Scripture through the Church...period.

In Christ,
Joe

Posted by: Joe at March 13, 2004 09:17 PM

JOE,

Hold it brother, you are probably mixing and confusing things!

All along I have claimed that we are One in Jesus Christ – churches or individual - if one claims "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" (Matt 16:16) and what it stands for.

Jesus' prayer in John 17:21 is irrelevant – if one believes that the church is not One in Him – which you tend to claim!

Let's see who is taking who in circles by answering your questions:

1) Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible alone is the sole source of authority?
A – Where does it say God’s word (Holy Bible) is insufficient and is not source of authority?
However do read II Timothy 3:16-17 and Joshua 1:8-9.

2) When was the church you belong to founded?
A – After the Resurrection of my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. (Matt 28:16-20).

3)Who founded your church?
A – Jesus Christ of Nazereth.

4) Why did they found it?
A – Christ Jesus did it for my and your salvation, and that I may know him intimately!

5) What did Christians for the first 300 years follow since they didn't have the Bible (considering it wasn't compiled until 392 A.D.)?
6) After you have answered all of these...explain how all those who are illiterate (keep in mind, that was and is most of the world's population even to this day) would have known Christ if the Bible was the sole source of authority? They learned about Christ and Sacred Scripture through the Church...period.

A(5/6) – They were guided by the Holy Spirit, as in John 16:13 "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth."
NOTE - BTW, the OT, the basis of the NT, was already there.

OK Joe, if your Church compiled the Bible why did it insert the following verse, and during which period did it practice it, or, did it just insert it without really knowing what it was compiling, or, has it failed its mission?

John 13:34-35 "A new COMMAND I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. BY THIS all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

Love (Cor I 13:4-8a)

Posted by: JOJE at March 14, 2004 06:33 PM

My apologies, answer to 4 should be:

A – Christ Jesus did it for my and your salvation, and that we may know him intimately!

Posted by: JOJE at March 14, 2004 06:46 PM

Wow,

This is very good. I was brought up a catholic but came to Christ in my late 20's. I will not get into any debates about any topics here. If your set in your ways, your set in your ways. But,

the only way to heaven is through Jesus and not the Church. John 14:6. You need salvation, Romans 10:9,10. You cannot work your way to heaven Ephesians 2:8.9. Live a straight and narrow life, ask Jesus to come into your life and save you from your sin. Nobody else can do that for you. ITs a personal decision. Nobody can pray for your salvation.

God Bless

Posted by: Simon at April 5, 2004 10:42 AM

One quickie on the salvation through Christ alone issue. I Tim. 3:15 states that the Church is God's house. Now, if God is in the house (let's say an interior bedroom), and the door that leads to the bedroom is Christ, then we must go through Christ to get to God, right? So it is through Christ alone (i.e. no other way to God/salvation). How does that make the Church any less necessary? Before one can pass through the door to salvation (Christ), one must first enter the house (which Paul very clearly identifies as the Church). So, both statements are true. Christ is the only way to God. But the Church is the house wherein that way is found! God bless.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at April 5, 2004 11:56 AM

Hi Dave,

I understand where you are coming from. But salvation and the church are too different matters. Salvation is a gift from God. Ephesians 2:8,9. The Church is a place where fellow worshippers are to be encouraged in your daily walk. It's not the answer to your salvation which is in Christ alone, Romans 10: 9,10.

Posted by: Simon at April 6, 2004 10:16 AM

Simon,

I'm not clear on which part of my syllogism you find fault with. Let me make it more explicit: The Church is God's house (i.e. the place where God resides). In order to meet somebody you must be where they are. Therefore, in order to meet God you must be in the Church. Is it the major premise, the minor premise, or the conclusion that you disagree with? Where do you find Biblical support for your disagreement? (Note also that Paul refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth.)

This is a very interesting topic on which we disagree, and I do hope we can discuss it more. One of things that I find most fascinating about Protestantism is how radically it has changed over the past 400 years. If you take this issue and check it against the beliefs of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Wesley, you would find that each of them fervently agreed with my syllogism. Yet the nature of Protestantism is to change because it takes its form not from guardians of the faith acting under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but rather from every individual in society. As a result, Protestantism has followed societal patterns. When democracy took hold in the 18th century, Protestantism followed suit. When individualism took up root in the 19th century, Protestantism abandoned its heritage of cultural unity and heirarchy, opting instead for that same individualism (see the abandonment of a formal clergy in preference for the laity, something that even Jonathan Edwards abhorred). As sexual liberation has taken hold of the 20th century, again Protestantism has followed suit (contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, female clergy, fornication).

All of this can be juxtaposed with Catholicism. Now to be sure, all of these influences have taken their toll on the people in the Church (the actual practices of the two groups are really quite similar). But as you examine the teachings of the Church, they have remained constant throughout history. If one were to examine the faithful and venerated teachers of the past (Clement, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian in his pre-Montanist days, Anthony, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict, John of Damascus, John of the Cross, Aquinas, and so on through history), you simply will not find differences between their teaching and the dogmas of the Church. All this despite 2000 years of extraordinary cultural changes. Some of those just mentioned stood up against more than 90% of the people in the Church (especially Athanasius in his struggle against the Arians), yet the official dogma of the Church never changed! Some of them suffered exile, torture, and even death for holding to the truths. Yet all that still did not change the teachings of the Church. It really just blows my mind that now, in this day and age, our Pope John Paul II continues to raise the flag of sexual purity, corporate worship, submission to authority, and the supremacy of Jesus Christ, all of which is radically counter-cultural. I suspect that 90% of the world disagrees with at least one of these things. Sadly, I suspect that over 50% of "Catholics" would vehemently disagree with several of these. Yet the Truth passed on from Christ to His disciples, and then passed on from disciple to disciple for 2000 years, is still preached. If that is not a miracle, I don't know the meaning of that word.

In Christ,
Dave

Posted by: Dave at April 6, 2004 11:02 AM

Hello Dave,

Are diffences are a matter of how we are reading the Bible. I am not a scholar by any means and I do not claim to no every historical fact! But I believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God by Faith alone. Remember Jesus saying: Blessed are those who don't see and believe. That is just my faith statement, and you can tie that too Hebrews 11:1

The Church. What is the Church, is it a building, a place where we worship, is it the actual people of Christ. Acts 14:27, Did Paul bring the Church buildings together, or is it the People of the Churches. Acts 20:28, Did Jesus Purchase the Church buildings or was his Blood sacrificed for His Church (the People of Christ). 1 Corinthians 14:23, Paul wanting to bring all the Church in one place. 1 Corinthians 15:9, Paul persecuted the Church of God(the Body of Christ). Ephesians 5:23, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Colossians 1:18, And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Colossians 1:24, Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church.

The Bible has examples to no end. The Church is the Believers of Christ. I believe the importance of being involved with "the Church" in a building or any place. As long as we are worshipping the Lord for the sacrifice He gave for his people, it brings glory to God. Alot of Christians cannot go it alone. They need to be around other christians in times of Trials and tribulation and that is what being involved with the Church is.

God Bless

Ps. This is not a stab at your beliefs at all. Its great that we can discuss these matters in the Spirit. So please keep it in the Spirit of the Lord.

Posted by: Simon at April 6, 2004 12:31 PM

Hi Jay,
Sorry to be off topic but I’d like to take a stab at responding to your list of Protestant problems…Even though the conversation left them behind ages ago….I’m trying to be objective.

(1)“God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit make up the Trinity”. No where does the Bible explain the Trinity.
The weight of scripture, taken as a whole, supports the Trinity. Either that or we’d be worshiping 3 gods by now.
John 15:26 – When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who goes out from the Father, He will testify about Me.
Matthew 28:19 – Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

(2)“We attend church on Sunday”. In the Old Testament we are told the Sabbath is Saturday and the Bible never changes this policy. Why then do protestants attend Sunday services?
The Bible does change this policy. Jesus is the Sabbath, our rest. God no longer requires us to observe the Sabbath Day or the other Holy days of the O.T.
Matthew 12:18 – The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Col. 2:16-17 – Do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
We are required by God to worship together. Sunday is “the day” because it is “the day” Christ rose from the dead. Our local congregation also has services on Wednesdays and Saturdays.
Romans 14:5-6 – One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.

(3)“The Bible was ‘compiled’ by God”. Often protestants don’t realize (a) the Catholic Church compiled the Bible and (b) Martin Luther is the only person to add and/or subtract from it (he did both).
The early Christians who did the “editing” or compiling did their work by the power of God’s Holy Spirit. And, yes, the words of the Bible are the words of God. Luther was not the only person to add/subtract. The OT books that are currently part of the non-RCC church are those found in the Hebrew canon. The apocrypha books were not part of the RCC canon until the 1540s. Some Eastern Orthodox churches also include 2 or 3 more books. Does any Christian organization differ in the NT?

(4)“Sola Scriptura is Biblical”. This is the big one: Protestants hold that the Bible is our sole source of truth. Of course, this is not Biblical. For example: if Sola Scriptura is valid, where does the Bible list the books that should be included?
If scripture is not the sole source of truth, then what is? Or who is? If one does not believe in Holy Scripture as the base on which to form one’s understanding of God’s Nature, how could one claim to have faith? If scripture is not truth then it is illegitimate, and if scripture is illegitimate so is one’s religion. The church of the LDS comes to mind, as does agnosticism.
John 10:35 – The Scripture cannot be broken.
Mark 8:38 – If anyone is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His Father’s glory with the holy angels.
As far as I know, the only writings Jesus quoted were the scripture of the Jewish people.

(5)“The Jews accepted Sola Scriptura”. You can’t even recreate a sin offering using the Old Testament, so it would be impossible. Secondarily, there were three versions of the Old Testament during Jesus’ day; different groups trusted in different books.
I honestly don’t know all that much about Judism, however…
Joshua 1:8 – Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; mediate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it.

(6)“Pastors should be elected by church members”. Again, no Biblical basis for this. In Acts, the remaining 11 apostles fill the “seat” of Judas by drawing straws.
The process each Christian congregation uses to call or elect a pastor isn’t set forth in scripture and therefore varies widely from church to church. It is the Lutheran’s belief that God has given the church the right to call a pastor to carry out His work in a congregation. Methodists assign pastors to congregations. Some times pastors, particularly non-denom, just start their own church.
Titus 1:5 – The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.
Acts 6:3a, 5-6 – Brothers, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom…They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

Thank you for posting this interesting hypothesis. It has caused me to consider many things I hadn’t before and to affirm where I stand. We do recognize in the Lutheran Church that some of what we do is done out of tradition (such as the order of worship), but those traditions have Biblical/Apostolic roots and are meant to glorify Christ Jesus. The traditions do not have primacy over Holy Scripture.

God’s Peace,
Lars
Minnesota Lutheran

p.s. God also changed Jacob’s name to Israel.

Posted by: Lars at May 18, 2004 01:43 PM