Catholicism

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[lone gone]

Hey Puff,

while I followed your line of reasoning regarding the interaction of a person with another person's writing, I am a little dense in how or whether this applies to words of TRP.

My personal endeavor is to ask questions until I can determine a motive for someones expressions of opinion. I believe that everyone believes that they "know" what their motives are  and also that some people are truly aware of their motives while others are not.  

Everyone needs to be "right", "correct",  and in possession of the truth. If we are not, or feel we are not, or find out that we are not..... we immediately embark on a voyage of discovery to find it.

Some people have enough confidence in God, life, circumstances, that they can calmly go about the search.

Others do NOT have this calm patience and  they tend to panic... sending them out on a desperate race to get the truth ASAP so that they can regain an inner feeling of calm.

I remember one pamphlet that circulated around the Ames Ia. church called "The Tyranny of the Urgent".  It was used to explain why our culture made us want things now and how this kept a person from wanting God.

Oddly, it flew in the face of the teachings of the elders that "WE have to get out NOW, Do things NOW, Share the Gospel NOW, to reach the lost NOW so they don't burn in hell, and so that we'll HASTEN the Lord's return.

Talk about urgency.

I also understand that people change, they are unpredictable, that these changes are known by God, and allowances have already been made for the changes.  I engage in dialog with people whenever I can,listening to their opinions, trying to calmly state my case and politely trying to illicit the beliefs of others so that I can understand them as individual people. I also see through many of their facades and understand how fragile they are underneath.

Consequently, I take it slowly and try not to judge/decide/form an opinion too quickly.  In any case, I form a working assumption to go on until I find out differently.

This is how I deal with people, theology, and life.

In Great Britain there is a concept called the "Loyal Opposition" Their form of Gov't  is a Constitutional Monarchy and technically any position against the reigning monarch is treason. Yet in order to allow dissent and freedom of expression, they have formulated the intellectual construct  that they they are "loyally opposed" to the will of the King/Queen...  Not of the same mind as their sovereign and yet still loyal.

I do think that God sees us all as works in progress... not only the Christians, but also the unbelievers. I then apply this as best I can to everyone around me.

[MidnightRider]

My own moment occurred during the first semester of my freshman college writing course.  We were reading a Hemingway short story; the professor criticized the staccato dialogue between husband and wife. When I defended it, as appropriate to this exchange, Professor Fehrenbach responded, "All of Hemingway's characters talk that way."

Puff, you gave in too soon. Your response should have been, "Maybe so, but in this case it was the right way for them to talk."

[puff of purple smoke]

lol

I was just making a joke about how long TRP's posts are. I just copy/pasted from some research paper.

[MidnightRider]

The Lutherans are still in rebellion on baptism (a man once took several hundred pages to list all the greek uses of the word bapteizen, in-context, showing a literal translation next to the greek, in both Greek use, and in NT use, demonstrating that it never ever has any sense whatsoever other than to immerse or sumberge!), .

I wonder if he got around to Mark 7:4.

[When they come] from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, [like] the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.

I have never heard of anyone immersing a couch.

[lone gone]

That's what one of my old ministers pointed out about baptism... the word is wash, not immerse. We have Christian liberty to wash with water, not legalistically attempt to drown.

The Didache  (100 AD) also gave this interpretation.... Immerse in Cold running water, but if not cold, then warm, and if not running, then still. If you don't  immerse, then anoint with cold running water, if not cold then warm, if not running, then still.

Few truly baptize is cold running water.

[theresearchpersona]

lol

I was just making a joke about how long TRP's posts are. I just copy/pasted from some research paper.

I actually thought it was funny. : )  As to length, I don't consider theological/doctrinal discussions to be the place for short quips.

That's what one of my old ministers pointed out about baptism... the word is wash, not immerse. We have Christian liberty to wash with water, not legalistically attempt to drown.

The Didache  (100 AD) also gave this interpretation.... Immerse in Cold running water, but if not cold, then warm, and if not running, then still. If you don't  immerse, then anoint with cold running water, if not cold then warm, if not running, then still.

Few truly baptize is cold running water.

Yeah...and Didache shows a bit of legalism there: the figure as used in the NT in regards to the act of "baptism" (vs. washing implements...) is ALWAYS used as a figure of immersion, however; it's compared with the baptism of Moses when the Israelites went down into the waters; Jesus was baptized IN the Jordan...nobody dares argue that Jews didn't practice immersion (they would find themselves left without academic credibility), and the NT never indicates a departure from that practice: there are even pools carved into rock for baptisms that are being found in Israel.

The ancient writers only ever considered any hint of mere pouring-water-over someone if they were somehow physically unable to be submerged; and the later writers only began defending that latter practice, it seems, in connection with baptizing infants, that is, as far as I know.

Baptism is a symbolic act, done in obedience: and to deny the meaning of the word (which is always found in connection with its context, not trying to take another use's context and defend applying it to those with a different sense) as the context indicates is to be in rebellion. I don't think it's any small rebellion either: because authorities will admit that it's symbolic of burial with Christ, in the grave, linked to the Israelites going down "into" (we obviously know between, but its' a purposeful NT depiction of the act as "into") the waters; but take those same authorities, then, and try to say "well, then, we must immerse all who can" (just as the early Christian) and according to whether they belong to traditions that don't practice immersion (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, paedobaptistic covenant theologians) they'll immediately fight you over the application of the practice and deny those contexts: it's extremely frustrating! Moreso for a guy to tell me that it's legalistic to read the word in its contexts: like the Arminians trying to tell me the "anyone" in "not willing that anyone should perish" applies to "everyone, see!" when the context's clues and indications of whom he is speaking to (including the fact that the "anyone" is "tis", which is "certain", or "some", but the "anyone" is just to use idiomatic rather than awkward English) indicate otherwise, though that is a slightly different case.

Context is key, not the lexical definitions: which ARE useful, but context determines which entry in the lexicon (or perhaps one not included there--senses are hard to capture) is to be chosen; and even in English it is GRAPHICALLY descriptive of what is meant. It's instructive to note that until the Church of England took and redacted the English Bible the word was "immerse"; it's instructive to observe that the non-immersing "baptizers" forbid the dissemination of entire bibles that were ready and available for languages that never had them just because they did not transliterate, but rather translated, bapteidzen (note the ending of the word changes with use); there were languages that had a bible ready a long time ago that denominations killed in order to protect their traditions on the matter...despite that this is truly obvious.

Baptism doesn't have anything to do with salvation, and yet I do consider it important: important because our Lord commanded it, important because it's an act of obedience; something little known is that in some Muslim countries, though the penalty for conversion is death, they may tolerate a man who becomes a Christian...until he gets baptized, and then they kill him (or her). Come on guys, read the contexts and descriptive imagery with which baptism is depicted and sincerely ask yourselves what it meant in those contexts; it wasn't a subject brought-up by men to be sectarian and divisive gits, they brought it up to teach rightly and admonish men to be obedient to the Lord and not men; they cared for people; only later did a lukewarm ecumenical "charitableness" come to overshadow this question and call it a non-essential thing to divert attention from obedience to the word and their rebellion to that vague "charitableness".

It's a bit like GC might try to claim that philosophy of ministry is a non-essential...but obviously with what they did to you, you know otherwise; ministry philosophy either extends from good theology, or bad theology (especially when not initially grounded on it). If your theology is bad, your treatment of people will be.

I can't quit being adament about these things: I don't surrender what's clear to be more broad-minded and tolerable; yet I also have no desire to force people to do anything: just plead their obedience to God and His Word first and foremost.

p.s. "legalistically attempt to drown" uses "legalistically" in a sense contrary to a biblical sense: you cannot ever accuse proper application of the word to conduct as being legalism; people do all the time, but the Word calls it obedience.

[lone gone]

TRP, I hold that Scripture interprets Scripture.

If you limit a text to what it says in context, and refuse to allow God's other Words of illumination to expand your understanding, then you run the risk of  INSISTING that God said or meant something when He didn't.

Peter had revelations to assist him understand God's intent regarding the Gentiles. He also was lead astray and had to be corrected later in life. Paul had his own illumination on the road to Damascus. You may well find that what you hold so tightly to is not the whole will of God.

As this applies to Baptism, all of God's words taken together clearly indicate to me that it is not merely a symbol. It DOES convey something... it is not a mere work of obedience.... and now each person has to decide what it is.

I didn't know what to believe about baptism before I joined the Ames Fellowship.I was rebaptized in Lake Laverne in front of several hundred people. After I left AFC, I felt a need to examine everything I had been taught and sorted it out for myself. I examined it all to the best of my abilities, and I am convinced from Scripture that "Baptism now saves you".... and I have my own reasons from Scripture for believing that along with the real presence of Christ in, with and under the bread and wine I receive during the celebration of communion. It is far more than a mere memorial to serve to remind us of something.

You make a judgement about something, "the Didache is legalistic". Is it? or do you just think it is?

I THINK you are in the bonds of your own kind of legalism. ( "It must be so") I also think God is leading you steadily onward to further understanding and that in time, what you think now will change to something else as you grow in grace.

[MidnightRider]

... the figure as used in the NT in regards to the act of "baptism" (vs. washing implements...) is ALWAYS used as a figure of immersion, ...

TRP, I thought in your earlier post you were saying that the word baptism implies by definition immersion. In Greek, there are not two different words for baptizing as in the religious ceremony vs. washing a couch. It is all just baptizing. Thanks for clearing that up.

[G_Prince]

Baptism in the early church was about entering into the life and community of the Church. Most early Christians didn't believe in salvation outside of the church so in effect, entering the church through baptism was entering into salvation. Today, there is much more emphasis on personal, individual salvation. If we only need to say a prayer and have faith in Jesus to attain salvation, then what role does baptism play?

This seems to be a modern dilemma. We don't need baptism to enter into the church body. We can switch churches and denominations whenever we like. We don't need baptism as a profession of faith. We can show our faith through more visible means such as evangelism and serving. Modern Christianity simply has no real use for baptism. We only carry on the tradition because it is a scriptural command.

This seems all wrong to me.

[theresearchpersona]

You know when a man refused to join the Apostles' company though he was casting-out demons in Jesus name, when they asked Jesus if they should forbid him, Jesus said a sure "no".

You were not saved by entering the Church, but by faith; in the later parts of the second and third centuries the "you must be in church" and "we're visible, see, WE WE WE, LOOK AT US, WE WE WE, WE ARE THE CHURCH, ANYONE NOT WITH US (ahem, those opposing the increasing tendencies to depart from scripture and applaud the ushering-in of unregenerates) CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SAVED; THERE'S NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH"...that pretensiousness started right about the time you start reading the increasing admiration of men among men in the early Church literature....sound familiar?

But we however testify, there is no other name by which we must be saved, except Jesus Christ; in the NT do they try to convert groups, or an individual? How many times is it that individuals saved? And then perhaps more also believe (family etc.)?

And as to saying that baptism saves...Paul himself said he did not come to baptize, but to preach the gospel: even saying he was glad he only ever baptized one person! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Baptism, just as the OT event of going down in between the waters is depicted as SYMBOLIC, is symbolic; it's something I think that Christians truly do by God's Spirit's leading, as obedience, and that it's not unimportant; the Lord's Supper, we told "declares the Lord's death"; it's symbolic; today we have a lot of people denigrating "forms" (external and doctrinal), but these are instituted forms; when we're taught about how to teach it's "hold to the form of sound doctrine"!

As for Christ's presence, you don't need bread and wine...that is found amongst two or three gathered in His name! And it's abiding with every believer who abides in Him! The doctrines about "real presence" in the bread seems to stem more from those men who were fighting over power and men's esteem (so and so bishop excommunicating so and so for being baptized by another bishop...so and so claiming authority here...so and so bishop taking over a city and being the governor...) who turned the communion into a way to exact participation and obedience by proclaiming that salvation outside their church was impossible, and that you need an ordained minister (vs. any true believer--as in the Bible) to perform the "sacraments" (else, we're told...they're "ineffective"). Pfft. Hogwash...they're in remembrance of our Lord, just as He said.

[miserere]

But, when did the Lord leave the Church?
He didn't.
Sooo... what then to do?
Axiom:
To learn of the Church, pray with the Church.
"I did not come with the wisdom of men..."

[G_Prince]

You were not saved by entering the Church, but by faith; in the later parts of the second and third centuries the "you must be in church" and "we're visible, see, WE WE WE, LOOK AT US, WE WE WE, WE ARE THE CHURCH, ANYONE NOT WITH US (ahem, those opposing the increasing tendencies to depart from scripture and applaud the ushering-in of unregenerates) CANNOT POSSIBLY BE SAVED; THERE'S NO SALVATION OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH"...that pretensiousness started right about the time you start reading the increasing admiration of men among men in the early Church literature....sound familiar?

Actually, those attitudes rose as a defense against the numerous “heresies” present from the first to the fourth centuries. I’m not sure who you are referring to here as  “those opposing the increasing tendencies to depart from scripture and applaud the ushering-in of unregenerates” Are you defending Valentinus, Marcion, Arius…etc? Early Church fathers were in a death match against numerous “heretics” such as these. Many scholars estimate that by the 3rd century over half of the Christian world was actually Arians. I don’t understand how you seem to despise the early church fathers that actually saved the faith you now profess.

How can you claim to follow a Bible that was “officially” put together in the 3rd century by the early church fathers? Many NT books such as Hebrews and Revelations were considered dubious while other books such as The Shepherded of Hermas, and the Wisdom of Solomon were widely considered “inspired” yet were excluded. If you don’t trust the early fathers, how do you trust the cannon they put together?

I assume you are a Trinitarian. Why are you attacking the fathers who laboriously clarified this issue? Our modern concept of the trinity is a product of the 4th century, doesn’t that cast some shadows on your Trinitarian belief?

I won’t defend everything the early fathers said or did. But many fundamental principles of Christianity were established between 1-4th centuries. The early fathers defended the church from rampant heresy and clarified puzzling theological issues. We owe them tremendous debt.  

And as to saying that baptism saves...Paul himself said he did not come to baptize, but to preach the gospel: even saying he was glad he only ever baptized one person! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Baptism, just as the OT event of going down in between the waters is depicted as SYMBOLIC, is symbolic; it's something I think that Christians truly do by God's Spirit's leading, as obedience, and that it's not unimportant; the Lord's Supper, we told "declares the Lord's death"; it's symbolic; today we have a lot of people denigrating "forms" (external and doctrinal), but these are instituted forms; when we're taught about how to teach it's "hold to the form of sound doctrine"!

I’ll go alone with you about this. I guess what I’m musing about is what is the goal of Christianity? Is it Salvation? Is there anything in addition to salvation? If no then Symbolism, while as you say is important, is not necessary. Baptism is not necessary, Communion is not necessary. Heck, obedience to Christ in baptism is not necessary since it is not salvific.

There seems to be several main lines of reasoning here we could go with.

1.   Christianity is all about salvation and nothing else. All one needs is an individual relationship with Christ and nothing else. Church, tradition, and Symbolism are irrelevant and unnecessary.

2.   While Salvation is only through Christ, the Christian life is enriched and strengthened by church and tradition. Salvation is not the only goal of the Christian. Symbolism is important and can help us in our relationship with God and others.  

3.   The church, tradition, symbolism, and sacraments are all part of the salvific process. They unite in a mystical or theological way and completely encompass the Christian faith.

I’m sure these points are all leaving out important issues. But as I am trying to understand things, it seems like these are the three bullet points coming to my mind. If you can’t guess, I believe in number three, but I have no problem with point two. I will take issue with point one.

[MidnightRider]

But, when did the Lord leave the Church?
He didn't.
Sooo... what then to do?
Axiom:
To learn of the Church, pray with the Church.
"I did not come with the wisdom of men..."

Which church are you talking about? GCx?

[miserere]

Is Christ divided?
No.
Does Christ receive all who come to him?
Yes.
So, who was there from the beginning?
The Apostles.
And then?
Their successors.

[MidnightRider]

Is Christ divided?
No.
Does Christ receive all who come to him?
Yes.
So, who was there from the beginning?
The Apostles.
And then?
Their successors.

miserere,

By the successors to the Apostles, you must mean the Roman Catholic church. They can trace their popes and bishops back to the Apostles, they say, so they must be the real church.

But wait. The Eastern Orthodox churches can trace their patriarchs and bishops back to the Apostles, too. So maybe they are _both_ the real church? No, that is not really possible. In 1054, the two churches divided. They pronounced each other heretical, apostate, anathema, and excommunicate. At most, one of them is right.

There's more. The Coptic Orthodox church never agreed with the council that kicked them out of the "one true church". Neither did the Assyrian church agree with the condemnation of Nestorianism. They have just as much apostolic succession and continuity as the RCs and EOs.

We are not done yet. There are other churches - the Russian Church Outside Russia, the Old Calendar Greek Orthodox church, and the anti-Vatican II Roman Catholics. They all claim apostolic succession, and argue that the churches from which they separated (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and RC, respectively) have become corrupt in some way.

So if you are looking to the successors of the Apostles for the one undivided church, you find a lot more divisions than there should be. Far from being undivided, these groups are _very_ divided. They condemn each other's doctrines and do not take communion together.

The idea of the "one true church" is very plausible until someone shows up with _another_ one true church. And another, and another, and so on.

[G_Prince]

This is why I don't like Theology.

[theresearchpersona]

As regards Roman Catholic Apostolic Succession: it's completely reliant on several forged documents which were embarrassingly examined and found to be in writing and script centuries later than their claimed age; besides the fact that Peter preached among the circumcision in Jerusalem, not Rome.

How can you claim to follow a Bible that was “officially” put together in the 3rd century by the early church fathers? Many NT books such as Hebrews and Revelations were considered dubious while other books such as The Shepherded of Hermas, and the Wisdom of Solomon were widely considered “inspired” yet were excluded. If you don’t trust the early fathers, how do you trust the cannon they put together?

I assume you are a Trinitarian. Why are you attacking the fathers who laboriously clarified this issue? Our modern concept of the trinity is a product of the 4th century, doesn’t that cast some shadows on your Trinitarian belief?

I won’t defend everything the early fathers said or did. But many fundamental principles of Christianity were established between 1-4th centuries. The early fathers defended the church from rampant heresy and clarified puzzling theological issues. We owe them tremendous debt.  

And as to saying that baptism saves...Paul himself said he did not come to baptize, but to preach the gospel: even saying he was glad he only ever baptized one person! The gospel is the power of God unto salvation, Baptism, just as the OT event of going down in between the waters is depicted as SYMBOLIC, is symbolic; it's something I think that Christians truly do by God's Spirit's leading, as obedience, and that it's not unimportant; the Lord's Supper, we told "declares the Lord's death"; it's symbolic; today we have a lot of people denigrating "forms" (external and doctrinal), but these are instituted forms; when we're taught about how to teach it's "hold to the form of sound doctrine"!

I’ll go alone with you about this. I guess what I’m musing about is what is the goal of Christianity? Is it Salvation? Is there anything in addition to salvation? If no then Symbolism, while as you say is important, is not necessary. Baptism is not necessary, Communion is not necessary. Heck, obedience to Christ in baptism is not necessary since it is not salvific.

There seems to be several main lines of reasoning here we could go with.

1.   Christianity is all about salvation and nothing else. All one needs is an individual relationship with Christ and nothing else. Church, tradition, and Symbolism are irrelevant and unnecessary.

2.   While Salvation is only through Christ, the Christian life is enriched and strengthened by church and tradition. Salvation is not the only goal of the Christian. Symbolism is important and can help us in our relationship with God and others.  

3.   The church, tradition, symbolism, and sacraments are all part of the salvific process. They unite in a mystical or theological way and completely encompass the Christian faith.

I’m sure these points are all leaving out important issues. But as I am trying to understand things, it seems like these are the three bullet points coming to my mind. If you can’t guess, I believe in number three, but I have no problem with point two. I will take issue with point one.

First of all, even the early Church Fathers didn't merely assemble the "official" bible: they wrote lists of the books the Churches held to be scripture, and also wrote clarifying remarks on the differences between those books, and edifying books: these lists are still available, including the explanations as to why some books were rejected by some (including some which we hold to be scripture because of abuse); secondly, I don't condemn all they did...and it is yet those men who bred what became the monstrosity of error and self-adulation which still flaunts itself today as true above all else; that monstrosity who declares is declarations infallible, on par or above scripture, and that its priests can command God. One of those many horrid declarations includes Pious the Ninth's declaration, as the pope:

"I alone, despite my unworthiness, am the successor of the apostles; I am the Vicar of Jesus Christ; I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE."

There is, of course, many other examples: boniface and company; the popal title of "Vicar of Christ" happens to mean "substitute of Christ", know that? It's also the literal translation of the Greek "antichristos". I'm amazed at how brazen they are.

The "Fathers", who do not deserve that name, did things commendable: and they are yet the major source of error--eager to defend their doctrines zealously they at times resorted to fabrications; their insistence on Mary's perpetual virginity post-advent of Christ, for instance, flatly contradicts not only the testimony of early Christians (of James, for instance, of being "of the same womb") who desired to go see His brothers in Jerusalem, but also the Word plainly read in the Greek. Not a few times do we catch falsehoods in their stories: impossible claims contradicted elsewhere.

Don't forget that bits of orthodoxy don't ensure that all is well: GC has bits of good things and a mountain of refuse.

It seems to me you portray my words as arguing disobedience is acceptable: hardly. The one who reasons that because baptism is not salvific, it is unnecessary to obey Christ, is an unregenerate and deceived pretender: Jesus said those who love Him obey Him; and you know when we talk of "faith in Christ", it's "faith toward Christ"; another word equally entitled to render for "faith" is "trust", and we obey those we trust. The Christian's will is one of a bondservant to Christ, rather than sin, and yet Christ calls them friends.

The symbolism is a witness: a declaration; it is a form presenting the gospel, but yet powerless without the word itself being read; the sacraments do not unite with Christ to save anyone, if you believe that, you're yet dead in sins: if anything is added to Christ, His death was in vain. Mark those words--it is in Christ alone, by His work alone, that we are saved; people like to quote "faith without works is dead", but they forget it's nuanced, "faith by itself"...it's an unevidenced faith, an ineffective faith; trust produces a response and obedience to our Lord, for gratitude and love. If you or any other trusts in other than Christ: that trust, that faith, is a vain and empty one: it must be stomped out, it must be turned wholly to God, to Jesus.

Those things are not salvific in process: the sacrifice of the mass amongst the Catholics (and according to the official documents of the Lutheran Church, though not necessarily throughout the congregations themselves--it varies) is an abomination; baptism is non-salvific, but duly undertaken by the faithful; Christ's prayer? That we would be...washed in the Word. Not absolved by another absolution: "it is finished".

[MidnightRider]

This is why I don't like Theology.

If you are going to try an end-run around theology by saying, "I will just believe whatever the one true church says I am supposed to believe," then you will have to figure which of the dozen-or-so one true churches you are supposed to believe. Without using theology, I guess. Good luck.  :cry:

[Linda]

This is why I don't like Theology.

I think it is possible to say you don't like theology and at the same time realize that it is important. I don't really like it either! I guess my experience with GC has made me realize that like it or not, I need to inform myself and that makes me really weary.

I know now that I need to have a basic theology of what I believe and that it is my responsibility to question any spiritual leader who says something that differs significantly. I also believe that a legitimate Christian leader would happily answer any concerns I may have about his teaching and clarify or correct anything that came across as different from basic Christianity.

I also know that it is possible to be deceived by what people don't tell you (not just what they tell you).

I also know that deception can come packaged as truth and I think a number of sincere Christians in leadership have bought some lies about the Gospel because they sounded good.

For example, character matters. Of course it does, but that does not mean that sound teaching doesn't matter.

Finally, if I was going to pick a Pope (not that I am) to start my chain of apostolic succession, I would choose Peter over Jim McCotter in a New York minute.

[G_Prince]

The "Fathers", who do not deserve that name, did things commendable: and they are yet the major source of error--eager to defend their doctrines zealously they at times resorted to fabrications; their insistence on Mary's perpetual virginity post-advent of Christ, for instance, flatly contradicts not only the testimony of early Christians (of James, for instance, of being "of the same womb") who desired to go see His brothers in Jerusalem, but also the Word plainly read in the Greek. Not a few times do we catch falsehoods in their stories: impossible claims contradicted elsewhere.

 

I agree that the Fathers weren’t perfect. I certainly don’t agree with everything they did or wrote, however I feel extremely loyal to them for their contribution to Christianity. We shouldn’t forget that many of them suffered unimaginable torture and martyrdom (things that none of us have faced) and are now waiting for us in eternity. They are our brothers and sisters and it irks me to no end when they are unfairly criticized. I’m glad you see some good in their actions (putting together the cannon…etc), but I wish you wouldn't be so hard against for their faults and errors. We are all human.

I realize you have some real beef with the Catholic Church (I think even Catholics have beef with the church), but remember that there are many God loving people in that church. You may totally disagree with their dogmas, but I don’t think you can argue against the life of Mother Teresa for instance. It’s not all bad.

The symbolism is a witness: a declaration; it is a form presenting the gospel, but yet powerless without the word itself being read; the sacraments do not unite with Christ to save anyone, if you believe that, you're yet dead in sins: if anything is added to Christ, His death was in vain. Mark those words--it is in Christ alone, by His work alone, that we are saved; people like to quote "faith without works is dead", but they forget it's nuanced, "faith by itself"...it's an unevidenced faith, an ineffective faith; trust produces a response and obedience to our Lord, for gratitude and love. If you or any other trusts in other than Christ: that trust, that faith, is a vain and empty one: it must be stomped out, it must be turned wholly to God, to Jesus.

I guess you can add me to your list of “those dead in their sins” However, I find it a little hard to believe you since scripture tells us that only God know the names of those written in the book of life and that at the final judgment many will say “Lord, Lord," and he will say, "truly I did not know you." I wouldn’t rush to judge, “least ye be judged.”

Here is what I believe about the sacraments, and maybe this will make no sense to you but here goes…I experience Christ through the sacraments. And no, it is not the sacraments, the priest…etc who saves me; it is Christ mystically meeting through the sacrament who saves me. Just like you say, “it is Christ alone.”

What is the difference if I say “the prayer” and have faith in Christ or if I take communion and have faith in Christ. They are both simple acts with no meaning if Christ isn’t in the action.

Beyond this I have no idea how salvation works. It is a complete mystery; there is no way to map out the path to salvation. We have faith and we believe and then God works. I can’t presume to know what happens.

This is why I say I’m not a big fan of theology. I agree with Linda, it is important to know the basics, but beyond that what do we really gain. We can know a lot about God but are we actually experiencing him through our dogmas? I believe theology can be a great aid in helping us connect with God, but more often, it is a divisive tool we use to label, name call, and excommunicate each other. Where is God in any of that?