For the past year I have been intending to write a blog/note discussing miracles from many views. To this point that series of blogs didn't come into existence because I got bogged down in all of the research I was doing. Then I just plain ran out of time. I still hope to get back to it but for now I would rather repost a question to all of my facebook friends. I originally posted this as a blog on myspace a long time ago but only got one response.For a long time now I have wondered what really bothers people about the catholic church. anyone is free to discuss. I have talked to many people at work, college etc. and I tend to get a variety of answers to this question. Many people talk about a dislike for organized religion, they mention the sexual abuse scandals, some say they just fell away and eventually stopped going, some say they began to think about their faith at a young age and realized it was false, some believe christians are pictured next to the word "dumb" in the dictionairy, some are drawn away by protestant denominations lead to believe that the cathoolic church's teachigns are unbiblical, I've heard Mary refered to as the whore of babylon, I've heard the pope called the anti-christ, some talk about how they don't agree with what the church teaches on crucial issues like birth control, abortion, divorce and remariage etc. (they say God should stay out of their bedroom), I've heard the church is filthy rich and that's what it's all about, I've even heard that priests have devils tails and that's why they wear a robe etc.etc. The list goes on. But now I'm looking for answers from those of you whom I have never heard on the issue. This is your chance to vent about the catholic church. I guess my responses will depend on how many of you reply to this note. I don't have a ton of time on my hands lately but Ii would like to try to spend some time discussing the issues with you all. I do hope this can be a respectful and enlightening experience for all of us. So tell me what it would take for you to even consider being a catholic. As I have many friends on facebook on both sides of the fence I would like to ask that you all keep it respectfull. I won't personally be offended by truthful heartfelt answers but please don't just write two pages of profanities and accusations towards the Catholic church. Likewise I ask my Catholic friends to respect the heartfelt answers I recieve. Other than that feel free to dicuss with one another and I will answer as many questions as I have time and knowledge for. Thank you all!
In Christ,Matthew
In Christ,Matthew
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: For those who don't know me, I grew up Catholic and converted to Reformed Baptist (or at least that's the title I'd give what I didn't know at the time had a title other than Protestant) after my first year of college. No one scared me into my belief change--I just started trying to find answers to the questions non-Catholics were posing to me, reading both in the Catechism and the Bible and comparing the two. I came to believe that the Bible was the inerrant word of God, every bit of it God-breathed, and that some of the doctrines/practices of the Catholic church are not supported by scripture. It was after this that I began attending both churches for a while until I was sure I could not in faith follow Catholicism. Somewhere also during this time of change I also understood the gospel message that my sins were paid for by Christ on the cross, once for all time if only I would believe and trust in Christ for salvation and reconciliation to God. I then turned from my sinful ways, not believing that I would earn my entrance into heaven by doing good all the rest of my days, but by continually trusting in Christ's payment for my sins each day the same way I had at the beginning.
Now I do still have some questions for Catholics. A few I have recently borrowed from another site because my own friend created it and I know him to be a caring Christian brother, despite the imagery you will see if you visit the site (leaping flames...poor choice I think, but please trust me, these guys are sincerely concerned for perishing sinners). Here is the page with the gospel tract with theological problems for Catholics to face--scroll down to the one that says "What is the Mediatrix?" Please comment on the issues presented there, and whether you think the arguments are fairly presented: http://www.savedfromwhat.org/freegospeltracts.htm
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Thanks Jen, I just tagged 25 people who I think would enjoy discussing this question. Obviously there is no way I could touch on everything you all have to say should even half of participate but either way it will be good to hear your answers. I have actually talked to a lot of you on this before and know you all have very interesting perspectives and great minds. Four or five pastors and at least eight whom I know to be cradle catholics who left the church for various reasons. Also a few who no longer identify with any Christian denomination or religion.
I haven't tagged any Catholic friends yet but may do so once these 25 have had a chance to comment. That will depend on the promtings of the Holy Spirit.
Matthew Paul Gauvin: Thank you Jen for sharing a bit of your story. I appreciate your friends perspective and particularly that he has included a link to the Catechism. However I do not think he has done a fair presentation by any means and it is in fact this sort of cut and paste theology that drove me away from protestant denominations. I have to work at 6am tomorrow but hope to have time to make specific observations tommorrow night.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Thanks. I really am interested in your perspective. I never want to argue for the "fun" of proving myself right or others wrong, and certainly not to create divisions between true members of the universal Church of the body of Christ. I just want the truth of God presented for the salvation of souls and the glory of God, and I certainly will fight for what Christ said is true, for God himself testified to the truth by signs and wonders and various miracles, and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to His will (I'm excited for the future blog on miracles!). That said, thanks for investing yourself in this discussion. I look forward to others joining in as well.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Jen I completely agree of course. That is my reasoning for this blog. Day after day I am confronted with the lies of the devil on the news, on history channle, national geographic etc. What bothers me most is that the people speaking against the Catholic church mostly start with false premises. I would like to discuss these important issues with everyone so they can at least know what it is the church really teaches. Alrigthy off to work. back tonight.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen, I read your friends comments re: Mediatrix, the problem is that he has omitted more than he presented! Taking things out of context will always lead to confusion, since nothing can be completely discerned without 'all' of the facts.
He quoted from Wikipedia that: "Mediatrix in Roman Catholic Mariology refers to the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary as a mediator in the salvation process", but neglected to quote that: "There is no question among Catholic theologians, that Jesus Christ is the only mediator between God and the human race." We believe that Mary intercedes for mankind, (read John Chapter 2:1-5) and that she 'participated' in salvation by virtue of her love for, and surrender to, the will of God. He quoted #493 & 494 from the Catechism: The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature."
By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long." & "As St. Irenaeus says, "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.", but once again, he took it out of context of the entire teaching and using quotes from Scripture to 'prove' the error of our faith! I would suggest that you read the entire teaching re: what we believe about Mary here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a3p2.htm
I'll respond to your friend's other comments later....
Peace and all good to you!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: J.C., please understand that my friend could not quote every relevant article for his presentation. I'd venture to speak for him that he does not wish to do more than to prompt someone to research and think through the teachings of the Catholic church as compared with the Scripture. These are some of the same issues that I had personally with the Church, and I didn't stop at the initial comparisons, but went on to read the whole of the Bible and consider the Catholics' explanation for their traditions which supposedly do not contradict or add to Scripture. John 2:1-5 seems rather insufficient evidence to me that Christians ought to pray to Mary for her intercessory ability. Romans 8:34 says that Christ is already at the right hand of God interceding for us, and Romans 8:27 says that the Spirit, who is also of the Godhead, intercedes for us when we pray to God. So here is explicit evidence that only God (in Christ and in the Spirit) intercedes to Himself on our behalf, just as only God in Christ is the mediator of redemption between God and man. There is no place in Scripture that makes mention of God appointing departed men or women to be our advocates, only that we ought on earth to pray for one another in mutual love. This praying for each other does not diminish the role of Christ as intercessor, whom God appointed as the name and means by which we as believers are one body together. But it goes beyond scripture to say that Mary and any other departed saint is appointed to intercede in prayer for us to God, the crux of the matter being that this doctrine diminishes the glory of Christ and the Spirit as appointed intercessors on our behalf.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: J.C., where in Scripture is Mary said to have remained free from sin her whole life long? I would even take issue with her being free from sin at conception and also at Jesus' birth because of the two scriptures my friend quoted:
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.” Rom. 5:12
“If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” 1 Jn. 1:10, as well as the following: "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God"..."for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God". Romans 3:10-11,23
Please understand that I do not wish to diminish Mary as a model of faithfulness and beautiful submission to God by His grace given to her, but we cannot escape her humanity as a child of Adam, as all mankind is, under sin until our redemption by God's grace through faith in Christ. I don't see the doctrine of her sinlessless as being important to the deity and sinlessness of Christ...couldn't God as a fetus be born of a sinful body and be wholly apart from it in that respect? I believe that is what Scripture teaches us. Actually, I find it much harder to turn to Mary's faithful example as one to imitate when I think she was endowed with the grace to be sinless, because then she is not even like our Lord who was tempted and knew no sin so that He might be a merciful High Priest, understanding that we are dust and knowing our weakness in the flesh but overcoming it as we cannot completely do until glory, though we strive to please Him for love of Him.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen, I understand that he could not quote every article, but certainly he could have provided the link to the entire teaching....
I'm sorry that you felt my using John 2:1-5 as an example of Mary's role as intercessor was insufficient evidence, but because it was Jesus' first miracle, which was by her request, I felt it to be substantial. This link will provide you with answers/Scripture verses about why we pray for the intercession of the saints: http://www.catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp
In response to your question re: Mary's remaining free from sin her whole life long, only faith can embrace the mysterious ways of God's almighty power, but with the understanding that the word 'blessed' refers to being saved - rescued; especially from the power and consequences of sin; the following verse may be helpful: Lk 1:48, "Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed".... I urge you to read the entire teaching.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: as a gut response to the "blessed" thing, what about the beatitudes? those don't carry the same implication.
I'm not saying that departed saints can't hear prayers, and I noted that I understand the difference between intercession and mediation. However, there is still no scripture to warrant that departed, deceased saints are appointed to intercede for us.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: I'm sure that you know that the same words can be used and depending on the subject/content, have different meanings. :-)
The link I mentioned re: praying for the intercession of the saints, does give Scripture quotes, for instance: Rev 5:8
"When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the 'prayers of the holy ones'." and Rev 8:3-4
"Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the 'prayers of all the holy ones', on the gold altar that was before the throne. The smoke of the incense along with the 'prayers of the holy ones' went up before God from the hand of the angel." Understanding that the prayers of the holy ones refer to the intercessions of the saints to God. Heb 12:1, "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us".... Understanding that the cloud of witnesses refers to the saints and ridding ourselves of every burden refers to prayer.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "we cannot escape her humanity as a child of Adam, as all mankind is, under sin until our redemption by God's grace through faith in Christ."
Mary was redeemed by grace through faith in Christ. Lk 1: 26-28, 38, 45
In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And coming to her, he said, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her. "Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled."
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "I don't see the doctrine of her sinlessless as being important to... the deity and sinlessness of Christ... couldn't God as a fetus be born of a sinful body and be wholly apart from it in that respect?" God dwelt among the Israelites in the Ark of the Covenant. God had said through the prophet; "The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which means God is with us"....
Why would God, Who is all Holy, dwell in anything defiled?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteDaniel Rakiec: He dwelt in the world and its pretty defiled.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: He did eat with sinners with unwashed hands, both considered defilements...and He did speak to a Gentile woman at the well...
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "Actually, I find it much harder to turn to Mary's faithful example as one to imitate when I think she was endowed with the grace to be sinless, because then she is not even like our Lord who was tempted and knew no sin so that He might be a merciful High Priest, understanding that we are dust and knowing our weakness in the flesh, but overcoming it as we cannot completely do until glory, though we strive to please Him for love of Him."
There's no indication that she wasn't tempted, only that she freely chose not to sin.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: It is so hard to get all of that implication out of "full of grace"
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "It is so hard to get all of that implication out of "full of grace"
Not if you understand that grace refers to the state of being sanctified by the favor of God.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Daniel, "He dwelt in the world and its pretty defiled."
Jen, "He did eat with sinners with unwashed hands, both considered defilements...and He did speak to a Gentile woman at the well..."
The discussion was in reference to God being born in the body of sinful woman....
Understand that God, Who is all Holy, would not create a perfect, unblemished sacrifice in a defiled woman who was the new Eve and Jesus, the new Adam.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: even David who was after God's own heart and filled with the Holy Spirit was not sinless. if the scripture hadn't clearly stated he was an adulterer, we'd probably be having this discussion about him, too I just don't know...who knows the mind of God? God planned for Jesus to be born in a manger, a feed trough.
I guess I agree with Daniel about the back and forth. I think Matt just wants to clear up false ideas about what the Catholic church teaches, not have people on here who have different fundamental assumptions about the basis of the teaching: i.e. Sola Scriptura or Scripture interpreted by mediators of Tradition I know I've got the official titles wrong, but I operate on Sola Scriptura, and Scripture interprets Scripture. Unless we can agree on that first assumption, we're getting nowhere.
Jennifer Benson Roderick: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
presents both sides of the argument...Catholic and Protestant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_reformation
http://www.theopedia.com/Protestant_Reformation
while I'm at it, here are the age old disputes of the protestant reformation I would still hold to.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Just tell me this...in Roman Catholicism, are our good works part of the merit for our salvation, or is it only Christ's merit which saves us? This is not to give us license to go on sinning, but is it part of the merit? This is the matter which involves salvation of souls, so correct me if I am wrong. I can do no thing of good to earn salvation for myself, not even entrance into heaven. Yet, I was created FOR good works, yes, faith without works means that my faith was not real in the first place (it was dead)--I did not receive that grace that saves until I trusted wholly on Christ.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: We can have merit in God's sight only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man's collaboration. Man's merit is due to God. CC-2025
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Jen, First as you’ve already mentioned, we won’t get anywhere without starting from common ground i.e. addressing the notion of sola scriptura. We can’t do that in such a confined space. You can read a little I wrote about that on my myspace blog here. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=51234829&blogId=362950206 go half way down on my response to read about sola scriptura. I hope you’ll see that sola scriptura has more to be desired than any of the catholic doctrines we will discuss.
Now I won’t go on to address every point your friend makes as it would take a whole book. Instead I would like to show you an alternative interpretation of 1Tim2:5 which you both quote. You quote 1Tim.2:5 “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”(NIV not catholic translation) Even with just this verse it’s easy to see that Jesus is the mediator between God and men but it says nothing about mediation amongst men, from man to man ,which is what we say Mary in fact does. Secondly I notice that many protestants don’t even bother to quote the next verse which clarifies even further. “Who gave himself as a ransom for all men”(vs.6) Remember that the early manuscripts didn’t have punctuation so we can just as easily understand Paul to be saying that “there is only one mediator . . . Who gave himself as a ransom for all men” Catholics agree, Mary is a lesser mediator like us, who has not given herself as a ransom for all men.
Secondly the idea that Jesus alone imparts grace is unbiblical. Ephesians 4:29 tells us that we impart grace by our words. I looked up a bunch of translations for this and most (other than the NIV) translate similar to “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear.” to “give” or “impart” is the sense of the word mediate. We are all a part of the body of Christ and called to mediate for one another by our prayers, petitions intercession and thanksgiving as the 1Tim2:1 verse actually instructs us to do. Jesus alone mediates on our behalf before God. I’ve already said so much just to address one out of context, misinterpreted verse of the bible. I had hoped to say more on his article but I’m already out of time. Basically you asked if I felt your friend does a fair job and I said no because his whole article is filled with this cut and paste theology.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: ok, hope to make a few shorter comments tromorrow night. Please feel free to discuss. My goal will be to try and present true Catholic teaching where necisary and maybe answer questions as they arise. I don't want to go out of my way to debat with people just answer questions that people ask. Tonight I looked a bit at Jen's question of Mary as mediatrix and Phil's question of the doctrine of papal infalibility. Thank you Joan for your contributions. Amen sister! Thank you Ramen for your comments. It may be a while but I hope to touch base on a few things you discussed.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Whew, this could go on a while. I am enjoying learning more accurately what the Catholic church teaches, though I still have reservations. I guess I'll be doing more reading. I'm sure you have recommendations that are approved by Papal authority as free from error. The one website I keep getting directed to is helpful. Would you list some books and other sites on Catholic theology?
You've got me started on questions I've never had answered sufficiently. So things keep popping up the more I read. What about saying the rosary and other formulaic prayers? What is the purpose of prayers you say over and over again, which become seemingly meaningless to the people praying (I've said tons of rosaries before, and mealtime prayers, etc. and lost a grip on what I was saying). I've tried to find the place in scripture (surely you know it) where the disciples are told not pray like the hypocrites who think they will be heard for their many words. What say you?
Another issue I don't understand is the burning and other ways of killing heretics. I understand this shows my ignorance of church history. Why was that acceptable, when the apostles did not respond this way to those who preached a different gospel? They turned instead to the flock to warn them of those who teach a different gospel from that which they had already received from Paul. I know that Reformers I would hold up as examples did also approve the death penalty for heretics in order to purge the church, but that is an area on which I would differ with them. The OT (old testament) law of course demanded the death of those who suggested worship of another god but Yahweh, but the NT (new testament) seems not to apply the law to false teachers.
Just a note so that you don't become weary of my questions: I won't be arguing with you forever because I know already some disagreements I may never find adequately settled. But I will read and think, and keep seeking God. All I can do is pray for wisdom as I have done for years, and hope in the promised salvation and eternal life with Christ. At some point all else will just have to be gravy that remains an unsolved mystery. If God gives wisdom to all who ask, why are we still so far apart from a unified Church?
from the infallibility website at the bottom: 'the Church is "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16).'
Does this mean that all who are not Catholic are believed by Catholics to be reprobate? I've come to understand from somewhere that Catholics consider many who have never heard the name of Christ to still be saved (leaving out any argument using unborn babies please). Also I've understood that somehow some of those who are not Catholic are, in reality, part of the Church if they accept essential teachings, even if they (as I would) say they do not accept the Catholic Church's teachings in their entirety, and often in their bulk. Annulment of marriage. How is it biblical? I don't think divorce is biblical, either, but I don't think Catholics think differently on that.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: JEn, thanks for these many great questions. I think it makes most sense for me to continue going back through the questions in order so it will be a while before I get to these new ones. I'm actually really excited about all of these great questions because I spend most of my time listening to a Catholic Radio show called Catholic answers. I generally listen to Catholic radio shows, bible on Cd, theology, debates, etc. all day while working on my illustrations so it's a blessing to be able to share some of the information I have gleaned over the years. I am by no means an expert and am lucky if I can remember even a small percentage of everything I've heard or read. However I do remember enough to know that there are some great answers to the questions you ask so I hope you won't give up until you've heard those answers.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Jen I really really am glad you are asking these questions. Believe me, I had many of the same questions as you. I just spent a bit of time putting a book list together for you and now want to work on a website list since I think these will help everyone with there questions until I have time to get to them. I have people sending me private messages and e-mails as well so I am doing my best. Please don't be discouraged if it takes some time to get back to you. I don't mind you filling up the blog with questions because I can atleast work on them one at a time. The trouble comes in when people ask tons of tough questions in person in rapid succesion without giving time to answer. That feels like someone is trying to sow doubt and hate. Your questions seem sincere and like you really do want good answers.
Some Book recommendations for you Jen and other protestants: *“Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God” By Scott Hahn and various theologians who converted from many protestant denominations. This is one of the first books I read dealing with Catholic theology and is by far one of the main books that kept me in the church.
*“Catholic for a Reason II: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God” also by Scott Hahn and others each taking a chapter. There are two more in the series but I’ve only read these two so far.
*“The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth” by Scott Hahn (really anything by him is great but I wanted to list a few specific ones. You most likely don’t remember the Mass being heaven on earth but by the end of the book you may see things from a slightly different perspective.)
*“Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic” There are three in the series. If you want to know how
*“Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on ‘Romanism’ by ‘Bible Christians’” I’ve heard amazing things about this book but haven’t read it yet. The author is Karl keeting and he is actually the president and founder of the apostolate “Catholic Answers”. He’s not the best debator but he really does know his stuff.
*“Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible” By Gary Michuta
*“The Faith of the Early Fathers volume 1” by William A. Jurgens Jr. Ph.D Once you delve into church history you may never want to come back!
*“How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” By Thomas E. Woods, Jr.,Ph.D. This book was a real eye opener for me in terms of all the church has done and still does for us that goes unnoticed.
*“Triumph The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church: A 2,000-Year History” By H.W. Crocker III . With Chapters titled “Trial By Fire”, “Constantine” , “The Crusades” , “Inquisition” who wouldn’t want to read this book
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: I actually answered your second to last post question in one of my myspace blogs a while back when you asked that very same question. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=51234829&blogId=356819653
Some websites to check out:
http://www.catholic.com/radio/calendar.php This is a direct link to the Catholic Answers radio archives of there show. Free !!!! Click on the links in the calendar to listen to shows. This site also has a forum where you can ask questions, thousands of free articles from there magazine titled “This Rock”. They actually have free archives of the full magazines to read online! To the top left there is a place to do a quick search and retrieve articles on many topics.
http://www.salvationhistory.com/library/category/audio_resources Another link to some free audio. This website is also packed with many great resources like online bible studies, pod casts articles etc.
I’m running out of time so I’m just going to give you a bunch of links without comments:
http://www.staycatholic.com/index.htm
http://www.theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm
http://catholicexchange.com/
http://www.catholicfirst.com/index.cfm
http://www.catholicity.com/... Read More
http://www.catholicintl.com/
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/index.asp
http://davidmacd.com/catholic/index2.htm
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm
http://www.relevantradio.com/Page.aspx?pid=3407&srcid=534
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin:Ok I think I will stop here so I don’t give you catholic overload. I have a favorites folder filled with these sorts of websites. I really need to get going for tonight. I will be back soon to answer the other questions in order hopefully.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: " What is the purpose of prayers you say over and over again, which become seemingly meaningless to the people praying (I've said tons of rosaries before, and mealtime prayers, etc. and lost a grip on what I was saying). I've tried to find the place in scripture (surely you know it) where the disciples are told not pray like the hypocrites who think they will be heard for their many words. What say you?"
First, no prayer is ever without purpose.
The verse you are referring to is Mt 6:6,
"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them."
The meaning of that verse refers to the arrogance and pride of those who want to appear 'holy' to others, but are in fact not living a Godly life. Mt 6:7, "In praying, do not babble like the pagans, who think that they will be heard because of their many words." refers to the pagan practice of 'babbling' or uttering a 'meaningless' confusion of words or sounds.
Responding to: "If Catholics love scripture almost as much as tradition (you do personally, I think), then why, when I was confirmed, didn't they give me a Bible AND a catechism? At that, why not at first communion? All I got then was a book of prayers. I don't remember being urged to read the Bible at all or mememorize any scripture. Surely parents aren't assumed to be accredited teachers."
Catholics absolutely love Scripture, because our tradition is based on it. If you didn't receive a Bible, I can only assume it would have been expected that there was one in your home. Parents are the 'first' teachers of the faith and that certainly qualifies them.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: "Annulment of marriage. How is it biblical? I don't think divorce is biblical, either, but I don't think Catholics think differently on that."
Matthew 5:31,32, I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason 'except sexual immorality' causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."
1 Corinthians 7: 10-11, 15
To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband
--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.
If the unbeliever separates, however, let him separate. The brother or sister is not bound in such cases.
J.C. King: Responding to Jen: "I see you love the truth. I just don't get that from Catholics in general, priests I've had, the Catholic Church leadership in general."
ReplyDeleteTHE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
It's unfortunate that your experiences in the Catholic Church have been so damaging, but realize that the Church is made up of sinners and in our humanity, we all fall short, but 'all' are not guilty of the things that you have experienced. Therefore, it is unjust to hold an entire group responsible for the behavior of individuals within the group.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I am aware of those verses concerning divorce and separation. I would argue that most divorces and annulments are not performed according to the circumstances outlined. My own mother and grandmother both annulled their first marriages within the Catholic Church for other reasons than those.
By the same token, I believe Protestants are held responsible for the actions of many individual Protestants gone astray. The existence of all kinds of denominations is not the fault of one faithful denomination, even when it contains unbelievers as well.
I'm not sure I buy the "babbling" thing, since repeated prayers begin to be just as much babble as non-words. I'm sure the pagans sounded like they were babbling to those who did not speak the same language...
One more thing for this morning. What is one to do if there is only an unhealthy Catholic church in their area to go to? Teach the authorities yourself? Why should you submit to false teachers?
After tonight, I'll be gone from this discussion probably for a whole week, since I am going to be gone visiting family. Don't give up on me reading and responding. I may get to read something, but not have time to respond adequately.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Jen you wrote:
“Romans 8:34 says that Christ is already at the right hand of God interceding for us, and Romans 8:27 says that the Spirit, who is also of the Godhead, intercedes for us when we pray to God. So here is explicit evidence that only God (in Christ and in the Spirit) intercedes to Himself on our behalf.”
Reply: I don’t see how these verses say anything about God being the only one who intercedes for us to God. As I already pointed out that the 1Tim 2:5 verse about Jesus intercession is actually preceded by Jesus telling us to mediate for one another by our prayers, petitions intercession and thanksgiving.
you wrote: “just as only God in Christ is the mediator of redemption between God and man. There is no place in Scripture that makes mention of God appointing departed men or women to be our advocates, only that we ought on earth to pray for one another in mutual love.”
Reply: J.C. ’s link made a lot of good points about this already, so I just want to add a few things. I’m not quit grasping why it is different for the saints in heaven to intercede for us as opposed to the Saints on earth. I’m hoping the article helped out in this regard. Christ’s body is not divided and not separated by death. Our mediation and intercession for one another is only by the will of Christ and the same is true of the saints in heaven. Surely we would not believe it possible if not for the bridge which God has built. St. Paul wasn’t able to imagine a telephone or e-mail, Just because we can’t imagine how God allows the Saints to hear our prayers, that doesn’t limit his ability to allow it.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Matthew's post: "Just because we can’t imagine how God allows the Saints to hear our prayers, that doesn’t limit his ability to allow it."
True, I would add that we limit God's power by our limited understanding of Him. It is when we apply our own opinions to matters that require faith, that we become confused and we doubt.
This is a God, Who in 6 days, created the universe! How can we question anything that He does? If we believe that God is Who He says He is, then we must also believe that He is capable of doing anything!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: I'm slowly working through a response to the questions regarding Mary's immaculate Conception. Please be patient with me as I have never written about this doctrine before so don't have anything to build on. It's always a joy to lay out my own words on such topics as I learn so much in the process every time and I tend to remeber the information better than just hearing about it or reading about it. Thanks again for all of the great responses I've recieved so far.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Jen: “where in Scripture is Mary said to have remained free from sin her whole life long? , at conception and at Jesus' birth? “
Jen I think first it’s important to take a look at the scriptures you’ve quoted then I will expound on the Immaculate conception the next chance I get. You quoted . . .
‘There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God‘…‘for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God‘. Romans 3:10-11,23”
If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.’ 1 Jn. 1:10...
‘Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned.’ Rom. 5:12
In the Rom 3 verse, in context, Paul is saying there is no advantage for the Jew or Gentile. This verse along with the verse from 1st John can be better understood by looking deeper into Romans chapter 5 that you quoted.
If you want me to believe that Romans 5:12 means literally every single person to ever walk the earth has sinned then I think you would have to say it is equally true that it also means that literally every person to walk the earth has died. “death spread to ALL . . . ALL sinned” Now you and I both know that neither of these statements are true if taken to mean that every single person has died and sinned.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.)In Gen 5:24 we see that Enoch is the only one of a list of descendants of Adam who is said to have been taken by God instead of saying the words “then he died”. Also in 2 Kings 2:11 we see that Elijah is taken up to heaven in a whirlwind without dying. So clearly Paul wasn’t trying to make an absolute statement about every last person in regards to death. Paul certainly knew about Elijah and Enoch, he didn’t feel the need to point out the few exceptions to the rule on death and the same is true for his statement on sin.
The part about sin can be read two ways. Either Paul was talking about actual sins or he was referring to the stain of sin from Adam. I believe the passage (vs. 12-14) touches on both in different verses. If he meant actual sins then we have exceptions to the rule already. Sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin, therefore Children below the age of reason are excluded from this definition. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they "had done nothing either good or bad" (Rom. 9:11). You already agreed with this in a comment. I also think verse 14 could indicate that there were some who didn’t commit actual sins. But they still experienced death as a result of original sin.
If Paul meant the stain of sin or that everyone, without exception, is subject to original sin then Catholics agree. This is true for a young child, for the unborn, even for Mary. Mary was subject to original sin but was preserved by God from it and its stain. More about this when I directly address the teaching of the immaculate conception.
There is at least one example of someone who neither committed actual sin nor had the stain of sin and that’s Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 and Romans 5 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), we could argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made. Those free of both original sin and actual sin in scripture are Eve, Adam, Jesus and we say Mary. Adam and Eve fell into sin . In order for the new Adam to undo the effects of sin he had to be sinless, so I think it makes sense that the new eve would also be kept from eating of the fruit so to speak. More to come!!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Response to jen and Daniel
Jen said: “I don't see the doctrine of her (Mary) sinlessless as being important to the deity and sinlessness of Christ...couldn't God as a fetus be born of a sinful body and be wholly apart from it in that respect? I believe that is what Scripture teaches us. He did eat with sinners with unwashed hands, both considereddefilements...and He did speak to a Gentile woman at the well...
Daniel said: "He dwelt in the world and its pretty defiled."
Reply: I do believe Jesus could have been born of a sinful body and still been free of sin as Catholics believe this to be true of Mary's birth. So it is that the church has always argued for the Immaculate conception based on fittingness and not that it was necessary. J.C pointed out a few good reasons for this already with Mary being the fullfillment of many old testamnet types, the ark of the covenant, Eve, etc. You wouldn’t put new whine in old whine skins and since Jesus created his mother it is only fitting.
For even Samson (a great, but imperfect, judge of Israel), God was precise about the state of the mother during the pregnancy. The request for the mother to be pure is repeated for emphasis.
Judges 13:3-14
"An angel of the LORD appeared to the woman and said to her, 'Though you are barren and have had no children, yet you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to take no wine or strong drink and to eat nothing unclean.'
. . . 'So take neither wine nor strong drink, and eat nothing unclean. For the boy shall be consecrated to God from the womb, until the day of his death.'
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.)The angel of the LORD answered Manoah, 'Your wife is to abstain from all the things of which I spoke to her. She must not eat anything that comes from the vine, nor take wine or strong drink, nor eat anything unclean. Let her observe all that I have commanded her.'"
How much more would God be interested in in the state of His own mother's womb!
So that all gives us a look into the verses commonly used against the Immaculate Conception and a realization that it is fitting but not necesary. Next I hope to take a closer look at the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I want to draw out Mary's role as a fullfillment of the old testamnet types for those who have never been taught these truths. Then I will hope to show how these are connected to the doctrine in question. By the end I hope you will see how this doctrine actually "magnifies the Lord" (quoting Mary's own words in the gosple) rather than detracting from his glory. God bless you all and have a great night!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin: Interestingly, the reason Samson's mother wasn't allowed to drink wine was because Samson was to be a Nazirite, which is a person who consecrates himself to God by, among other things, drinking no alcohol, or even anything that comes from grapes.
I guess that was sort of a tangent.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: That is interesting. Not off tangent as I think it's very important to see why God does things and not just waht he does. I've come to understand things much better often just by looking at the reason soemthing was done in scripture. I diidn't even bother to look at the reasoning behind this particular incident.
hmmm, I just read your commetn again kate and realized that this has a connection to what I wrote about the Immaculate Conception. God wanted Samson's mother to abstain from alchohol because Samson himself was to be a anzarite, free of alchohol. Similarly I believe God wanted Mary to be free of sin because Jesus was to be the savior who was free of sin. Again, we don't say God had to do this but that it was fitting. I wonder if this is your original thought and I just missed it all together. So I guess you were more on tangent than even you possibly realized.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Jen: “where in Scripture is Mary said to have remained free from sin her whole life long? , at conception and at Jesus' birth?”
First a definition of the doctrine by Pope Pius IX. "We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which asserts that the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin is a doctrine revealed by God”.
Everything Catholics believe about Mary only ads to our love of Christ and is not meant to distract from him in any way. I would also say that certain Marian doctrines can best be viewed in light of the whole of scripture and all it has to say about her role in salvation history. You may be inclined to think there are only a few passages which speak of Mary and they are of little importance.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletepoint 1:Mary’s role is believed to be foreshadowed and prophesied all throughout the bible from Genesis to Revelation. Starting with the very first prophecy of scripture often know as the proto-evangelium in Gen.3:15. Further we believe Revelation 12 ( the last book) also refers to her, which seem to further indicate her role in salvation history as being of high importance. Here she is shown in the actual battle against Satan, that “ancient serpent” recalling the Genesis prophecy. There is dispute among scholars over the woman in the Rev. 12 verses, but I think it is so clear that I won’t even bother to go through them verse by verse. Suffice to say that we know who the child is in both places, so from there it would be hard to miss who the mother is. Mary is mentioned alongside her son fighting the battle against Satan from start to finish of the bible and from start to finish of human history.
Point 2: In Gen 3:15 we notice that God speaks of Enmity between Satan and Mary (if she sinned there would be no enmity) Some Catholics say the enmity between the Virgin Mary and the serpent placed by God was Her triumph over sin, Her Immaculate Conception. The seed of the serpent is sin while the seed of the son is victory over sin. This is closely linked to how we see Eve as a type of Mary. There is much more on this in the second link at the end of tonights comments.
point 3: J.C. already pointed out the significance of Luke 1 verses 26-45. As she said it is very important to understand the concept of what it meant to be full of grace and Most blessed among women. Remember this blessedness is linked to the blessedness of Jesus in this verse as well as being called MOST blessed among women. So it’s not merely referring to a blessing equal to those in the beatitudes. Luke 1:28- “Hail full of Grace,” in Greek indicates something that was completed in the past. Also the greeting is seen as a title of her new role (more in the first link at the end of my comments tonight). This name change of the Angel Gabriel is different from the usual angelic greeting. It indicates that Mary was exceptionally "highly favored with grace" (Greek: charitoo). It is used twice in the New Testament, in Lk 1:28 for Mary - before Christ's redemption and Eph 1:6 for Christ's grace to us - after Christ's redemption.
We simply believe that Mary was granted the same state of grace that Adam and Eve received before the fall and that we as Christians will receive as a result of our redemption. The difference of course being that Mary, like the new Adam (Christ) never fell into sin.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.)point4:I was originally going to briefly (sometimes I wonder if this word is really in my vocabulary) lay out some of the typology that faithful Catholics have discerned about Mary over the 2000 year history of the church and link those to our understanding of the Immaculate Conception. However I did run across one article which I believe does an extremely good job of this already so I would be foolish to spend time trying to do a better job in such a confined space and time.
The first link is an abbreviated and easy to understand article discussing some of these links. The second link addresses far more typology on Mary. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709btb.asp
http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/articles/marian-apologetics/mary-in-scripture.html
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Matthew, thanks for your diligence to answer all these questions. I am learning a lot, though we might have to just agree to disagree on the Mariology stuff for now, since it doesn't seem to be an integral part of salvation in either of our views. On Luther, I think the main issue that has not been resolved in the Catholic Church is justification by faith alone vs. faith+works. Now, you may say that Protestants believe works are necessary, I say that works are the visible proof of salvation/justification (past event). That is still a hot issue, and a main one that Luther died fighting for. I urge you to read his writings so that you will have more knowledge on his stance and can answer Protestants truly whether the Catholic church has reformed according to the 95 theses. I'm not sure, but maybe these are available online for free, at least in part. A good title is "The Bondage of the Will", though I'm not sure if that one deals specifically with justification.
I know J.C. made comments saying that our works are made possible/given to us by God's grace (IS that what you meant, J.C?), but then that means we actually have no part of our own in meriting God's mercy of salvation. If it is all bound up in Christ dying for us after all, why say justification is faith+works?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Hi Jen, Yes I read the 95 thesis before I wrote that comment. I will certainly touch on the faith vs. works issue as I think w agree on more than you may think. I've listened to a few debates on this issue and tend to see that Catholics and Protestants are generally using different works to say a very similar thing. I thought I discussed that issue with you before but it may have been someone else. I also wrote out a long response if I remember but I can't seem to find that now so I will have to start from scratch when I get to that question. Currently working through Daniels 4th point. I think the faith and works question is soon after that.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: "but then that means we actually have no part of our own in meriting God's mercy of salvation."
By cooperating with His grace we do....
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Ah, I see, so then it becomes a debate on the sovereignty of God and free will. A couple good reads on that is Luther's Bondage of the Will and A.W. Pink's The Sovereignty of God. He is the source of our faith and "cooperation", so it still remains all God's doing even if we cooperate with Him. We were dead in our trespasses and sins...a dead man, dead spiritually, cannot respond to the gospel, and we have no life but in and through Him.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: "He is the source of our faith and "cooperation", so it still remains all God's doing even if we cooperate with Him."
Our 'cooperation' is a free will decision born of our love for Him.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: J.C.--that's exactly what I'm refuting. we disagree fundamentally about "free will"
I'm willing to read your literature, won't you read mine?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen: Are you saying that we don't have a free will?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: in the sense that you speak of it, no.
I don't pretend to be able to explain my position in this format and concisely, that is why I referenced the two books I did.
"Lost! lost! lost! The race of man was utterly lost, not partly lost, not thrown into a condition in which it might be ruined unless it worked hard to save itself; but so lost, that but for the interposition of a divine arm, but for the appearance of God in human flesh, but for the stupendous transaction upon Calvary, and the work of God the HolyGhost in the heart, not one dead soul ever could come to life. Eternal life would not be the peculiar work of the Lord Jesus if man had a finger in it, but now man’s power is excluded and grace reigns." --C. H. Spurgeon
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: I'm not sure what you are refuting....
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I'm saying that spiritually helpless and needy people cannot "cooperate" with God's grace as part of the merit of salvation.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Why not?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: It is all grace that saves us. Our obedience is as filthy rags before God. Yet, He says that we are saved FOR good works. The important distinction here is that they are NOT part of what saves us. 1 Cor 3: 11 For no one can lay a *x11.1 foundation other *x11.2 than that which is laid, *x11.3 which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— 13 *x13.1 each one's
work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed *x13.2 by fire, and *x13.3 the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, *x14.1 he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer
loss, though he himself will be saved, *x15.1 but only as through fire.
In this passage, the one who has the foundation of faith in Christ is saved, though his work is proved worthless--it is burned up. His loss is only that he does not receive as great a reward as the one whose work was of good quality.
Romans 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, *x1.2 our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but *x2.1 not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? *x3.1 “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now *x4.1 to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but *x5.1 trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) 7 *x7.1 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,and whose sins are covered;8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not *x8.1 count his sin.”
Romans 5:6 For *x6.1 while we were still weak, at the right time *x6.2 Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but *x8.1 God shows his love for us in that *x8.2 while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, *x9.1 we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from *x9.2 the wrath of God. 10 For if *x10.1 while we were enemies *x10.2 we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by *x10.3 his life.
we were reconciled to God/justified "while we were enemies", before any work of grace was shown in our lives in the form of good works
Romans 9:10 And not only so, but *x10.1 also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of *x11.1 his call— 12 she was told, *x12.1 “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, *x13.1 “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14 What shall we say then? *x14.1 Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, *x15.1 “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16 So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.knot because of works!
and, the one who DOES NOT WORK but trusts...
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Yes, we were, but how does that refute what I said?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: what you said was that our cooperation with God is part of the merit of our justification, and these passages directly oppose that statement.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Ok, now I'm at the question of salvation. This will take a while for me to put my thoughts together but I'm glad to see Jen and Joan have already come so far with this. I would still like to go back and lay out a scriptural case particularly for why Catholics say Faith and Works. I would also like to discuss these words in some depth as I think our deffinitions of them is what causes some of the discrepancy between Luther and the church.
Then it seems I will need to address this notion of free will, predestintation, Sovereignty etc. particularly as it was taught by Calvin. I think I will probably do the overview of salvation and then answer Mazen Ramadans' questions before moving onto the free will portion of Jen's question since they are such large topics on there own.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen: The scriptures that you are presenting are only part of the whole, therefore it is impossible to support your argument in this way. What I think you're saying is you believe that 'once saved always saved'?
If I were to give you only paragraphs from a book, but not the whole story, you wouldn't understand the story.
Responding to: "I'm willing to read your literature, won't you read mine?"
I'm not seeking the truth, I've already found it.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Jen you can't just go around telling people they need to read a book because you're willing to read their book suggestions. It's fine to ask them to do so but to sort of throw it in their face and say it's only fair they return the favor is quit silly in my opinion. Remember I gave you a bunch of book suggestions because you asked for them. I'm not forcing them on you but would love for you to read them so these questions won't come
up over and over again. In reality most of the books I suggested are just brief overviews of multiple topics in short paragraphs. They are not deep theological works. I have a feeling the books you sugest would require a bit more energy and time. If you would like I could suggest some of these deeper works for you to look over and I think I could even think of a couple which deal with the notion of free will. Your understanding of free will is rather recent and I believe unbiblical. In fact many of the other Christians on here woul also take issue with this
One of the times I met with Michael he discussed this topic in depth and I found myself wanting to reject to most of the points he made but I ended up waiting out the conversation for various reasons. I hope you will stick around for when I finally have the chance to discuss my point of view on this. ok,
off to work for now.
By the way Jen I've noticed that you almost exsclusively base many of your beliefs on your interpretation of the book of Romans. In light of this I would like to suggest one more small book for you. It's a catholic bible study on the book of Romans.
http://www.ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/IGNATIUS+STUDY+BIBLE+ROMANS/keywords=romans+bible+study/page_no=1/edp_no=3200/shop.axd/ProductDetails
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) Some of my favorite Catholic theologians converted from calvanistic backgrounds Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Steve Wood, Jimmy akin, and numerous others. They left one tulip for another.
Calvins Tulip
Total depravity,
Unconditional election,
Limited atonement,... Read More
Irresistible grace, and
Perseverance of the saints
Catholic Tulip
T = total inability (to please God without special grace);
U = unconditional election;
L = limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy);
I = intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation);
P = perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: J.C.--clearly I cannot include the entire Bible in my posts here. What I expect people to do when I quote a part of the whole is to open their own Bibles and read the context of the passage (i.e. the whole chapter or the whole book of Romans at least, and the whole Bible at best).
I could make a similar case that you are not giving me enough supporting evidence either since you are not giving me answers in their entirety. Please understand that your argument that I am presenting part of the whole goes both ways and is too easy an objection to make when you have not provided a sound defense against the passages. Saying only "well that's not the whole story" is not a refutation of my points.
Also, I would say I've found the truth and am not seeking it as if I know nothing, but I will never say I've understood all there is to understand about God and His Word. So, I am in an ongoing search to know Him more, for there will always be more to know. I don't need to read your literature to be content in what I believe. Yet, I may understand better what you believe so that I'll be even more secure the position I take, knowing that I'm not just blissfully ignorant of your position. If you aren't willing to give and take with me, I'd rather that you not respond to my comments anymore as if you know the mind of God personally and must condescend to my level. I am trying to approach the search for truth with humility. As fallen humanity, we must all do the same and are in the same position in relation to God, for we can only know so much.
I am in this discussion because I think if we both truly love Christ and lean on Him only for salvation then we are brothers and sisters of the same Father.
Whatever unity we can have, I want it. And, I'd like to understand you. My hope is that iron will sharpen iron in both directions, making us both seek and know the truth more fully and accurately, encouraging and spurring one another on to good works.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen: "Please understand that your argument that I am presenting part of the whole goes both ways and is too easy an objection to make when you have not provided a sound defense against the passages. Saying only "well that's not the whole story" is not a refutation of my points."
I have read the 'entire' Bible, that's why I said it's not the whole story.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I hope we can both be humble enough to admit we don't know everything and can't lord our positions over one another as if one of us is more of an authority over the other. We agree at least that God Himself and His word are included in our authorities, so I must argue against any traditional teachings of men that seem to contradict these. And that is what we can discuss respectfully.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Matt--you have yet to understand what I believe about free will as I have not opted to try to explain it in such a format. I am not willing to try (since I can't include the whole of it here), and I have said so, giving books for people to read if they want to know what I believe about it. Therefore I do not want people throwing arguments at meif they don't know what they are trying to disprove. I am not making lengthy attacks on your views on here if I feel I do not know entirely how you got the ideas you lay out.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I have also read the entire Bible (yes, including the Catholic texts), and it's not the whole story. But the quoted words still say what they say, and they are part of the whole truth. I would need you to show me the places in the Bible that tell me a different story from the places I have given if you desire to defend your position.
And I will say the same, that I have found the truth in God's word. I won't know how Catholic theologians got their teachings out the the Word if I don't read them because that's not what came through in the text when I read it. I assume you would have to say the same of Calvinistic theologians.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: I trust the Holy Spirit to teach me through God's Word, not theologians....
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: J.C.: "The scriptures that you are presenting are only part of the whole, therefore it is impossible to support your argument in this way."
This statement is really what incited me to ask you why you won't read my literature. I am not "telling" or "forcing" you to read it, but you make such a quick conclusion in this statement, as if to disprove what I quoted by saying in effect that a few sentences of God's word do not prove anything (and therefore what do you make of them being included in the Bible at all--do they mean anything at all to you, and if so, what?). I am saying there is more
available to how the "proof texts" are understood in context of the whole Scripture than what I can write here, and unless you read it you cannot pretend to refute it with a few statements of your own. Maybe your intent is not to refute it at all in this format, but your responses seem to be aimed at contradicting them with a simple sentence.
I guess I just don't understand why you would contradict something at all if you didn't plan to give your own reasons.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick:J.C.--really? The Holy Spirit and the word only? But there is the authority and tradition of the Catholic Church's teachings, too, correct? I think those in Catholic authority are considered theologians as well, aren't they?
Theologian: a specialist in the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.
I hope the leaders in the Catholic Church are theologians. And if so, you do trust theologians to teach you if you trust the Catholic authorities.
Anyway, it comes back to which theologians to trust, if they can still be trusted or not, and the complete trustability (word?) of
the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King:This format doesn't lend itself to in depth responses, and I believe my responses, as simple as they may have been, were appropriate for this format.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "you do trust theologians to teach you if you trust the Catholic authorities."
If I didn't understand Scripture, but I do.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I'm sorry, I didn't understand your last response:
"If I didn't understand Scripture, but I do."
That just seems to be more condescension. Do you understand why I might construe that statement as condescension? Perhaps we both must say we don't fully understand, only partially. Otherwise we contradict God when He says He gives wisdom to all who ask. I have certainly asked for wisdom, and I believe I have His Spirit in some measure, too,teaching me.
I am not feeling as though you respect me as a fellow finite human. I was wanting to know what you understand about the Scriptures I quoted from Romans, and you haven't said what you understand about them yet. Yes, I can read Matt's references, but I was talking with you and was not responded to. Please tell me simply what you understand about the verses I quoted, and I will accept your "part" of the story as a summary and not the whole, to find out the whole later on.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: "I hope the leaders in the Catholic Church are theologians. And if so, you do trust theologians to teach you if you trust the Catholic authorities."
Of course they are, what I'm saying is that I trust the Holy Spirit 'first' in order to discern whether or not what 'some' theologians teach is truth.
I believe the doctrinal and moral teachings taught by the Church were given by Jesus to the apostles and handed on by them to their successors.
Responding to: I have also read the entire Bible (yes, including the Catholic texts), and it's not the whole story.
When I said the whole story, I was referring to the parts of Scripture, not being part of the 'whole' Bible.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: "When I said the whole story, I was referring to the parts of Scripture, not being part of the 'whole' Bible."
Please explain. I'm still not sure what you are saying here and don't want to miscommunicate.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Jen: I don't know how to go about expressing what I believe without you feeling as if I'm being condescending. I am not the kind of person who would disrespect anyone for their beliefs.
J.C. King: Responding to:Please explain. I'm still not sure what you are saying here and don't want to miscommunicate.
ReplyDeleteMeaning the Bible in it's entirety....
As you've already said and I've agreed, it's not possible to put the entire Bible in this format, so therein lies the difficulty of responding to your questions.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick:Are you saying that since my Bible doesn't have certain books yours has, my book of Romans isn't part of the Bible? I don't understand why you would say that.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: No, that's not what i'm saying at all. I'm saying that Romans is only part of the Bible and if we read the Bible it in it's entirety we're better able to understand it.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: OK, sorry about that. I didn't think you could be saying that, that's why I was confused. Thanks for the clarification.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick:"...what I'm saying is that I trust the Holy Spirit 'first' in order to discern whether or not what 'some' theologians teach is truth."
I do the same. So how are we different? What else can I do but be convinced in my own mind from what I believe the Holy Spirit has told me through God's Word? That is precisely why I feel that some of the teachings of the Catholic Church are unbiblical. I have "tested" them with the Word of God and have found some things less than coinciding with the Word. Therefore I reject those things as false teachings since they are, in my estimation, a different gospel than the one that was preached by the Apostles.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen: "I do the same. So how are we different? What else can I do but be convinced in my own mind from what I believe the Holy Spirit has told me through God's Word?"
We all understand the Word differently and there are as many interpretations as there are people, the difference is that as a Catholic, I adhere to Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation, and not my own.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: I hope you will let love cover any sins I have committed against you in my speech. I am trying to be careful in what I say and also not take what you say personally, but blogs and email are terrible formats for feeling the tone of voice and intent of the language. If we both truly belong to God as His children, we need to outdo one another in showing honor. I hope you and I will both leave this discussion able to say that of each other, that we were honored as fellow children of God.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King:Responding to Jen: "blogs and email are terrible formats for feeling the tone of voice and intent of the language."
Understanding that completely, I am trying to keep my responses simple. I am better at speaking from my heart than quoting chapter & verse....
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick:I also adhere to an interpretation other than my own: The Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechism. We just disagree on which teachers have the true teaching and which went down a path of error.
I also believe that God preserves His true universal church from grievous errors, but I believe that He worked for truth through the Protestant Reformation to bring believers back to the Word, to obey it from the heart according to knowledge."We just disagree on which teachers have the true teaching and which went down a path of error."
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Jen:We do disagree, but sisters we remain. :-)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePhilip Harris: Everything about the role of the pope bothers me. I don't think he is a direct line from God and I really don't think his doctrine is infallible. This bothers me greatly as I do consider catholics fellow christians, I just have a really hard time buying into anyone who likes to be known as "his holiness."
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Hi Phil, Thanks so much for another great topic. The notion of papal infalibility is another misunderstood teaching. I was lead to believe it meant everything the pope says is true or something to that effect. The church in fact teaches that the pope himself is a fallible human who only makes infallible statements by the power of the holy spirit and with certain guidlines. 1)Says he is speaking infalibly, 2)excathedra-from the chair 3)teaching on faith and morals. You may be interested to know there are only a handfull of instances where popes have spoken infalibly. The more recent ones were in 1854 and 1950. Poeps can sin, say lies and even go to hell. They are human and will be judged as such but even more harshly as they have been given more. In other words don't place a bet on who PB expects to win the next baseball game. This is a start, maybe I can discuss biblical support later.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Phil, The title "His Holiness", refers to the Pope's position as representative/head of the Church/body and he is infallible when he teaches on faith & morals, because he speaks the truth contained in Scripture under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePhilip Harris: I think what this conversation needs is a plate of bottomless nachos from Chile's in Harvard Square.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJennifer Benson Roderick: Haha, Phil I think you are right. Care to deliver some to GA?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePhilip Harris: I'll contact Chile's and have them over-nighted. You might want to provide your own cheese though.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePhilip Harris: what's the deal with all the saints? As a non-catholic, I feel like every new saint that's anointed is just a distraction from the only person who really matters: Jesus. And it seems hypocritical to me that the pope is infallible in morals in doctrine, but not anything else. No one can claim to be infallible in their morality and fallible with everything else. It just creates a catch-22 where's its impossible to say the pope is wrong about anything.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Phil: "what's the deal with all the saints? As a non-catholic, I feel like every new saint that's anointed is just a distraction from the only person who really matters: Jesus."
It's not meant to be a distraction, but a tangible awareness of God's love and mercy.
And it seems hypocritical to me that the pope is infallible in morals ... Read Morein doctrine, but not anything else. No one can claim to be infallible in their morality and fallible with everything else. It just creates a catch-22 where's its impossible to say the pope is wrong about anything.
It would be more hypocritical to claim that he was not infallible in his humanity.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: yikes, this is insane. Facebook is completely different than myspace blogs. I will have to disable the e-mail function but hope to make some comments when I get the time. I do thank everyone who is participating and wish I could take you up on those nachos Phil. Maybe we could move this to an e blog or some place that allows for longer responses or something. Anyway, I really need to keep working for now. Thanks Daniel, I was hoping to hear from you as I enjoyed discussing a bit with you in the pizza place.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Some biblical info for you Phil. You and I both believe that the bible is infallible and that those who wrote the bible where protected from error in what they wrote. From verses like mat. 16;16-19 and matt.18 we see that Peter and the other apostles were given authority to bind and loose, Peter is specifically given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. So it seems clear to me at least that Peter is given an important role. Peter is the visible head of the church, the shepherds voice. We see from the old testament that Jesus is to be the one shepherd placed over the flock ( Ezekiel 34:23-24) Then we see in John 10:v.4 that the sheep follow Jesus because they recognize his voice. We then see in Luke 10:16, Jesus says “whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me.” This is speaking to 72 people that Jesus chose.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) Then we see in Mt.10:6,16,19-20 Jesus sends the disciples out to preach to the lost sheep, they themselves are like sheep who are speaking the fathers words by the spirit. Verse 19-20 says “When they hand you over, do not worry about what you are to say. You will be given at that moment what you are to say. For it will not be you who speak, but the spirit of your father speaking through you.” Then we get to the very end of the gospel of John 21V15-17. We see that Jesus uniquely places Peter over his entire flock before he (Jesus) goes to heaven. This seems to indicate to me that Jesus has made Peter the visible shepherd over his flock who will speak the words of the father by the spirit. Matthew 16:16-19 This to me sounds like Peter had papal infallibility. I’ve read these scriptures in context and hope you will have a chance to take a look. I haven’t shown much yet because you probably don’t have a problem with Peter so much as with Pope Benedict and the 260 plus popes before him. The fact is we both accept the infallible teaching authority of the apostles. The difference is that I believe that is ongoing and you believe it stops after the original apostles. So really I think it’s important to demonstrate that the apostles passed on there ministry in time. From the practice of laying on of hands we know that someone has come from the apostles and not some false teacher. We see In Acts. Ch.6 that the apostles were stretched thin amongst the churches as numbers of believers grew.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) So they chose seven men and “They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them.” Also in chapter 8 verse 14-18 we see that the spirit is passed on by the laying on of hands.
We also believe this shows the passing on of the apostolic ministry just like in Acts ch.1 v.15-26. Verse 20 says”For it is written in the book of psalms ‘let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it. And may another take his office.“ and in verse 25 “ to take that place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.”
Also take a look at what St. Clement of Rome has to say "Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier.... Our apostles knew more through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." (Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]). Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church and that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth. I just happen to believe that papal infallibility is one method Jesus used to protect her from error.
Further research for you: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp a great book on misconceptions of the papacy is “Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid. I found a link to either part or all of the book here:http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/popeapol.htm
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: ok, hope to make a few shorter comments tromorrow night. Please feel free to discuss. My goal will be to try and present true Catholic teaching where necisary and maybe answer questions as they arise. I don't want to go out of my way to debat with people just answer questions that people ask. Tonight I looked a bit at Jen's question of Mary as mediatrix and Phil's question of the doctrine of papal infalibility.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: In response the the Popes title as “His Holiness” - Phil I definitely understand where many of the titles of the Pope can be seen in a bad light given the way our society has almost completely transformed most words into meaning different things. Just ask anyone what a miracle is and see all the vastly different answers you get from “it’s a white topping you put on pudding” or “passing my history test is a miracle.” Most people think the word Holy means to be perfect and heavenly or Godly. Without going into the Greek and Latin origins of the word holiness, it is basically to be set apart and to receive God’s seal. In Mt 5:48 we are all called to be holy when Christ says “Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect” Now in context we see that Jesus is preaching about how we need to be set apart from the world by acting differently, love our enemies, don’t divorce, don’t swear oaths etc.
Again when Paul says “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ-their Lord and ours.”(1 COr1:2) We see this holiness is something for us on earth and not just reserved for heaven. “To the holy and faithful brothers in Christ at Colosse: Grace and peace to you from God our Father.” (Col1:2) We see that we are only able to be holy because of Christ “who has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2Tim 1:9)
In fact we must be Holy in order to see the Lord . “Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. (Heb 12:14) So in light of these verses and the ones below I hope you can understand this title a bit better. We call him “His Holiness” out of respect for this man who gave over his entire life for Christ and his church for allowing God to set him apart and receive the seal of God. Yet a good Catholic understands that this isn’t because of anything the pope does but because of what God does through him.
(Eph 1:4) (Eph 3:5) (Eph 5:3) (col1:22) (Col3:12) (1Thes 2:10) (Tts 1:8) (1Pet 1:16 quoting 16 Lev 1:44) (Rom 12:1) (1Cor 7:14) (Heb 10:10)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Phil “what's the deal with all the saints? As a non-catholic, I feel like every new saint that's anointed is just a distraction from the only person who really matters: Jesus.” Phil I could never fully understand this line of reasoning. I’ve heard it a few times and it is generally stated in a way that separates Jesus from the rest of his body. I think it is a distorted view to somehow try to separate Jesus from those he loves. The fact is that Jesus unites us to himself and the Father through the cross. When we give honor or attention to the saints it makes Jesus proud as a father is proud of his son when they achieve great things. Of course we know that those saints are only able to achieve these things by God’s will and grace. I think it’s a contradiction for a man to say he loves a woman and wants to spend every minute with her and do anything for her but then refuses to acknowledge her Father, Mother, friends and her past.
Similarly I think it is misleading to believe we can ever fully say we love Jesus but then deny God the Father, Mary his mother, All of the saints, disciples, and never want to find out about church history. I was going to share a story with you to illustrate my point but I think I will paraphrase it instead. Jesus is a glorious king and there are two models by which to understand how he relates to us. We could see him as a resplendent king sitting off by himself in all his glory within a bare room or we could see that same king in a room filled with jewels, gold, beautiful objects, diamonds etc. while he still resplendent as before. Catholics tend to understand Jesus as the second example as he is a king so glorious that he lavishes glory and magnificence on anything and everyone around him. His family and friends participate in his beauty. So Saints shouldn’t be a distraction but rather they direct our attention to the one who enables them.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Phil “And it seems hypocritical to me that the pope is infallible in morals in doctrine, but not anything else. No one can claim to be infallible in their morality and fallible with everything else. It just creates a catch-22 where's its impossible to say the pope is wrong about anything.” I can see where this would be hard for non Catholics to grasp but as a Catholic I have truly come to believe that God had a plan to uphold his church, keeping her from error on morals and doctrine and he does this through papal infallibility. You do believe that the writers of the bible where held from writing error. This is the same God. St. Peter was inspired to write inerrant words of scripture but we also see in the pages of scripture that Peter did and said things that were wrong. Perhaps we could say this is hypocritical but I dare say this hypocrite was kept from teaching his hypocrisy as true church teaching.
Remember that we are not saying the pope is never wrong about anything. As I stated, popes definitely have been wrong about many things and some were quit bad people. The important thing is that they never taught any of these false teachings as church teaching.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteDaniel Rakiec: So I haven't read anyone else's posts yet, which I will do so forgive me if I repeat things of others.
1) I grew up Catholic and was confirmed in highschool - I would say that it was rare that any of us really had a personal relationship and I really didn't even know what that meant. So i guess I basically tried that and did care but never got anywhere.
2) Upon reading the Bible - I don't think Jesus sounds like the kind of guy who would find himself in the Catholic church as I knew it. I don't know who's fault that is but it just seemed very judgmental and feel like Jesus might be throwing tables over in todays American catholic church.
3) Mary and Saints - I feel like Jesus is pretty clear that he is the only way to the ear of the Father
4)Buildings and Statues, etc - why waste all that money on stuff like that? It just seems like the Pharisees type church to me.
Sorry this is just kind of off the cuff but its just some things im thinking.
5) Martin Luther had some good points
Ran out of room....I am interested to read other people's thoughts, thanks for doing this. Hope everything is well!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Daniel: "I grew up Catholic and was confirmed in highschool - I would say that it was rare that any of us really had a personal relationship and I really didn't even know what that meant. So i guess I basically tried that and did care but never got anywhere."
Unfortunately, there was improper catechesis, but we have to be mature enough to take responsibility for our own education.
"Buildings and Statues, etc - why waste all that money on stuff like that? It just seems like the Pharisees type church to me."
The place of worship is meant to reflect the the glory of the One being worshipped.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteDaniel Rakiec: I like the heart behind it, but maybe lets allow Matt use this for his purposes instead of fill his note with our back and forth. Unless thats why it was designed. Not sure.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Daniel... Read More’s 5 points-since you list personal reasons and not questions I hope you won’t mind if I just make some comments and observations. I don’t want to argue with your reasons just perhaps push you a bit to give them further thought.
1) “I grew up Catholic and was confirmed in highschool - I would say that it was rare that any of us really had a personal relationship and I really didn't even know what that meant. So i guess I basically tried that and did care but never got anywhere.”
- high school is a hard time for people of many faiths and denominations. I often hear stories of protestants who had that same experience of their faith in high school, no kidding. The difference I would say is that when I ask Catholics why they left their faith I generally notice that they never really knew what the faith taught and that is evidenced in their answer. With protestants it seems that they leave and tend to know the faith just as well as another protestant. Often times they get hung up on arguments against the faith from athiests. Further I would say that it seems that when protestants convert to Catholicism they do so out of great love and respect for the Lord and after tons of bible study, prayer and reading.
2) “Upon reading the Bible - I don't think Jesus sounds like the kind of guy who would find himself in the Catholic church as I knew it. I don't know who's fault that is but it just seemed very judgmental and feel like Jesus might be throwing tables over in todays American catholic church.” I’ll bet you are right about that. Jesus probably wouldn’t be a part of the Catholic church “as you Knew it” and neither would most Catholics. As I noted above and J.C mentioned, I think the real root of the problem is a period of bad catechesis in the church. Quit frankly the church you and others knew is not the Catholic church. Bishop Fulton Sheen says it best "there are not a hundred people who hate the catholic church but millions who hate what they wrongly believe to be the catholic church". I can’t say for sure if this is the case with you. That is something that you alone can discern throughout your journey with the Lord.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) Lastly I think your insight about Jesus throwing tables in the church is interesting precisely because I could say the same about some protestant churches I’ve been to. I hate to say that though because I have tremendous respect for my protestant brothers and sisters. When I look at Mark 11:15 and see the reasons Jesus was angry I see things like people selling and buying in the temple, and he says “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples? But you have made it a den of thieves.” When I walk into a Catholic church it is the most reverent and peacful experience I have ever had anywhere. People are kneeling in prayer, smiling, singing praise, most are wearing respectful clothing and quitly talking amongst themselves and the architechture directs our minds to God. In contrast I walk into a protestant church and I see food and drinks in the back of the main church, I see people in jeans, t-shirts, talking loudly, using cell phones, up until the music begins.
That whole experience for me feels like a concert is beginning. I still remember the first time I went with friends to Park street church. My exact feeling was that I was going to a concert. I remember asking myself where is the eucharist?, where was the cross? (behind the projector screen), how was I to kneel with no kneelers and no room to kneel?, why did the music go on so long and repeat things over and over? Why was the sanctuary shaped in a half circle where my attention was easily distracted to the people across the way rather than the altar? Why were there drums, guitars and electric cords all over the “altar” ? It just seemed like it was all to get a feel good reaction. That only lasted me for so long before I needed more than that.
Now these are minor points and some could just as easily be said of the catholic church but I would say it’s a streatch to see the same level of this sort of disrespect for the worship space or “temple of God”. Please understand that I went to maybe 15 different protestant churches over the span of five years so my observations are only based on those few churches. I haven’t been to every denomination and I know that some are vastly different. I went to a few AOG, a couple different flavors of baptist churches, a non denominationaL and others that I didn’t know the specific denominations of. I hope my comments don’t come across as disrespectful. I do believe that God is in most protestant churches and he is proud of many things done in his name in the various denominations. I only wish to present a Catholic view on your comments in an effort at dialogue.
I would like to discuss the next three points the next chance I get. Mary and saints, buildings and statues, Martin Luther. Actually I think I have discussed Mary a lot already so I will let you all digest some of that. A few of you mention the saints but phrase it a bit differently. I think I'll let the statues waite for when I talk to Kate on that. I would love to talk a bit about my views on the buildings and make a few comments on some things Luther said before moving on.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Statues are representations, similar to a photograph, but there were no cameras when most of the saints walked the earth, so folks recorded the resemblance of a person by sculpting statues. They are respected as a significant part of Church history, similarly as the monuments of our country's history are respected. We do not 'worship' them, they are at times decorated to celebrate or commemorate an occasion in the life/death of the person that they represent, as the memory of the war dead are honored when a wreath is placed at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to: "Buildings and Statues, etc - why waste all that money on stuff like that? It just seems like the Pharisees type church to me."
Reiterating my response that the church building is a place of worship and meant to reflect the magnificence of the One being worshipped; I would add that 'nothing' that honors God, is ever wasted.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Daniels' 5th point
"Martin Luther had some good points"
If you are referring to his 95 thesis then I would agree that he was correct in combating the misuse of indulgences. Although I must say that it is difficult for me in today’s world to understand his precise points without a lot of effort on my part. The reason I say this is because most of the things he mentions are things that the church has already remedied sp they are somewhat foreign to me. So in reading his thesis it would seem that Catholics would probably agree with more of his points than even protestants would. Further I think Martin Luther would have far more disagreements with modern day protestants than he did with the Catholic church. I will admit my ignorance on this point though as I have never studied his writings in any depth.
I do want to share one quote from him as I think it is quit revealing of how much things have changed over 200 years. He says of Mary “She, the lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist like a servant girl. What humility, it would surely have been more just to arrange for her to have a golden coach pulled by 4,000 horses and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded ‘here passes the woman who is raised above the whole human race.’ She was not filled with pride by this immense praise, no woman is like unto thee, thou art more than an empress or queen blessed above all nobility, wisdom or saintliness.” Believe it or not this was written not long before his death and long after he was a Catholic monk.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Because our culture is so egostic, I think it's difficult for people to understand the kind of purity, 'humility' and 'genuine' love Mary embodies.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Responding to Daniel “Buildings and Statues, etc - why waste all that money on stuff like that? It just seems like the Pharisees type church to me.”
Answer: Ten points on how I see this issue 1) In your second comment you allude to Jesus throwing the money changers out of the temple. Now you seem to ask why Catholics put so much importance into there churches. Well it’s precisely because Jesus shows us that the temple of God is important to him. Take a look at that verse you allude to (Lk 19:45).
2) John 12:3-8 tells us of a time when Mary washed his feet with expensive perfume and Judas said it should have been sold and given to the poor. Jesus response is interesting as he says we will always have the poor with us. This is not to say that we should never give to the poor as Jesus instructs the rich man to do just that "go and sell everything you own and give it to the poor." (Lk 18:22).
So What I find is that Jesus is ok with using our money to glorify God but we are also to Give our money to the poor rather than squander it on ourselves. It’s a matter of “both-and” not “either-or” as protestants like to state things.
3)Even though Mass can be held anywhere, Catholics believe Jesus has a passion for the Holy Temple. I believe the only reason the early Church met in peoples homes and Catacombs was because they were under persecution.
4) The Catholic church didn’t have the money even to restore the Sistine Chapel so a Japanese company did it and now has the copyright to the art. You are right to say that the majority of the Church's "wealth" is tied up in real estate and in art work. These assets are "public wealth." They are open for all to visit and see similar to a museum. Selling all of that art may feed the poor for a short time but holding onto it will go much further in building up the kingdom of God.
5)There are many large protestant churches that rival the Vatican in size. All I really have to say is the word “mega church” and I’m sure you catch my meaning. I generally don’t like wikipedia because anyone can write and post or edit the articles but in this case it is just convenient. So here’s and article about mega churches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megachurch However I don’t even think size is really all that important in this discussion. If you say Catholics should sell there churches and give the money to the poor I would think it makes sense that you think the same for Protestants no matter the size of the churches. You could get more money for a projector or fancy guitar than for some candle sticks and statues.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete6) Catholic churches and art convert peoples hearts to the Lord.
7) Catholic art’s original purpose had a lot to do with teaching the faithful who couldn’t read. Even today a person who can’t read can go into a Catholic church and see the gospel pictured all over the church in the windows, tapestries, and statues. I can’t tell you how many times I looked at the carved images of Jesus at his passion in the stations of the cross all around the church when I was young. I was also very drawn to the paintings and a particular statue that one of my high school art teachers sculpted. He spent the life of his twelve year old daughter carving that image of Jesus on the cross and then he donated it to the church.
8) Most everything in the church is in fact donated by the parishioners, many upon there death. If I had to guess those same parishioners donate just as much of their money to charities in their wills and during life.
Look around a Catholic church and you will notice names etched into everything from candles, to windows which are the names of those who donated the items.
9) The Catholic church is said to be the world’s largest charitable organization outside of the government. Non-profit health systems, Catholic hospitals, social services centers, day and extended day services, continuing care ministry facilities, Pregnancy services, housing services, missions, soup kitchens etc. you name it, we’ve got it, and lots of it. Basically the church has much better methods in place to help the poor than selling art. I sell and make art for a living so I know a bit about these things, ha-ha.
10) The large Catholic churches were built by the sweat of the brow of believers. The Cologne Cathedral took 700 years! Sadly these large beautiful churches and elaborate commissioned art is also becoming a thing of the past. In fact we don’t always have the money to hold onto the churches we built. Tyndale, the largest Evangelical Bible College in Canada bought the 56 acre grounds of the Sisters of St. Joseph. It includes what they describe as "One of the most beautiful [Catholic Chapels] in Canada." These Evangelicals were happy to pay $40,000,000 for the property.
I could probably keep coming up with point after point but I hope these will help you see bit from one Catholics perspective. The very direct answer of course is exactly what J.C. already said. We have these churches and art to show our love for God. As an artist I try to make all of my art for the glory of God.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMazen Ramadan: Hi Matthew, My name is Mazen and I'm Belal's cousin.. I think it's largely inappropriate to judge or vent about Catholicism using reasons such as child abuse, wealth, etc. To slander Mary or Jesus is largely inappropriate and to make judgments about Catholicism based upon the actions of a small percentage of people is not only unjust, but unfair. I am not catholic for a few very simple reasons. It largely boils down to the concept of God & the authenticity of the books we have today known as the Bible. 1. I believe that God is simply God. One God with no partners.
I do not believe in the Trinity as God or as parts of God. The truth is, the trinity is a concept that most people do not understand and deep down in their hearts and minds it does not make sense to them. Anyone sincere will admit that it doesn't make complete logical sense and they justify this lack of being able to understand God as faith. However, faith is not blind. Faith is built upon understanding and sincerity of the heart. The heart and mind work together to believe in and worship God.
To say God is 3, but one... or one-third of three is what I consider to be one of the biggest mistakes people make. Additionally, if you read the Bible... trinity is not mentioned. How could the most important concept in the Christian faith be excluded from the Bible?
The Bible itself is riddled with contradictions with respect to God and Jesus. This isn't because it wasn't originally the truth, but it is because the truth... the original word of God, was changed over the years. Not necessarily directly, but the Bible today is a translation of a translation of a translation. And as we all know.. translations are not only imperfect, but often full of mistakes and errors because languages and expressions change over time and throughout history.
2. God is Simply a Power above our complete comprehension. We don't know what he looks like or what form he has.
However, God is not a man. To say God is a man is an insult to God and a testament to the arrogance of man wanting to be elevated to a "godly" status. The description of God as he says it himself is that there is "none like him." To say that God has a human form would be incorrect. Also, to place a limits on God such as he is a man or only made up of 3 parts is to place limits on God. We cannot place limits on God. Is He not the All Powerful? Can He not do anything? If so, then how can we limit him to "human" form or even say that he is made up of 3 definite portions?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) 3. Jesus was a Man and not the son of God. Did we not see that Jesus ate, drank, slept and bled? The immacculate conception was a miracle from God, but that does not make Jesus the son of God. God created Adam... does that mean Adam is the son of God? We don't say that, yet when it comes to Jesus people cling to him being the son of God. In fact, if anything Jesus was a righteous and holy man who was a Messenger from God. God sent Noah, Adam, Lot, Abraham, Moses, etc.. all as messengers and then suddenly Jesus the son? Abraham is regarded as one of the greatest men to walk the earth and he is promised salvation, but he never believed in Jesus as the son. It doesn't make sense!
The Bible even states, "and we are all the sons of God." What most people don't realize is that the term "son of God" in a previous language was not interpreted literally like it is today. It was a figure of speech to refer to humans and people. If you're upset and I say, "don't have a cow" you will know that to mean don't make a bit fit over it. 500 years ago or 500 years in the future it will likely mean something very different. You might even respond with "I don't eat beef." :-D
4. Lastly, God is the most Just and the most Fair. If so... then why Catholics believe we inherit sin? Are you responsible for your fathers sins? If he commits Murder... do you go to Jail? Are you held responsible? No. Each person is responsible for their own actions. This is what we all acknowledge as basic instinct and logical. This is Justice.
Even for God to kill his son (which I don't believe he did).. how is that Justice? What did his son do to deserve this? If God is the Most merciful, would it not be the greatest act of Mercy to simply Forgive?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) When Catholics confess their sins, why see a priest? The priest has no right to forgive and has no right to speak on God's behalf. I confess directly to God. There is no intermediary between me and my Lord. Likewise, there is no intermediary needed between you and God - whether you sin or not. He knows and hears everything!
For all of the above reasons and more.. I'm a Muslim. We believe in God as one, the Immaculate conception, the anti-christ, etc.
Most people don't realize that the religions are very similar with the exception of who God and Jesus are, along with what I've mentioned above and others.
I think to reject a faith based upon negative press or the mistakes of sinful few is wrong.
I'd be more than happy to chat with you more if you'd like.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: I also want to say a sincere apology to Mazen Ramadan for stating your name incorrectly in a previous post. I just re-read that post and was shocked to see that I hadn't even come close to getting your name right. I am extremely sorry for this mistake. I have been looking forward to discussing your points ,perhaps even more than others, as you bring such a unique perspective to the discussion. By no means do I expect to be able to settle any dispute on the accuracy of the bible tranlations, or even to reveal Jesus to you as the son of God in a compelling manner,in such a confined spacebut I will try my best. I would like to state one thing in advance though. In order for me to discuss the trinity with any sense of meaning ,I will need to speak of God as our Father, so I ask that you be aware of this. I know some muslims believe this to be a blasphemouse statement and are known for leaving a discussion when these sorts of comments are made. I hope you will be able to hear me out.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePatrick O'Donel: Hmm... I guess that I would start by raising a potential objection to the premise of the question(s) (what I see as being one of the premises of the question, either implicitly or explicitly). There seem to be two questions present, number one being "why aren't you a Catholic?" and number two being "what issues/problems/gripes do you have with the Catholic church?".
I could be wrong, but there seems to be a presupposition that one is closely related to the other, which very well might be the case for someone that is formerly Catholic, but is almost certainly not the case for anyone who is a lifelong Protestant.
This seems like asking a Lutheran why they are not an Episcopal as if they ought to have a reason for not being one. From the perspective of anyone outside of the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is just a denomination just like any other, so the question never really comes up (at least for me).
Furthermore, I have very clear reasons for why I am part of the denomination that I am currently a part of and I don’t really think that much about being part of other denominations in terms of what is wrong with them. I certainly do have various points of agreement and disagreement with many denominations, including the Catholic Church, but see the idea that others ought to have reasons as to why they are not part of my denomination as a bit of an odd posture to take. Unfortunately, I am sure that many Protestants have tried to convince you that you ought not be a Catholic, an idea that I find shameful and unnecessary.
My stance towards the Catholic Church would be to see it as one important and co-equal expression of the Body of Christ among many. I would hope that you would feel the same way.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Hi Patrick, very good to hear from you here. I have to say I'm a bit surprised that you haven't even thought about the Catholic church even if you did grow up in a protestant household. My questions aren't meant to be premises, I do not claim to make a philisophical argument. However I do get your point. I should mention that these questions were basically orginally intended for my friends who left the Catholic church. In this case it makes perfect sense that they must have had some reasons for doing so.
Secondly I do think it is perfectly legitimate to ask this sort of questions to a broader audience even if it means some peoples answers will discuss their ignorance of the Catholic church. ex. In fact I think this is the route you took in answering my questions. The question of what issues do you have can be answered by saying I don't have issues. I guess my fault is in leaving off the words "if any" at the end of the question.
Your second post seems more revealing to me. It would seem that for you to take this stance means you do not hold that any one denomination has the fullness of truth. This is a common stance for denominations with no sure source of authority and no claim to an infalible teaching office that is the "pillar and foundation of truth". You also seem to indicate a belief in the idea of a merely invisible church, which I find to be only a half truth. I believe that the church is indeed the Body of Christ and he is our head and since he was visible the church is also visible and set upon a hill so that all may see. You seem to believe the church is a mystical body set under a bowl. One last comment would be to mention the Catholic teaching on our relationship to other Christians. Paragraph 838 of the CCC: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/838.htm
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePatrick O'Donel: 1. I didn't say that I hadn't thought of the Catholic Church, but that I hadn't thought of becoming a Catholic.
2. I do not believe in an "invisible" church, I simply do not believe that the Catholic Church or any other denomination can lay claim to being THE full embodiment of THE Church.
3. Your link simply affirms what I would see as a significant point of disagreement that I have with the Catholic Church. Namely, that within this framework, I seem to be a second rate, or "imperfect" member of the church where I believe you and I to be on precisely the same page.
4. Oh yeah, I definitely do not believe that any denomination has the fullness of truth.
5. Lastly, when you say that many denominations have, "no sure source of authority and no claim to an infalible teaching office", this is simply begging the question. Protestants just don't believe that the authority rest as a person such as the pope. They do believe in an authoritative and infallible text. However, this just brings us back to Luther and 1517 and I do not think us likely to resolve 500 years of history and theology on how we arrive at an authoritative interpretation of what we both believe to be an inspired text. For better or worse facebook doesn't really lend itself to that sort of discussion.:)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Hi Patrick 1) I guess I have to be more presice with the words I choose. My appologies.
2) what if the source of that claim was said to come directly from the mouth of Christ? Catholics believe that Jesus set up the catholic church and the means to keep it from error. As a parallel thought, do you believe Christianity to be the one true religionwith the possiblity of non Christians getting to heaven if they are ignorant by no fault of their own?
3) you may believe we are on the same page but many protestants don't believe that. In fact many believe that Catholics are going to hell. I think it takes love to tell someone they may be in error, particularly on something as important as salvation. Jesus is truth and he is life, our God gave us comands and told us how to get to heaven. Do you tell others that you know THE way? or do you just tell them that they are on the same page as you because we can't really know truth? That's relativism as you know.
I don't want to come accross as disrespectfull in any way. I just think it's important to let you know where I stand since you have been kind enough to join the conversation. I think I might be starting to verge on more of a debate than just answering questions so I will back down now. Please do feel free to ask any questions that you may have. I know you are well read and a brilliant person from the few times I did get to be with you. Thank you so much for all that you do for the Lord and specifically for the memebers of the "Well". I may not have been the most vocal person wehn I didn't have to be but I enjoyed observing people. I found that many of the pastors with the AOG are great followers of Christ who love truth and love to share him with others and you are no exception to that. God bless!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeletePatrick O'Donel: 1. However, my understanding was that we were not talking about other religions here, we I mean the interactions between our posts, but about different expressions of our common faith in Jesus, who I do believe to be THE way, truth, and life. I certainly do believe that it is important to be clear with others pertaining to issues of salvation. I do not believe that we are in that sort of territory when we speak of disagreements among Christians.
2. I've already spoken to how I feel about Protestants passing judgement on Catholics and how inappropriate that I find it to be. I know very few reputable Protestant theologians that feel any different.
3. As for the idea that, "the source of that claim was said to come directly from the mouth of Christ? Catholics believe that Jesus set up the catholic church and the means to keep it from error.", it seem that I would have to have already embraced the authority of the Catholic Church to believe such a claim, which seem somewhat circular in reasoning to me. Admittedly, Protestants are involved in a similar type of circular argument when we augment the concept of Sola Scriptura with the necessary corollary of “scripture interprets scripture.
I believe that either involves a leap of faith. I’m not saying that it is therefore unimportant to know which one is true, but that simply saying that I think that it behooves us to retain a high degree of epistemological humility when discussing such matters.
Have a great night, and have fun with the post, I think I will leave these questions to the rest of you. God bless.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Just a quick note. This is now the second time I've heard a protestant accuse the church of using circular reasoning to defend her position of authority. I would like to direct you to my response to the first questioner. http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=51234829&blogId=362950206
I already posted this link once on this note. My answer is the second post and I also speak a bit to the idea you mention of using ciruclar reasoning to defend the bible. I don't agree that we do so as I speak to in that link. Anyway, I just felt that is pretty important point to make.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin: okay I can see this is a charged issue. I wasn't raised catholic, I was raised baptist, so I admit that I am not familiar with all the rationale behind various catholic customs. Honestly I think its cool as long as Jesus is your lord and savior, but there are some things I see catholic people do that I admit I don't understand how they can justify using scripture. I am only going to ask about one of those things, because I think its the most important.
Lately I've made friends with a girl who is an orthodox jew, and often we get into discussions about religion. One thing that she asked me was why christians constantly violate the commandment against idolatry.
I constantly see people kneeling down in front of statues whenever I'm in or around a catholic church. How is this not idolatry?
I feel that I am destined to be badly misunderstood. Let me clarify: I don't think all liturgical artwork is wrong. I just think that when you make a statue of a dead person, and then you drape it with flowers, and then burn incense and light candles in front of it......well, if you're not worshiping it, what exactly ARE you doing?
I know all catholics don't worship in this way, but seriously, it seems pretty tolerated. It is the third commandment, separate from "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me."
I'm mainly curious to know if there is some rationale behind it, or if its just something no one makes a big deal out of.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) And please, don't tell me that you are "not actually talking to the object, but the thing it represents", because even a pagan would say that about their idol. Do the hindu people really believe that every statue of Vishnu is really him?
Actually, it was the second commandment.
" You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments."
"God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim."
The scholar would do well to remember that God later destroyed the bronze serpent, because it had become an object of worship. And no one bowed down to those Cherubim, only the high priest could even see them.
"Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is."
"It is not that Hindus worship their idols in vain. The idol is
just a symbol, a form, with which the mind can be connected and
concentrated upon. The ultimate reality is beyond the senses, beyond
the known field of illusion or maya."
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Thanks Katherine, another very important question and practice that is vastly misunderstood by some non-catholics and even some Catholics. I'm pleased to see that you have done some research on this. That is clear to me in the information you include in your questions. As you can see I still have a lot to get to and still don't feel lead to go out of my way to invite Catholic friends, even though I have many who are much better at answering theological questions than I. I hope you will check in every so often until I have the chance to get to your question.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin: Actually, Hinduism is sort of monotheistic in its most simplified form as well. They have a wildly different way of expressing it, though.
I guess you could rank the major pseudo-monotheistic sects as such in terms of use of images:
Hinduism: unapologetically idolatrous
Orthodox Christian: honor but do not worship
Catholicism: Somewhat more moderated use of icons
Protestant Christians: figurative statues and images of biblical events and people allowed, but not used in any liturgical context.
Jewish:No images involved with worship. In addition, one cannot own or derive benefit from any object that could be used as an idol. This includes any statue of a human, a half-human half-animal, or a dragon or serpent. (actually I only know this for a fact about orthodox jews, not reform or conservative.)
Islam: Figurative art is almost totally forbidden.
I didn't include buddhism because I'm not sure they consider themselves to really have any gods at all.
In response to what you just posted, (I missed it while I was rambling on and on) I actually wound up reading a huge article about the different interpretations of the second/first commandment and the practice of using images in religion in general while I was checking myself, and I suppose I have a better idea of how it works without being necessarily a sin. Personally, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing it myself, but I can see how it could work.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Just a quick story. One night I was running late for a meeting with friends in Boston when I was stopped by a couple of beautiful girls who wanted to share the gosple with me in Coply square. They started by asking if I knew that God was a woman so naturally I was intrigued and had to stop. I talked to them for at least an hour over which they posed question after question to me, pulling out books and bible passages left and right. By the end I agreed to go to one of there bible studies somwhere outside of Boston.
To make a long story short, the bible study was not a study at all but instead the focus of the leaders presentation was all about how Catholics are wrong for worshipping idols. The two girls were fallen away Catholics and were crying for me to turn from my evil ways and the leader raised his voice to a yelll a couple of times because he felt I wasn't understanding him. Maybe I wasn't. I turned pages with them for over two hours listening to what they had to say
Every so often I was given a chance to talk before being cut off by the leader or one of the others. That is the nature of that sort of discussion as we all know. I precisely remember two instances where I asked them to turn to pages of scripture which they had left out of the conversation all together and both times they refused to go there. It just wasn't a part of there agenda to hear my reasoning. They knew that Catholics worship idols and they were going to tell me all about it, since I, being a Catholic, had no idea that we did that.
I tell you this story to say that I did get a lot out of that meeting that night. What I came to understand is just how painfull certain issues can be for non-catholics. I truely believe that those people in that room really believed I was going to hell unless they got through to me. So I know how hurtfull this issue may be for you each time you see a Catholic who seems to be worshipping a statue instead of God.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin: Well, I see how it can be something other than flat out idolatry. As I said, I don't have an issue with most catholic practice, it's just that there are some parts of it that seem like they could be dangerous. It is true that some of these things are rather charged issues, and I admit I might have gotten a little too emotional about it.
I do think the idea that since God incarnated as a human, an image of a created thing is now okay is philosophically interesting. I still would have to argue against actually having an image to represent God, because indeed, NO image could ever encompass all of Him, and I feel that it only serves to make Him smaller in our own minds, when in fact He is beyond comprehension . But this is largely a philosophical concern.
I also definitely know what you are talking about with regard to protestants who try to convert catholics. I don't think I feel that any specific issue is a heaven or hell kind of thing, really.
It's just that it seems like it's a practice that could get out of hand or be easily misunderstood.
Jewish talmudic law, as I understand it, has an interesting (and I must admit, at times perverse) way of surrounding laws with other laws. For instance, as you may know, one of the Hebrew names for God is forbidden to be spoken aloud.When reading a scripture, you say a different, less exalted name. The less exalted name, however, is only permissible to be read when one is in the synagouge. In a normal setting, a third name is used in place of BOTH of the more sacred names. A lot of their rules function this way, with a whole group of added laws all focused on preventing one from even getting near to commiting the sin that is actually forbidden by scripture. I'm not saying it's necessarily the best way to do things.
I suppose the point I'm making is that if there is a fine line between reverence and worship, and no reason not to widen the line a little, then why not do so?
Of course, if there IS a good reason to keep them close together, the issue changes.
I guess what I'm really asking is, if the statue could possibly lead someone to sin, and its not strictly necessary for worship, then why keep it around?
I'm sorry if I asked this question already, but obviously it wasn't clear.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Katherine: This will explain the use of statuary in the Catholic Church: http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Thanks J.C. I thought about posting that very same link until I had the chance to write a response, but I think the link only address part of Kates question basically because the article doesn't go quit far enough. It tries to cover so much in a small paragraphs. I think the crux of Katherines question lies in the idea of worship, which she feels is very connected to an outward appearance as she claims to know Catholics are worshipping by their body language. So it will be important to look at what worship is in it's entirety and put a bit more into the explanation of bowing than the article goes into. I do think that article makes many good points but it wasn't formulated to answer her specific question. I hope you won't think it odd for me to say these things but I figure Katherine will probably have a similar response anyway. I am glad you posted it though.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Matthew, I agree that the article doesn't cover enough, I posted it because I thought it might be helpful to Katherine until you are able to respond.
Mea culpa, I'll wait for my invitation. :-)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: J.C. you are deffinetly invited! LOL I didn't mean it as a rebuke or anything of the sort. I've enjoyed your comments and think you've got a lot of great converstaion started. I fear many people would have left before I ever had a chance to get back to there questions if not for you engaging them in further discussion. If not for you posting that article Kate would probably had to waite weeks before hearing a response from my own mouth.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin: I hate to get back into my point, but I still feel that I haven't been understood properly. Perhaps I have a radically different way of looking at the issue than other people.
I clearly stated that I have no problem with artwork in a church, so arguing for images of jesus is pointless. I already agree with you. I also stated that saying you arenot worshiping a physical object is not enough of an excuse.
I suppose I should use an example, to make myself more clear. There is a large and beautiful catholic cathedral near where I work. At the edge of the steps up to the front entrance is a little alcove with a life-size, fully painted statue of Mary inside it. It always has a fresh garland of lilies, and two pots with more lilies next to it. Whenever I walk by, there is always at least one person kneeling there, hands clasped. Sometimes people leave little pitchers of flowers or burn incense for her. I've seen similar things at other cathedrals,...
..so I know this isn't really an isolated incident.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) Now I have just three questions.
1. Why isn't there an outdoor shrine for God Himself?
2. What exactly are those people who look like they are praying doing? And what are those little gifts they leave, if they aren't offerings? Please don't try to tell me its the same as honoring the dead. I would never build a statue of my grandmother and bow before it, because in my mind that is ALSO idolatry. What would you think if I left a glass of wine in front of the Lincoln Memorial? Wouldn't that be a little odd? I admit that it's a fine line between the two.
3. I'm not saying you should start knocking down cathedrals and burning priceless objects. BUT, does the bible not say that if your right arm causes you to sin, you should cut it off? If any object you have in your church is clearly very capable of leading people to idolatry, NO MATTER it's historical importance, you should feel obligated to get rid of it.
I'm sorry if I seem a little belligerent. I tried being a bit more diplomatic, and my questions didn't really get answered, so I figured I would be a bit more blunt.
I would reiterate, however, that I am not saying anyone is going to hell for this. Solomon burned incense for actual pagan gods during his life and was still judged to be agenerally cool guy.
I actually do also think that way too much emphasis is placed on Mary and the Mystery of the Immaculate Conception, and I do think that having all those saints is way too close to polytheism. But from reading through this line of discussion, you clearly have constructed a lot of justifications for these things that are largely ideological in nature, and as such I don't think any discussion of them would prove fruitful in any way. I figured maybe the whole idolatry issue would be different, but I'm beginning to think that once again, it's a matter of interpretation and ideology, and so perhaps this argument is pointless also.
to clarify what I just said:
Many of the bible verses you use to back your arguments up, to me, have VERY different interpretations, that do not support your points, to my way of thinking. As such, I doubt we can have any real dialogue, other than a general statement of our differing points of view, and we're never going to get beyond agreeing to disagree.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Kate, I don't have time to read all of your comments right now but will later tonight. I do just want to say that I haven't even answered your question yet so I'm not sure why you feel you haven't been understood. It will be a long while before I even get to your question. When I do I hope to go into a bit of depth and answer most of what you're asking. Also just a quick note to say that yes you should obviously avoid anything that tempts you to sin.
Ok, I had a chance to look at your new comments Kate. Thanks again for some more great points. You seem to be left unconvinced by what I had to say about the immaculate conception. This is to be expected because you are looking for a verse in the bible that says Mary is without sin the way we see a verse that says Jesus was sinless. Well first of all I don't think there is a verse that says jesus was sinless since birth and yet I think we all believe that he was. I could be wrong about those two points. Of course it is a different story for him as he is God. Anyway the point I want to make is that Catholics simply don't think sola scriptura is a scriptural pricipal so it is very akward to say we must adhere to a non biblical teaching in order to prove a doctrine. Secondly I think Typology is extremely important and it doesn't seem correct to just pass it off as idealogy. Remember that the old is revealed int he new.
If I had a choice on how to lead the conversation then I would start with the old testament and work my way up through the new and into the present to show you how things have developed from judaism to Catholicism. It just all makes perfect sense to me. However I have asked for your questions so we start with Mary and the saints. This is a bitharder to explain to non Catholics without all of the history. Quit frankly a good reading of the church fathers would most likely convince you that Catholics would feel more at home in the early church than protestants. I don't expect you to agree with my every point but I do hope you don't give up on me quit yet. I still have plenty of answers to give and I'm sure you will find at least some of it interesting.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteKatherine Harpin:Its really not a problem for me that we have different views on the bible, though. I'm just starting to think, from reading all these arguments, that you could use stuff from the bible to prove just about any point of view, and someone would still disagree with you.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: yep, that was one of my problems with sola scriptura. It just doesn't work. That's why I'm glad that God showed me that he wanted to keep his church from error and that he wanted to guide us into truth by the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Looking into history, traditions, scripture, apostolic succesion and such let me see thatthe Catholic church has reason to believe she has truth. I don't have to worry when I hear a bunch of interpretations of one verse of scripture. Over the years I had Jehovas witnesses try to show me that the trinity is unbiblical, MUslims try to show me that Jesus isn't God, Protestants try to show me that the eucharist isn't really the body and blood of Christ, JEws try to show me that Jesus didn't fullfill the role of the long awaited messiah, and they all use scripture as there basis for their beliefs. I needed something more than just scripture.
I seriously think I would have stopped being Christian all together if I hadn't come to know Christ much deeper in the Catholic church.Of course I would also say I may have left if I hadn't spent time in protestant churches. It was deffinetly a process for me but I am so happy to be in the church now.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Ok, sorry for taking so long everyone, I'm still working away at the Justification question a bit each night. I'm beginning to remember why I used to get so many headaches in college. I used to stay up nights just thinking about all of these questions and sometimes I was even late for work when having good discussions about God with friends. Does anyone know how we can move this discussion to a blog with more room? Mostly I just hate having to scroll back through the discussion so much. I'm thinking of an e-blog but I have no idea when I will have the time for that and these comments just keep growing.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJacob Bourgeois: as one who has spent much effort questioning doctrines and looking
for theological answers, I have reached few conclusions, but when i send my heart to
the heavens looking for hope, hope comes down.
enjoy the journey of new life, and make lots of friends :)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Thanks for your comment Jacob. Well I know you are familiar with wrestling so I guess all I would ask you is that you won't give up wrestling through these important questions and doctrines until you've found satisfactory answers. I was blessed to spend some time with various protestants wrestling with these issues myself and Now I am happy to be in a place which puts my mind at ease on many issues. It feels so good to be lead by Christ instead of by every wind of doctrine that comes upon us. Let us all thank and praise our Lord for all of the truths he has taught us throughout our lives.
I'm beginning to wish we had moved this to an outside blog. Oh well, I guess for now I'll just keep wading back through the commetns trying to figure out which questions still need answers. Please let me know at any point if you feel I missed one of your questions. I'm still working thourgh them in order when time allows. Currently working on Jen's questions about how Catholics view works in the larger picture of Justification.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Hey there Matt. I don't really know how to answer that question, why I am not Catholic that is. Several answers there. I figured that "why are you not catholic" is a question mainly directed at non-catholic christians. But I am Jewish, so I figured the question, to me, is "why are you not Christian." But I am not religious, even as far as Judaism goes (I really enjoyed our discussions about it in massart though). So the real question, I suppose, for me, is "why are you not religious?"
That's not really a question that has any sort of satisfactory answer. Actually, Pascal resolved it once (for himself) using some newly discovered mathematics that showed him that it makes more sense to gamble on being religious. To bastardize it, it was something like this: If you believe in God and He doesn't exist, nothing happens; if He does, you go to Heaven. If you don't believe in God and He doesn’t exist, still nothing happens; if He does, you go to Hell. Therefore, it makes more practical sense to believe in God. In fact, practicality points at religion very often today. Just listen to any guy trying to run for office. But the idea of practicality, to most people, has a bit of an ugly undertone. Just ask anybody working in art, right? :)
I think most of the problem is actually right there. It’s a bit too practical to be a Christian. That is, I get that sense. I mean, for crying out loud, faith in God is supposed to be IMPRACTICAL. It is supposed to be something that gets in the way, but brings its own reward. Much like art – that sort of impracticality is one of the things that make art mysterious and enticing.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDelete(cont.) And certainly when one looks around he sees a whole bunch of examples of religion being used to achieve OTHER GOALS. Politicians – money, power. Religious heads – money, power. Heads of terrorist groups – money, power. And let’s not forget an infomercial I’ve seen once that advertised the power of Christ for weight loss. Really – other goals?! What other goals? Heaven and Hell. Everything and Nothing. The holy Father and the Devil. For someone who believes in the reality of those things, there are no “goals” past it, and the idea of using it seems silly. I realize we’re all human, and sometimes people lie about their grandmother’s death to get out of class, but face it – if you start seeing every student talking about his grandma’s death when they go AWOL, you’ll soon start telling them to get a note from their dead grandma or an F.
Religion (where we live that’d be Christianity, mostly) seems such a part of doing well in this world that it seems little different from any other petty thing people do. And it shouldn’t. That’s the whole point, after all. And yet self-flagellation isn’t cool anymore, vows of silence are passé, and any sort of sacrifice of comfort, wealth, or time seems to be done for other people – “those in need.” I mean that’s good, and I’m sure there is a fair about of missionary work going on along with the charity. But it seems that without the real-live charity, any sort of sacrifice for God is seen as a waste. Why waste money, wealth, and health on something that isn’t real? Well, God created you, and his kid died for your sins. That’s why. But it seems that even the believers don’t believe in it all that much anymore.
And that’s one of the reasons for me for not being religious today. There are others too, and they’re not any weaker. But I think this alone would make most people think twice. But people like to be comfortable, so, after thinking twice, most prefer to be comfortably religious – religious, but not “too religious.” That’s cool. All I’m saying is, if someone really thought Heaven and Hell were real, they would sacrifice everything and then some, and whip themselves every day to boot just to be on the safe side. But if someone did that today, they’d be labeled a lunatic, and not just by non-religious folk.
oof. Sorry, I wrote a lot and had to post papagraph by paragraph. This thing doesn't let you have too much text in a box, apparently. There you go, though :)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Misha: True spirituality is about love, 'genuine' love.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Hey Misha, Thanks for your perspective. I'm working through the comments one by one and I'm still pretty far back due to a lack of time. I'm determined to touch base with everyone though. It would be nice to get a huge art studio and just invite everyone over to discuss this question. Phil said he would bring the nachos, I'll bring some fresh garden vegies. Too bad everyone is spread across the country.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Responding to J.C.King: That argument won't hold with many people who aren't religious. I could name many people, for instance, who, like myself, were born and spent their formative years in the Soviet union (a decidedly atheist upbringing) - and certainly did not need spirituality or religion to have love, morals, or a cohesive functioning family. In fact, there are quite a few people out in there in general who do not believe in God whatsoever, but who have all the love, compassion, and a sense of altruism that religious folk tend to claim as their territory. This isn't meant to be an implicit assault on religion, by the way - I'm just pointing out that that argument doesn't really resound with me.
...and i would like to know - when you say "spirituality," what is it that you are referring to? Do you mean religion? Or something slightly different?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Misha: With all due respect, the fact is that the natural or divine law, which is inherent in human nature is what causes folks to be compassionate & moral, although they may not recognize it as such.
By spirituality I mean the essence of the divine law, precisely because religion may be something, as you stated, that folks were either not exposed to, or have rejected. The divine law does not depend on belief or education for its existence and neither does God.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Misha: It is not my point of view, it is my conviction. Therefore, as you so were so charitable in pointing out, words will not suffice, since the longest journey is from the mind to the heart.
As for those who are receptive to truth, I offer the following:
Ezekiel 36:27
"I will put my 'spirit' within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees."
Jeremiah 24:7
"I will give them a 'heart' with which to understand that I am the Lord."
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Misha: Since I can't see your facial expressions, or body language, or hear the inflection in your voice, it is difficult for me to understand what you meant by, "I see. Hallelujah." :-)
Words are the first step on the journey to truth, then follows action.
God used words through the Prophets to communicate to His children, just as parents use words to communicate a message to their young children when they are not yet mature enough to understand the actions that they observe. Then God gave us an example through His son, to enflesh His words, just as parents through their actions of charity, kindness, patience, humility, etc., demonstrate their expectations.
Your comparitive reference to the instinctive behavior of animals for the the preservation of the species (in other words, 'self' - preservation) denies the fact that humans are capable of being God & other centered. John 15:13
"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."
The Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the final Word, which for 'believers', can neither be debated, or refuted.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Responding to J.C.King: Well, no, preservation of one’s species is not "self preservation." Self preservation is "self preservation." And yes, animals have that too (including humans). However, as I am sure you know quite well, some animals' ability to show compassion and affection for other members of their species (and sometimes of other species), often to the point of self-sacrifice (quite the opposite of self-preservation), is well documented. To think that humans do it for some reason that is more divine or less instinctive seems to me like common arrogance in the face of nature's power and complexity. Oh, also here’s a quote, since you seem to like them :)
Darwin, The Origin of the Species:Ch4: “Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent and of the parent in relation to the young. In social animals it will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the whole community; if the community profits by the selected change.”
...Well, the whole community profits from innate ability to love, so it would make sense that social animals would develop that sooner or later, no? We sure did. Which has nothing to do with whether Jesus is Lord or whatnot.
It also has rather little to do with the topic at hand, which is a question of why Catholicism does not register with a lot of people today. That, to me is interesting. Quoting Bible quotes simply isn’t. Quoting Darwin quotes also isn’t.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteJ.C. King: Responding to Misha: "Nothing to do with God, or worship of Him, simply useful for the species' prosperity."
Exactly what I meant by 'self' preservation in the natural world ... for humans it 'is' love of the Creator and of neighbor, which other creatures are incapable of.
"To think that humans do it for some reason that is more divine or less instinctive seems to me like common arrogance in the face of nature's power and complexity." ...
Nature's power is created by God, therefore it's His power. The innate ability to love is given to us by the Creator, not developed.
In order to answer the questions being asked and to avoid opinion, Scripture is essential.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteRaub Miller: Hi, I'm Jen's friend. Ex-catholic, confirmed, strayed, came back to the Lord at the age of 26, tried to reconcile with the catholic church, but the priest was angrily opposed to me presenting my testimony to my old church. He even angrily responded, " I am a Roman Catholic priset!" when I asked if he called himself a born again christian. That, the immense statues, the same obedient, but non heart-felt, "Peace be with you," among the congregants led me to believe that I am not among people who love Him and obey the commandments of God. When I was new in the faith, I went there to that old church of mine. I shared the fact with a christian friend of mine, she mentioned the term, "Idol worshippers." First I was surprised and hurt, then I began my study of Scripture and the catechism, and found too many contradictions. Instead of bowing down to someone who says they are the one true church, I had to follow my conscience and the word of God, which teaches plainly...
Never will I fully understand God's nature of the Trinity, but that doesn't take away the faith I have in His ability to teach plainly, and to warn against false teachings, such as forbidding to eat certain foods, forbidding to marry, something the Bible calls 'doctrines of demons.' My point is that I must use my feeble intellect to decipher the Lord's will from HIS Word, not someone's catechism authorized by a powerful church, because I have been warned by Scripture that men will pollute the truth for their own gain, and the Catholic church, among others, even some Protestants, have gained plenty. I've made 24 cue cards covering 24 opposing doctrines with Cateshim paragraphs on one side and opposing Scripture on the other. If Catholics don't tackle EACH topic one by one, compare them, ask the Holy Spirit to TEACH, rather than to LISTEN, and allow some room for humility and correction and the thought that they may actually be deceived and on the wide path leading to destruction.
And if worshippng a piece of unleavened bread as the God of the Universe isn't idolatry, then what is? What individual thinker would believe that trickery from the devil himself? Do you think that you are unable to be tricked? Shouldn't we learn from the Jews in Moses' day, who made a golden calf, saying,"This is the God that has delivered you from Egypt."
Disclaimer: In no way is Jennifer responsible for my being here. I stumbled on this myself, and forgive the insensitivity.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Thank you so much Raub. I deffinetly invite you here as you bring up some more great topics. Well yeah I kind of wondered if Jen invited you but it really doesn't matter one way or another to me how you got here. I'm just happy the Lord brought you! To be honest I fully expected someone to bring up the Eucharist long before now. I allways find it abit weird that protestants are more worried about Catholics kneeling before statues to say prayers than being worried about what Catholics believe about the eucharist. The reason is because it would truely be idolotry if Catholics were wrong about the eucharist and there would be no way around it. However for me the Catholic teaching on the eucharist is one of the biggest things that kept me in the church once I learned the true teachigns and why it's taught. I would love to continue this discussion with you. As you can probably tell, it will be a while before I get to your questions as I still have lots to reply to. Thanks for stopping by.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Raub: What about putting one hand on a Bible when swearing before God, the way US presidents do? They're certainly not all Catholic. To me that seems like treating an inanimate object as something more - otherwise, what does it matter if your hand is on it or not?
I think that little things like that exist in most religions – or at least most religions allow for some rule breakage. If you look at the Torah, there are plenty of things that God states pretty clearly (mostly regarding worship), and adds “this law will never change” just to make things extra clear. Yet the majority of them are ignored or changed now. I guess I understand that Jesus came and changed some things, but I’m pretty sure when God says never he means NEVER. Otherwise what kind of “Rock of Ages” is he? Either way, if you want to follow the things that God says to do and not to do in the Old Testament, start sacrificing lambs. In all kinds of specific ways, too :)
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: LOL Misha, Your comment helps me more than you may think or have intended. Not so much about the laying hands on the bible (I think you would have a hard cause to say that is idolotry) but more the comment about sacrificing lambs in specific ways. By the way, I am extremely glad to have you on here Misha because I'm guessing you have a better knowledge of Judaism than most christians and lots of what I say will go back to Judaism so it will be interesting to here your take on my comments. Oh Misha, any chance you would be interested in a book that does an amazing Job of showing the concrete connections between Judaism and Catholicism and Chritianity? It's called "Salvation is from the Jews:The Role of Judaism in Salvation History from Abraham to the Second Coming" by. Roy H. Schoeman. In my opinion this is truely a scholarly approach to this question and Roy uses first hand sources for his references. Another great Jewish convert would be Rosalind Moss and many others.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteRaub Miller: Misha, not sure what you're trying to say. Don't think I said Catholicism is the only religion with idolatrous tenets. Scripture does tell us not to swear upon anything, but let our yes be yes, and our no be no, and don't get me started on the government. haha! And of course you know, the lamb's sacrifice was a pointer to what our Messiah would dowhen He came to earth. He would be the final Lamb to be sacrificed for any sin. Hebrews 9 and 10 do speak of the proper place of the previous sacrifices, and of the final act the blood of Christ performs.
The idea that this action must take place at every Mass is ludicrous, making bread and wine to body and blood so the sacrifice can be done again.
If you know about the Passover Seder, the ritual supper given to Moses on the night of Passover, is still celebrated by practicing and Messianic Jews all over the world. Y'shua was performing this very ceremony. Among this traditional table setting, there are four cups:
The four cups at the Seder represent the four expressions of redemption--bring, deliver, redeem and take. The first cup is called the cup of sanctification; the second, the cup of judgment; the third, the cup of redemption; and the fourth, the cup of the kingdom.
Y'shua was holding the third cup, the cup of redemption, saying that this ceremony that the Jews did for hundreds of years, represented Him. And the bread, three slivers of unleavened bread, (the middle one to be broken and hid, and sought for by the children in the traditional ceremony) represented God. When Scripture says that Y'shua broke the bread, it was referring to the breaking of the middle piece of bread, representing the Son of the eternal Godhead.
Of course, this is known as the Last Supper. Do you think it is plausible that he turned that bread and wine into his body and blood with His entire body and blood standing right there? No. If that was true, then He wouldn't've had to die on the cross.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteRaub Miller: Matthew, thanks for the reply, but I don't have any non-rhetorical questions, and I fully understand the Eucharist already. The words in Scripture are simple enough."Do this in remembrance of me."
I explain my reasoning for not believing that the Eucharist is God Himself in the above messages to Misha. I guess I could add that Y'shua wants us to look up towards Heaven to rely on Himself, not on something that we can turn into God ourselves to worship and lie prostrate to.
Also, I apologize for misconstruing the purpose of your note and for adding debate to something meant just for the friends tagged.
A final admonition: If you believe that it's POSSIBLE for your church to be in error concerning doctrine and dogma, then that will be your first step in seeing clearly the Bible's teachings. Throw your Catechism away. Scripture is sufficient for you to live godly. You don't need someone else to interpret it for you. You're smart enough.
Shalom!
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Raub an audio and book suggestion for you until I have the chance to comment directly on your points. "He must Reign: The Catholic Church, The kingdom of Heaven" can be found here http://www.catholiccompany.com/catholic-gifts/8001499/He-Must-Reign-Catholic-Church-Kingdom-Heaven-CDs-Tapes/ I actually used to have this series but gave it to a friend. Maybe I can get that back and lend it to you. And a book,"The Lambs Supper " by Scott Hahn. These basically go point by point and parellel to the points you made about the Passover Seder. I look forward to discussing some of that with you. Your points sound very similar to those I have heard from Dr. George Logan on the issue, any chance you know if him?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Raub: I dunno. I think being the Son of God should already have provided sufficient protection for Jesus from dying on the cross. I mean even being the son of Pilate would probably have done the trick. I think part of the point is that Jesus didn't HAVE to die on the cross. It can't just be the fact that being on the cross sucked, right? After all, if that's the case, well - there were hundreds of thousands of people who died the same way, and were tortured no less.
So I guess your point about Jesus being able to conjure himself in the form of drinks and crackers while sitting right there doesn’t stand with me for that reason. Besides, Jesus could resurrect dead people. In fact, Elisha could do that, and he was a mere prophet. That’s implausible enough. If He could do that, he could probably do the body and blood thing too. Which, ok, makes NO SENSE AT ALL, but God is just kind of like that sometimes. Otherwise he’d be no different than some really powerful human. Omnipotence itself doesn’t make logical sense, but belief in omnipotence is at the root of Christian faith. I mean tell me honestly – if the Eucharist said “ouch” when you bit into it, you would probably believe that it is a piece of Christ, no? Sure, it doesn’t, but that seems like a technicality.
As for the Final Lamb, that seems a little odd. I mean, God said NEVER. That implies the lack of finality. It means there is no final lamb. He could have said something else, but he didn’t. That word is there for solid reference, in case anyone ever thinks some lamb is final. Which, to me, is absolutely an argument for the Eucharist. Although, judging by what God said, I would still argue that the Eucharist needs more mutton. It’s just that killing things isn’t as ok as it used to be – but I think that’s a good thing. Which, I guess, makes me side with Jesus on that one. But I would rather not get in the middle of that family conflict. They can sort it out amongst Themselves.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Matt: Hah! Face it, you Christians are just waiting for us Jews to make it easier to convert ;) Thanks for the reference btw, it does sound interesting.
..Well, I would say idolatry is any practice in which you imbue an object with divine powers, and I think laying hands on the Bible falls into that category. A Bible is, ultimately, just a book, and believing it has powers is, I think, breaking the rules. And if you don’t believe that it has powers, then it is an empty vain ritual, which is another way of using God’s name in vain. Either way, a commandment is broken.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteRaub Miller: Misha, forgive me for thinking you were representing Catholicism. If you please, justify your sentence, "God said NEVER," when it comes to the final Lamb. What specific reference is it?
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMisha Rosnach: Raub: Ok - Harvest ritual, at the start of every cycle. Leviticus 23:12-14 You do a bunch of stuff, and then bam:
On the day you elevate the sheaf, you shall offer as a burnt offering to the Lord a lamb of the first year without blemish. The meal offering with it shall be two-tenths of a measure of choice flour mixed with oil, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord; and the libation with it shall be of wine, a quarter of a hin. Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears; it is a law for all time throughout the ages in all your settlements.
Even in places where the harvest ritual is not celebrated anymore, the idea of leaving gleanings is still part of Jewish religious OCD. I think there is also something else regarding the feast of the seven days, where a lamb bites the dust, and it’s another eternal statute. But I don’t feel like looking for it. You could probably look it up. But that’s just where God says something to the extent of eternal statute. I am not even counting the other references to lambs.
That said, I was not only talking about the lamb. Nor was I arguing for Catholicism. I mean, when it comes down to it, I think the lamb thing is an argument for Judaism :) But my original point had to do with the many things in general that God says to do or not to do that Christians (and Jews too) seem to feel ok not following. Here’s a really nice simple one, since you mentioned the idea of forbidden foods earlier. Leviticus 3:17.
It is a law for all time throughout the ages, in all your settlements: you must not eat any fat or any blood.
Pretty clearly said, right? Well, I guess Jews don’t eat blood, and they don’t eat fat if it’s from a pig. Some Jews, that is. However, many Jews will eat other fat, and Christians seem to like bacon and eggs :) But God says it right there, in the Bible, and puts the eternal law stamp on it.
THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM A DISCUSSION WHICH BEGAN ON FACEBOOK:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Paul Gauvin: Ok, I think we will deffinetly move this to a blog somewhere. I am even more buisy this week than most so I will not be responding to any questions atleast until next week. I also don't think I will have time to move the blog before then. I will need to figure out the best way to move this without loosing any of the content and yet giving it better comprehension overall. It would be really great to have questions followed by their answers somehow. Anyway, I'll have to figure that out later as I am extremely tiered and need to get up early for work once again tomorrow. Oh I also don't think we want to move this to a larger forum somewhere were tons of Catholics and protestants would get involved because it would quickly become chaos. If you like to debaet theology and discuss with tons of Christians at a time, then go to Christianforums.com or http://forums.catholic.com/ or some similar forum.
This note was created primarily so that I can give Catholic answers to my friends. It's not about debate. I would never tag 25 strong Christians, athiests, muslims etc. and say hey why don't you all come on here and debate me and invite your friends while you're at it, LOL. I enjoy others enetering the convesation so long as we are all able to have a meaninfull discussion but I despise the idea of this turning into anything more than a discussion amongst friends. I truly love debate and find it important in the correct context but this is not the proper context. Thank you everyone for keeping this in the proper realm so far. More to come on moving the discussion soon.
Mission accomplished … God be praised!
ReplyDeleteIt's not perfect, but I tried my best to combine the answers with the questions....
Peace and all good to you! :-)
Jen, your comments on this come to two pages of writing. In this new blog format I don't think it is necessary to paste all of that here. Your comments can be found in the above discussion.
ReplyDeleteI find it a bit ironic that I open “Works Word Processor” to write out my thoughts on the catholic doctrine of Justification. I fully intend to process the words of scripture to figure out if they truly teach works are a part of our Justification. An excellent book on the issue is “Not by Faith Alone: A biblical study of the catholic Doctrine of Justification” by. Robert A. Sengenis. Simply stated, the issue is that we are sinners and God is Holy. So how do sinful humans live and re-unite with God? What Justified reason is there for me as a man to be with God? I don’t pretend to understand the protestant position in any extensive manner, so most of my comments will be limited to my own understanding of the Teaching of the Catholic church and the bible. It’s your responsibility to decide if this view makes sense in light of scripture.
Since this is such a large topic with many facets I think it’s important to separate the issue into various sections. I titled these sections Grace Alone, Faith alone, Faith, Good works/works of the law, justification/salvation and what does Justification do for us on earth?. Please understand that each protestant denomination has a different view of how we are justified so I can’t possibly speak to everyone’s view on this. I will primarily speak to Jen’s points and touch on the view presented in the Westminister Confession of Faith from 1647 which many protestants would agree with and which Jen specifically mentions she holds to.
Defining Terms
In some cases one may solve the conflict, between seemingly opposing views, merely by realizing they are using the same words with different meanings. With the justification and salvation issue I have come to understand, among many others, that Protestants and Catholics are really in much more agreement than is often thought. The problem is that for over 450 years we have given different meanings to the words “faith”, “Justification”, “works” and the term “faith alone”. There is obviously still a large difference in our views of justification but not quit as big as we are often lead to believe.
Grace alone:
First I think (based on this conversation and others) we already agree that we are saved by grace alone. In Catholic theology there is the term actual grace and sanctifying grace. Actual grace is the one which enables us to act. It is the strength that God gives us to act according to his will. So it is by grace alone that we are able to even come to God in the first place. The Council of Trent states: "We are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification. For 'if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,' as the apostle says, 'grace is no more grace' [Rom. 11:6]" (Decree on Justification 8). However Catholics also understand that we are saved by grace because it enables us to produce good works of our own as a later stage of our justification. I’ll develop that understanding in the following paragraphs. Whereas Jen and other protestants would say that Grace alone saves us and our works contribute nothing to our standing with God. More about the terms found here http://www.catholic.com/library/Grace_What_It_Is.asp . I will speak more about the catholic understanding of grace in the paragraph on Justification below.
Faith alone:
ReplyDeleteMany different protestant denominations ascribe different meanings to the slogan faith alone. As Jimmy Akins says,
“Some (rank antinomians) really do mean that one is justified by intellectual belief alone, without hope or charity. Others (many American Evangelicals) appear to believe one is justified by faith plus hope, which is trust in God for salvation. Many others (including the Lutherans signing the Joint Declaration) believe that charity, the principle behind good works, always accompanies faith, and so believe in justification by formed faith.” http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp
So for me to find any common ground with Jen and others I would have to know your exact understanding of the term faith alone. As Dr. Scott Hahn points out in a dialogue with Prof. Keneth Samples, it is possible for Catholics to affirm the term faith alone when understood in the proper context. Dr. Hahn says
“Faith Alone is ambiguous, potentially misleading and not helpful. Either the alone in faith functions as an adverb that modifies the verb justify or else it functions as an adjective and modifies the word faith. If the Sola in sola fide functions as an adverb modifying the verb justify it means were only justified with faith. without faith we can’t be justified. This Catholics can affirm and must affirm. In that case sola fide is true, but it’s not new. If “alone” is meant to function as an adjective modifying the noun “faith” then it’s new but not true. Faith by itself.”
Faith:
For Catholics faith by itself or faith alone in the adjectival sense (as Hahn talks about) is false because of our understanding of the word Faith. Please realize that the word faith as many other words is used with a very different meanings all throughout the bible. As Peter Kreeft points out “By faith Catholics meant only one of the three needed ‘theological virtues’ (faith, hope and love), faith being intellectual belief. To Luther, faith meant accepting Christ with your whole heart and soul” (Pocket Handbook to Christian Apologetics, pp.114) . Since Catholics use the word faith in a smaller sense than Luther, it would be a false statement to say faith alone.
Good works/works of the law:
When it comes to defining the term works it’s important to look at two kinds of works contrasted in the bible and particularly by Paul. Often people think there is a conflict between James and Paul who seem to contradict one another on the issue of works and justification (jam 2:24 vs. Rom. 3:28). A friend of mine once commented “Paul says that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. James says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Martin Luther once said that if anybody can solve that contradiction, he would give him his doctor's hat(Bruce)”. I have come to understand that the conflict isn’t between James and Paul but rather between Paul and Paul. It’s more about understanding Paul as his writings are even admitted to be hard to
understand by Peter himself. We can get a sense of why Peter says this by looking at passages like Rom 3:20 vs. Rom 2:13 and Rom 4:4 vs. Rom 2:6. In these passages Paul seems to flat out contradict himself. I would like to spend a ton of time going all through Romans with you to lay out a much fuller understanding of how this all works but for now I will just make a few comments.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that when James speaks of works he is talking about the kind of works that Catholics mean, good works. In the context of James 2:24 James speaks of clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. This is the kind of works he is talking about when he says “see how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone”. James makes the distinction between dead and living faith. He shows that living faith and good works go hand in hand...as examples of Abraham and Rahab would indicate. Faith without works is dead. Paul on the other hand is writing to a largely Jewish audience and is talking primarily about works of the law which is not the same thing that James is talking about. Works of the law are the ceremonial works that Jews would perform to uphold the old covenant. He specifically focuses on circumcision and he is trying to get across the point that Gentiles do not need to be circumcised in order to become Christians. He’s saying that they are saved by faith and not by circumcision or other works of the law.
All throughout Romans we see Paul speaking about mosaic law, interior law, freedom from the law etc. However we know that his definition of works of the law doesn’t include all kinds of works because he specifically says in Rom 2:6 God will repay everyone according to his works: eternal life to those who seek glory, honor and immortality through perseverance in good works.” So by understanding the difference between works of the law and good works I think we can better understand Pauls meaning in Galatians and Romans. He never says the term faith alone because he doesn’t mean faith alone. He is merely trying to explain to the Jews that gentiles are justified apart from works of the law. He explains to them that it’s their faith in Jesus work on the cross that saves them.
There is also the issue between Paul and James about how Abraham is justified. I think the understanding I have laid out for the issue of works also enables us to see what Paul and James mean about Abraham. I could say a bunch on this but I think for now I will simply quote a bit from Kenneth j. Howell.
“James is teaching that works show true faith. But we Catholics insist that James 2:14–26 shows that works are more than mere evidence of faith. Works actually justify. James is speaking about works growing out of faith. If works of faith are not a part of our justification, then it is hard to understand why James would say, as he does, that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (Jas. 2:21). You may remember how Paul said that Abraham was not justified by works but by faith. Paul means that Abraham was not justified by keeping the Old Testament law, while James means that Abraham was justified by doing a work that grew out of his faith in God.”
At this point in my study I had to ask myself, if Paul and the bible never used the term faith alone except for in James 2 to deny we are saved by faith alone, then why continue to say we are justified by faith alone? Clearly faith without works is a dead faith as you also mentioned when you said “Yet, I was created FOR good works, yes, faith without works means that my faith was not real in the first place (it was dead)” Now Jen you have been clear that your view is we aren’t saved by works because grace would no longer be grace. You are clear in saying that we are spiritually dead in our sins and unable to work our way to salvation. Catholics agree. We don’t teach that we work our way to salvation the way we are accused of teaching. We do teach that we work out our salvation as the bible teaches. Further clarification below.
Justification/salvation:
ReplyDeleteTo start I want to borrow from Peter kreeft once again when he says
“Catholics used the term salvation to refer to the whole process, from its beginning in faith, through the whole Christian life of the works of love on earth, to its completion in heaven. When Luther spoke of salvation he meant the initial step- like getting into Noah‘s ark. Thus, since Catholics were using salvation in a bigger sense and faith in a smaller sense, and Luther was using Salvation in a smaller sense and faith in a bigger sense, Catholics rightly denied and Luther rightly affirmed that we were saved by faith alone. (Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics pp.114).
Jen, it would seem that you do agree with Luther’s idea of salvation as you say “Now, you may say that Protestants believe works are necessary, I say that works are the visible proof of salvation/justification (past event).” This comment also gets back to what I was talking about at the end of the Grace alone paragraph above. Basically the protestants I have spoken with talk about justification and salvation as a past, one time, event and they say works do not contribute to that status of justification. This sort of understanding can be seen in Ephesians 2:8-9. We know from other passages in Paul that salvation also has present and future aspects, so the kind of salvation Paul is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation. It is the kind which we received when we first came to God and were justified, not the kind of salvation we are now receiving (cf. 1 Peter 1:8-9, Phil. 2:12) or the kind we will one day receive (cf. Rom. 13:11, 1 Cor. 3:15, 5:5).
So to simplify this, the Catholic Church does not teach that we receive initial justification by good works. You do not have to do good works in order to remain faithful to God and begin the justification process. However once we are made into a new creation we are required to keep the gift of salvation by loving God. We love him by practicing living faith in which you "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12). This is a faith working in love as is indicated by Paul in Galatians. "You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:4-6). I think this verse from Galatians is probably one of the most helpful verses to sum up all of Paul’s arguments on the issue in Galatians and Romans. Works of the law won’t save you Jews but faith working through love!
What Does Justification do for us on Earth?
ReplyDeleteBy "justification" Luther thought that a sinner who is forgiven is still totally corrupt, unable to get away from sinning constantly. Many protestants teach that when God declares a person justified, the person's justification is merely extrinsic (that is, a mere juridical declaration of a change stemming from a purely legal imputation of Christ's righteousness to the sinner). To justify means to declare not guilty. This would seem to be the position of the Westminister confession as well as you Jen.
Did Paul mean that? Not as far as I can tell.
The Catholic Church teaches the biblical doctrine that justification is intrinsic. This means that the initial justification of the sinner, wrought by God's gift of grace and appropriated by faith (in the case of those above the age of reason), produces a real, inward change. The soul is filled with grace and becomes clean. Isaiah 55:10-11, Rom. 6:3-4, Rom. 6:7-8.1, Cor. 6:11, 2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 4:22-24, 1 Pet. 1:23, 1 John 1:7, Acts 3:19.
We are made over from scratch. We are not at all merely the same old total corruption! And he says more than once that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in us as in a temple (1 Cor. 3:17; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). Can we imagine the Holy Spirit living in a temple that is total corruption?
Now that I have talked through Paul and James teaching I would like to leave you all with The words of Jesus on the issue. “Not every one who says to me, ..Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). Also in Luke 18 Jesus is asked directly about what we must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus responds by saying we must obey the commandments and specifically tells this rich official to sell all he has and give it to the poor. Now I think it’s important to note that in the same chapter Jesus indicates that it is impossible for humans to get to heaven on their own but he says “what is impossible for human beings is possible for God.” Catholics and Protestants agree on that!
For a very short and easy to understand teaching on the Catholic view of Justification go to http://www.catholic.com/library/pillar.asp and scroll down to the section titled “What is the Purpose of life: What must one do to be saved”. The long drawn out answer above was written to do my best to address Jen’s specific points and may be confusing to some as I assume a certain level of understanding on the part of the reader.
This is an unrelated comment, but is there a way to enable the copy/paste function for comments?
ReplyDeleteI don't have time right now to research and write out a full response to all that, Matt, but my first objection is to your comment on extrinsic justification. I believe when you say "initial justification" you are talking about the moment when a totally depraved sinner believes and is deemed justified by God. I think most protestants would say that after this extrinsic justification we are new creatures, with the stain of sin still remaining in our flesh even though we are being made perfect gradually by God through sanctification. "For it is no longer I who sin but sin living in me" Rom 7:17. So our flesh is still corrupt and subject to a law of sin that wages war with the law of our minds which wants to do good, which is due to the grace of God.
What you seem to be doing is using the term "justification" where protestants would use the term "sanctification". Protestants would, as you said, limit the term "justification" to that initial pronouncement, what you would call "initial justification". Certainly I agree with you that without sanctification no one can be saved in the end because it comes with true justification or there was no justification at all. One example that comes to mind that would distinguish these two terms and show how one can be saved by faith alone is the repentant thief on the cross next to Christ. I wish I could give as full a treatment as does J.C. Ryle in his book "Holiness", but here is the main idea: The thief believed in Christ intellectually, acknowledging that He is the Son of God and able to save, defended him with words against the slander of the other thief's reviling, was promised that he would share in paradise with Christ, and then died. He had no chance to perform any good works (unless you call his words to defend Christ works), and yet you can draw out the beginnings of sanctification from what he said. He was justified and sanctified without what we would traditionally call "good works".
I guess that's about as good of an explanation as I'm going to get this morning for my position. I just wanted to respond briefly so that you'd understand how extrinsic justification works in my view, and that it is not saying we aren't made new, as you have correctly stated we are. Please read my words in a friendly tone of voice. =] Type is so confusing sometimes.
I've been thinking recently that maybe since we've uncovered so much in common between us, we should stop creating more battles to win over each other and focus on encouraging each other to go out to the lost with the good news! These issues have been debated for centuries, as a good friend of mine (also Catholic) reminded me, so why should we spend all our time fighting each other? Let's go out into all the world as we both love Jesus and want His glory in all things! Christ prayed for us that his children would be united, not divided. We each have to be convinced in our own minds. We can't solve all our issues this way, but love covers a multitude of sins, and we are told to love one another and build each other up. I'd rather do that than continue with the back-and-forth. If I need more answers, I don't want to take your time, I'll read more. That being said, I release you to focus on others' questions. Thanks a bunch for taking me seriously and answering what you have. I'm glad these issues came up.
ReplyDeleteJen thank you so much. I agree that it is more important for us to bring the gosple to those who don't know it than for us to pound out our little differences. The fact is that we are saved by Jesus Christ, not by having the right doctrine about how we are saved by Jesus Christ. On that note I think it's a good idea for me to tackle some of the other questions on here. I was actually planning to put your questions aside for a while anyway until I had a chance to answer some others since I already answered a bunch of yours. BY the way, please know that everything I say and have said is also in a calm voice and for the sake of teaching the truth. I'm not over here pounding on the keyboard with a sludge hammer. This blog is just about giving answers to people who have big questions about the Catholic church. It's not about anything other than that. The reason I write long answers is to cover all of the ground necesary to actually give good answers. If I wrote short little posts they would certainly be easier to understand but I would also be easily dismissed as just another Catholic who can't back up what he believes with the bible. I hope you can understand why I'm putting so much of my spare time into this. It's because far too many people have met poorly catechism Catholics who know nothing about their faith. I just want to do my best to provide Catholic answers for those who have allways wanted them.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Matt. I understand why you do this. It's addicting for sure, since teaching the truth is worth all the time in the world.
ReplyDeleteI just deleted seven of the blank comment boxes from people who tried to delete there comments. In case anyone is watching the number of comments. In a day or two i should have soem time to start working out the question about the trinity by Mazen Ramada along with your other comments and questions.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm working on that I would like to ask a few clarification questions to various people while they await answers.
Katherine: I wonder if you would feel comfortable talking to the people you see praying in front of the statues. Would you be able to ask them directly if they are worshipping the statue or just ask them what they are doing. I don't know these people so it is hard to say exactly what there response would be but it could be helpfull for the conversation.I would say it is probably not a good idea to start a debate with them or anything but it should be possible to ask them those simple questions without getting into a heated conversation.
Misha: You no longer follow Judaism. Since it's been a while since I've talked to you, I wonder if you could briefly tell me what you would call youself now. Are you an athiest or agnostic? If you are an athiest I wonder if you follow the kinds of arguments put forth by the likes of Cristopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, sam Harris and Danielle Dennett often called the four horsemen of the new athiesm or would you fall more in line with Antony Flew, Carl Marx, Sigmun Freud and Friedrich Nietzsche? I don't know that this will help me answer your questions, it's more of a curiousity than anything else.
Responding to Jen: He had no chance to perform any good works (unless you call his words to defend Christ works), and yet you can draw out the beginnings of sanctification from what he said. He was justified and sanctified without what we would traditionally call "good works".
ReplyDeleteThis Scripture quote depicts someone who, never having been taught, was by God's mercy & grace, able to recognize the TRUTH, believed & proclaimed it, therefore he performed the 'work' of faith & love. Those of us who have been taught and have received the truth, have a duty out of love to act, since love is an action/work. Therefore, the grace of love motivates us to desire the good of another by acts of charity.
ok, so clearly the couple of days have gone by. I promise I will keep doing my best to find spare time somehow to work on these questions. A quick funny story for you all while you wait. I listen to debates and archived Catholic radio while working on my art most days. Well yesterday I figured I would listen to some debates with Muslims, and jehova's Witnesses to get myself in the mindset of speaking about the trinity. While listening to the Jehovas witnesses I thought "wow, it's been a few years since they have come nocking on my door" . I even remember thinking it would be interesting to see if I could answer there qustions now that I have learned more over the past couple of years. That was literally yesterday afternoon and then today two Jehovas Witnesses literally came to my door. Now you have to understand I live out in the country on a back dirt road in a small town. There is a reason it has been so long since they have come nocking! So I guess that was God's little joke on me. Of course they showed up right at lunch time and my father told them to come back another time. We used to invite them in all the time and have those good long talks with them. I even went solo with them for a while in a Boston apartmetn when all they had to sit on was a deflating air matress. For about a month they kept coming back and stayed on the topic of the trinity. SO I am eager to find the time to discuss this important topic once again.
ReplyDeleteHey Matty,
ReplyDeleteI read your first post and I scanned thru some of the discussion up there so far. I see its been a while since updated but I wanted to share something nonetheless.
Wow, some insightful stuff on this blog. I especially appreciate your clarification on how Luther and Catholics differ in the way they use the terms "faith" and "salvation." I'm currently reading a consice Church History - it's all fascinating.
No time right now to offer a huge mind blowing contribution to the conversation. All I can say is that unity in the Body of Christ is a big big deal.
But I wanted to let you know about something that was breifly mentioned at a meeting. My wife (then fiancee) and I had been occasionally visiting a church that's all about the prophetic and the miraculous. They definitley keep the teaching Biblical but Spirit-led is a concious emphasis there. Anyways, as usual, there was a visiting speaker on a Saturday night sharing what he felt God was putting on his heart for the direction of this fellowship. In the middle of his speech, he said "... and I don't wanna hear any of you guys bashing the Catholic Church, ok? [keep in mind this is at a charismatic fellowship] She [meaning the Catholic Church] is us! We're Her!"
That left me thinking... no matter how many disputes there have been among Christians for the last couple of thousand years, there will always be one foundation for our faith, and that is Jesus Christ himself. Matt, on that basis (the basis of sharing a sheer love for Jesus), you and I have always enjoyed a growing friendship. Sure, we may not always agree, but that doesn't bother me at all because I really value the brotherhood we share. I appreciate your friendship because I see you honestly, eagerly pursuing Christ; that inspires me to do the same.
I clearly have lots of learning to do, but in the mean time, may I and all who love God use the long road ahead of us as a very good reason to be very humble before God and to LOVE our brothers in Christ. Between now and the day when every fellow believer can say "we have settled every last theological disagreement we ever had," may we never forget to show love, grace, and wonderful patience to every person we encounter.
Word. Back to studying I go.
God bless you a lot, bro.
Any every/any one else who posts on this conversation: "stay fresh" (Ps 92:14, look it up... it's a beautiful psalm)
Peace,
Dave C