"The Calvinist Methodists were extinguished long ago. You, Vader, are all that's left of their ancient religion."
Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
That is why the Church exists. Men have gone astray, but the Church continues.
What the Church Fathers thought:
The Didache
“You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sir. 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sir. 4:31]” (Didache 4:5 [ca. A.D. 70]).
Barnabas
“Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Isa. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wis. 2:12.]” (Epistle of Barnabas 6:7 [ca. A.D. 74]).
Clement
“By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, “What have you done?” or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wis. 12:12]” (Epistle to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).
Polycarp
“Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood [1 Pet. 2:17]. . . . When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tob. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Isa 52:5]!” (Epistle to the Philadelphians 10 [ca. A.D. 135]).
Irenaeus
“Those . . . who are believed to be presbyters by many, but serve their own lusts and do not place the fear of God supreme in their hearts, but conduct themselves with contempt toward others and are puffed up with the pride of holding the chief seat [Matt. 23:6] and work evil deeds in secret, saying ‘No man sees us,’ shall be convicted by the Word, who does not judge after outward appearance, nor looks upon the countenance, but the heart; and they shall hear those words to be found in Daniel the prophet: ‘O you seed of Canaan and not of Judah, beauty has deceived you and lust perverted your heart’ [Dan. 13:56]. You that have grown old in wicked days, now your sins which you have committed before have come to light, for you have pronounced false judgments and have been accustomed to condemn the innocent and to let the guilty go free, although the Lord says, ‘You shall not slay the innocent and the righteous’ [Dan. 13:52, citing Ex. 23:7]” (Against Heresies 4:26:3 [ca. A.D. 190]; Dan. 13 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Irenaeus
“Jeremiah the prophet has pointed out that as many believers as God has prepared for this purpose, to multiply those left on the earth, should both be under the rule of the saints and to minister to this [new] Jerusalem and that [his] kingdom shall be in it, saying, ‘Look around Jerusalem toward the east and behold the joy which comes to you from God himself. Behold, your sons whom you have sent forth shall come: They shall come in a band from the east to the west. . . . God shall go before with you in the light of his splendor, with the mercy and righteousness which proceed from him’ [Bar. 4:36- 5:9]” (ibid. 5:35:1 [ca. A.D. 190]; Baruch was often reckoned as part of Jeremiah, as it is here).
Hippolytus
“What is narrated here [in the story of Susannah] happened at a later time, although it is placed at the front of the book [of Daniel], for it was a custom with the writers to narrate many things in an inverted order in their writings. . . . [W]e ought to give heed, beloved, fearing lest anyone be overtaken in any transgression and risk the loss of his soul, knowing as we do that God is the judge of all and the Word himself is the eye which nothing that is done in the world escapes. Therefore, always watchful in heart and pure in life, let us imitate Susannah” (Commentary on Daniel 6 [A.D. 204]; the story of Susannah [Dan. 13] is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
“So Daniel, too, when he was required to worship the idol Bel, which the people and the king then worshipped, in asserting the honor of his God, broke forth with full faith and freedom, saying, ‘I worship nothing but the Lord my God, who created the heaven and the earth’ [Dan. 14:5]” (Epistles 55:5 [A.D. 252]; Dan. 14 is not in the Protestant Bible).
Cyprian
“In Genesis [it says], ‘And God tested Abraham and said to him, “Take your only son whom you love, Isaac, and go to the high land and offer him there as a burnt offering . . . “’ [Gen 22:1-2] . . . Of this same thing in the Wisdom of Solomon [it says], ‘Although in the sight of men they suffered torments, their hope is full of immortality . . .’ [Wis. 3:4].
Of this same thing in the Maccabees [it says], ‘Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’” [1 Macc. 2:52; see Jas. 2:21-23] (Treatises 7:3:15 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Rome
“Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [that is, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus, one book . . . . Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books” (Decree of Pope Damasus [A.D. 382]).
Council of Hippo
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . .” (canon 36 [A.D. 393]).
Augustine
“The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called ‘of Solomon’ because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them” (On Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [ca. A.D. 395]).
Augustine
“God converted [King Assuerus] and turned the latter’s indignation into gentleness [Es. 15:11]” (On the Grace of Christ and Original Sin 1:24:25 [A.D. 418]; this passage is not in the Protestant Bible).
Augustine
“We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place” (On the Care That Should be Taken for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
Council of Carthage
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees . . .” (canon 47 [A.D. 397]).
Apostolic Constitutions
“Now women also prophesied. Of old, Miriam the sister of Moses and Aaron [Ex. 15:20], and after her, Deborah [Judges. 4:4], and after these Huldah [2 Kgs. 22:14] and Judith [Judith 8], the former under Josiah and the latter under Darius” (Apostolic Constitutions 8:2 [ca. A.D. 400]).
Jerome
“What sin have I committed if I follow the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating [in my preface to the book of Daniel] the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susannah [Dan. 13], the Song of the Three Children [Dan. 3:24-90], and the story of Bel and the Dragon [Dan. 14], which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they are wont to make against us. If I did not reply to their views in my preface, in the interest of brevity, lest it seem that I was composing not a preface, but a book, I believe I added promptly the remark, for I said, ‘This is not the time to discuss such matters’” (Against Rufinius 11:33 [A.D. 401]).
Pope Innocent I
“A brief addition shows what books really are received in the canon. These are the things of which you desired to be informed verbally: of Moses, five books, that is, of Genesis, of Exodus, of Leviticus, of Numbers, of Deuteronomy, and Joshua, of Judges, one book, of Kings, four books, and also Ruth, of the Prophets, sixteen books, of Solomon, five books, the Psalms. Likewise of the histories, Job, one book, of Tobit, one book, Esther, one, Judith, one, of the Maccabees, two, of Esdras, two, Paralipomenon, two books . . .” (To Exuperius 7 [A.D. 405]).
African Code
“[It has been decided] that besides the canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the Son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the Kings, four books, the Chronicles, two books, Job, the Psalter, the five books of Solomon, the twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Ezra, two books, Maccabees, two books . . . Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, [Pope] Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, of these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church” (canon 24 [A.D. 419]).
see #6858
I understand.
However, the Church Fathers were undoubtedly aware of these inconsistencies as well. Even the Gospels vary somewhat when covering the same story. I will accept the Church’s teachings as to the validity of Scripture.
I do not consider myself able to second guess such as Augustine.
The following are all from the previous link I provided. On my shelf, I see a copy of RA Torrey’s, “What the Bible Teaches.” I might tell you that it is good for reading. That does not mean that I think it the equivalent of scripture. I would tell folks that the Maccabees are good for reading, but in the same way as Torrey is good for reading.
Augustine said “If any, even the smallest lie be admitted in the Scriptures, the whole authority of Scripture is presently invalidated and destroyed.” [Epistle xix. Tom. II. P. 14]
As Augustine states of the book of Macabees, “The Jews do not esteem this scripture as the Law and prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as his witness.” (Contra Gaudent. Epist. Lib. II cap. 23.)
Augustine so shows this in his writings against Cresconius the grammarian: “Not without cause was the canon of the church framed with so salutary a vigilance, that certain books of the prophets and apostles should belong to it.” (Lib. 2. cap. 31); also “Let them shew us their church, not in the rumors of the Africans, but in the injunction of the Law, in the predictions of the prophets, in the songs of the Psalms; that is, in all the canonical authorities of the sacred books.” (De Unit. Eccles. C. 16.)
Augustine said “The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.” So the RCC’s attempt to use Augustine’s quotes concerning their “sacredness” is destroyed by Augustine’s own qualification of the books as other than canonical – which he never retracted.
Maccabees praises suicide. Augustine repudiates this when he says “Nor is it in vain that nowhere in the sacred canonical scriptures do we find any precept or permission to take away our own lives.”
Augustine also argues that Christ never mentions them as his witnesses and shows them as non-canonical.
"The Calvinist Methodists were extinguished long ago. You, Vader, are all that's left of their ancient religion."
And I a mere padawan
They undergo purification.
Purgatory isn’t a place; it is a process. Since nothing impure can enter the Kingdom of God, anyone judged worthy of entering it that is in a state of any sin in any way must be purified.
Purgatory is not expressly called out in Scripture, but we must come to the conclusion that it exists simply because of those two conditions.
6,807 posted on 09/20/2007 7:48:27 PM CDT by MarkBsnr (V. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae. R. Et concepit de Spiritu Sancto.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6806 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
As you see, you were the one saying that purgatory was a process not a place. I really don't know a lot about this belief and was interested to find out what a RC thought. It seems your beliefs are so complicated and dependent upon your "tradition" and claims of exclusivity that even knowledgeable RC's can't explain them.
So what of the Scriptural justification?
What Scriptural justification. Even you said it is something that was not spelled out in SCRIPTURE and your as hard core RC as any poster here. You revel in your church history of killing and persecuting those Christians that refused to submit to your church's authority and beliefs.
Macabees is not SCRIPTURE and the quote from the New Testament has to be the most convoluted interpretation to claim it is about a "process".
Oh, I think God is a sports fan. God's word even speaks of the Cubs directly:
Jer 12:13 : They will sow wheat but reap thorns; they will wear themselves out but gain nothing. So bear the shame of your harvest because of the Lord's fierce anger."
Eccl 1:1-4, 9 : 1 The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem: 2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!"says the Teacher."Utterly meaningless!Everything is meaningless." 3 What does man gain from all his labor at which he toils under the sun? 4 Generations come and generations go,but the earth remains forever. ...... 9 What has been will be again,what has been done will be done again;there is nothing new under the sun.
Ps 94:11 : The Lord knows the thoughts of man; he knows that they are futile.
Besides, everyone knows that God is a Cardinals fan. However, the Cardinals have apparently sinned grievously, and are being lovingly disciplined by our Lord, .... for a whole month. But of course, our God is a merciful God. Why, just last night the Cardinals only lost by 17 runs at home against the Astros. God is good, God is great. :)
FK: "My understanding of the Apostolic view is that the Holy Spirit specifically guides the hierarchy of the Church on the most important matters, but forsakes the laity of the same leadership."
You know the reply would be along the lines of "That's like saying God forsook the ears by not giving them the faculty of taste." Same notion, different slant on it.
Yes, that is what I would expect, and to continue the analogy, ears are not designed to be able to taste. In a like manner, the layman is not designed to be led by the Spirit on matters of interpretation, etc. We of course would respectfully disagree and say that God wants an intimate and personal relationship with each of His children. I don't see how that could happen with such a barrier erected between God and you and me.
If you review the exercise of the "ex cathedra function" you will find that it is anything but whimsical.
Oh, I don't doubt that at all. I was just thinking of the amount of power that would be SUBJECT to whimsy, regardless of whether it happens that way in practice. I wouldn't imagine that any Pope would feel completely free to declare "anything" (not contradicting a prior Pope). :) That is, although technically, as I understand it, he "could".
So a few people thought that 2 Maccabees was apocryphal? If that is your only requirements for removing Scriptures, ask Kosta about the book of Revelation and the lack of enthusiasm of it in the East... Heck, Luther didn't like James, so maybe we should take that out, too...
And you know, the Mormons are asking us to put a few more in. Well, let's do that, too...
Regards
I googled up your alleged Augustine line: “The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees” and found it listed on one website only - yours. Can you find it anywhere else?
Suicide. Would you remove all books of the Bible that mentioned or praised suicide?
In the biblical record there are a number of cases of suicide. Samson pulled the temple down on himself and on the Philistines. Hithathel, one of David’s leading cabinet members, sided with Absolom in the rebellion, ended up being on the wrong side and went home and hanged himself. One of the kings, Zimmery, ruled in the northern kingdom for seven days, and burned himself to death in the palace when he realized he was on the losing side again. King Saul and his armor bearer committed suicide on the battlefield. Abimalech, in the book of Judges, committed suicide after a battle when he was seriously injured.
In most of the Old Testament cases, the suicide is the result of either a military defeat or a serious injury where someone will die in a matter of hours or at the most days, either at the hands of enemies or just by dying from the wound. And in most of these cases, the individuals choose “death with honor” rather than being tortured and mutilated. So suicide was a way to avoid that kind of shame.
In the biblical record there is no condemnation of the suicide. In two or three cases there is an indication that there was a burial: Samson, Hithathel and Saul.
In the New Testament Judas is the key figure regarding suicide. If you read the accounts in Matthew and in Acts, Judas is never condemned for suicide. He’s condemned for betraying Jesus but not the way he died and that pattern follows pretty much all the way through. In Hebrews 11, Samson is listed among those who have found God’s favor. So you’ve got this rather ambivalent attitude. They’ve killed themselves but they’re not condemned for that. Where there is any indication of a burial they are given a normal burial.
In the Jewish literature of the time between 200 Bc and AD 100 there are records of several suicides. Some of these are individuals (e.g. Razis in 2 Maccabees 14:37-46), others are of larger groups (e.g. the mother and her seven martyred sons in 4 Maccabees 8-18, the Galilean battalion that Josephus commanded., or the Zealots at Masada. In these contexts there is a recognition that life is from God and ought not to be cast away lightly. Josephus, however, argues that there are occasions where it is a greater sin to commit idolatry, incest, adultery, or murder, or allow oneself or one’s family to be taken prisoner and tortured than it is to commit suicide.
The early church, after about AD 100, developed a theology and practice of martyrdom that reflected a total disdain for physical life, and promulgated the idea that only in a martyr’s bloody death could “true discipleship” be attained and “true witness” expressed. This attitude was so widespread that at one point the Roman governor told the Christians that if they wanted to die, they should go and cast themselves over the cliff, rather than “keep troubling the magistrates to execute them”.
The appalling consequences of this “martyr theology” resulted in St. Augustine appealing to the command “Thou shalt not kill” as expressly prohibiting suicide (i.e. self-sought martyrdom), unless God had given specific “secret instructions” to an individual to perform the act. Augustine’s interpretation of this commandment is a radically new departure in both Judaism and Christianity. His attempt to develop this line of argument is without precedent in the literature, and is impossible to defend. He himself recognized the weakness of his argument by turning immediately to a series of “exceptions” and “explanations” that take any force out of his earlier defense.
Man doesn't become "partially sick". However, just because we are wounded rather than dead, that doesn't mean we don't need a savior to heal us.
Regards
I pray this is not the case. As heated as we may be at times, the thought that any would not be saved is frightening. Reliance on a body of men for your eternal salvation makes no sense when our SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST came and took care of it.
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
Then you believe the doctrine of a man.
1 and 2 Maccabees is Scripture and for the same reasons that Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is, and the Gospel of James isn’t.
The Church under the divine influence of the Holy Spirit said so in a series of Councils.
The Church also defined Trinitarian beliefs.
So if you wish to pick and choose, then that reminds me of all these Cafeteria Catholics - let’s see, I’ll have one of those, I’ll pass on that, now that looks good - two of those please, I’ll only have half of that...
Purgatory isn’t complicated; I don’t know why you’d think so. When one dies, one is in a state of sin, however venial. One cannot get to Heaven unless one is pure (without sin). Therefore one undergoes a sanctification process that takes one from the sinful state to the pure one.
We ain’t the exclusivist elitist selectivist ones. Jesus has told us what the path to Heaven for all men is. The only ones who go to Hell are those who spurn God’s Grace freely offered to us. We believe that we must persevere until the end doing what He has instructed us to do. We must walk the narrow path; Jesus never instructed those men with implanted RF devices only to climb aboard the club car to Heaven. Coming up with that from Scripture takes a lot of imagination, and not a little demonic influence.
What a great departure from the Good News of Jesus Christ. What a great heresy to take His Message of Good News to all men and change it to only some, with the rest discarded like yesterday’s table scraps.
I revel in my Church history of killing and persecuting Christians?
Really?
“As heated as we may be at times, the thought that any would not be saved is frightening”
Are you not of the Reformed persuasion?
No, under Reformed theology all men are called to repentance. Westminster Confession-Chapter XV Of Repentance unto Life . Even after becoming Christians we are to continue to repent for our sins.
The issue that is really puzzling you is why would God require man to repent unless He gave man the ability to repent? Frankly, I don't know. It simply the way it is. The nature of God can be succinctly wrapped up in Augustine's prayer, "Command what you will, and grant what you command." God commands all men to repent, and He must grant us the ability to repent. God commands us to love one another, yet God must give us the ability to love. God commands us to be fruitful and yet it is God who produces the fruit. All of scripture is filled with these differing verses.
Augustine's prayer was right, God commands us and then He also grants (or not) the ability to carry it out. This is the very nature of God. I will say that this idea seem so preposterous to Pelagius that he found offense with this prayer. The church sided with Augustine and the clear teaching of scripture. Augustine and Pelagius
Amen Brother. I think you summed it up pretty well.
I believe in Scripture we always find Baptism referenced after repentance. We also see the Holy Spirit indwelling believers prior to Baptism. We view Baptism as a public manifestation of a completed act.
BTW, thanks for posting the link. I don't have time to read it now, but will later.
No, I believe the inspired writings of Paul.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.