ISAW wrote: » this is a bit like married Priests. the point isnt about what people do today although It ultimately is. the point here is about whether at any time in history there were say married priests or there was a tradition of looking up to the Bishop of Rome or pope as having a special place. That tradition exists.
lmaopml wrote: » Yes, Roman Catholics believe that there is 'physical' Church created by Jesus when he taught the Apostles, sent the Holy Spirit, and they in turn taught others ...this we see in Sacred Scripture, and we see the word 'Church' mentioned in a physical sense too....
The bishops in the church trace their lineage back, and it's a holy order bestowed on them by the laying on of hands by another bishop. Also, from early Church history it's clear from the Fathers that they traced lines back in order to dispute any heresy and in order to keep unity among the apostolic churches. Rome playing a special role in this...prior even to the emporer Constantine! Personally, I see this as a big 'sign post' that if it's the original Apostles teaching I'm looking for then these are the churches to look at.....
Antiskeptic, perhaps some of the above would clarify for you where I started out? ...also, sorry, but I don't know what you mean by the conundrum? ....lol
antiskeptic wrote: » A physical church exists in both our 'systems'. The question now is whether scripture lets us conclude: a) The physical church as local gatherings of believers with local management for the purposes of smooth, godly running. b) The physical Roman Catholic church as a monolithic, centralised control structure for the whole of Christianity
Rather than get into the "line traced back", I'd ask whether the line connects to anything concrete at the start. You'll agree that a solid unbroken line unconnected at the start is solid and useless. And so I'll repeat the question posed to ISAW above for you to answer. "how does one decide that a tradition is a sacred thing (i.e. people were correct in their looking up to the bishop in Rome) or whether it is something misguidingly erected and built upon by men - even if at times inarguably godly men.
I'm thinking of lots being cast by the apostles (in Acts) to see who would replace Judas. Whereas God appears to have had other ideas when it came to restoring the number of foundational apostles to twelve."
The above repeats the basic problem from which other problems flow. If you can resolve the above issue then you've resolved the rest to a good degree.
smurfhousing wrote: » Question for Anti-skeptic:If you rob a bank, kill the security guard, run out the door, get hit by a bus, and die, do you get to go to heaven? Bear in mind you did not get the opportunity to repent of your sins, do you still get to go to heaven? Bear in mind that you are a committed Christian, both before, during, and after the bank robbery.
JimiTime wrote: » Ehhh, What?
smurfhousing wrote: » We all make mistakes. Even the righteous man falls seven times per day. Oi, skeptic!
PDN wrote: » Robbing a bank and killing someone is not a mistake - it is grevious sin. More importantly, it is the kind of sin that would provide concrete evidence that someone was not a Christian.
smurfhousing wrote: » Hmm... Ok, so you say. Let's take the example then of someone who commits the sin of fornication. They are a committed Christian, but they commit this sin, and die in their sleep before getting an opportunity to repent of their sin. Do they go to heaven?
Overheal wrote: » But I'm less clear on the second half of your statement. My understanding is a Christian believes in the existence of God and the events surrounding Jesus Christ and the resurrection. Would committing sin - even cardinal sin - dispel this belief in God or the Resurrection of Christ? Does sin cause you to cease being a Christian and if so, what do you become?
PDN wrote: » Only God knows whether they get to heaven or not. But I think you misunderstand how reformed soteriology works. It's not a case of losing your salvation every time you sin and then getting it back again each time you repent. It's more a matter of entering into a relationship with Jesus Christ by faith, then, at that point you receive salvation and forgiveness for your sins (past, present and future). However, and it's a big 'however', if someone is truly sincere and has entered into a genuine relationship with Christ, then there are certain sins that they will not commit. It's not that refraining from those sins keeps them saved, but rather that a saved person will not commit those sins. Whether fornication is one of those sins or not is a matter of debate.
Tim Robbins wrote: » Does the parable of the good smaritan not indicate very strongly that you have to be a good neighbour for external life? And that it is possible to be a very good neighbour without even believing in Jesus because the smaritans didn't?
smurfhousing wrote: » PDN: What sins would 'true Christians' commit? What sins might 'false Christians' commit? Can you give lists of examples?
How do I know if the sin I do commit means I am not a 'true Christian'? How can I be sure I am not a 'false Christian'? Can I be sure? How can I know? How do I know when I've committed a sin which meant I was never a 'true Christian' to begin with? Will I know in the future?
For example, if I am a young Christian man and I commit the sin of fornication, does that mean I committed the type of sin that means I was never a 'true Christian' to begin with, or do you have to do worse sins, like murdering someone? Where is the line? Is there a line? Is adultery worse than murder? Is it a more serious sin? Is stealing a milkyway as bad as stealing the pension off a poor old lady?
smurfhousing wrote: » Jimi: How do you know you are a 'true Christian'?
It's more a matter of entering into a relationship with Jesus Christ by faith, then, at that point you receive salvation and forgiveness for your sins (past, present and future). However, and it's a big 'however', if someone is truly sincere and has entered into a genuine relationship with Christ, then there are certain sins that they will not commit. It's not that refraining from those sins keeps them saved, but rather that a saved person will not commit those sins. Whether fornication is one of those sins or not is a matter of debate.
JimiTime wrote: » Its certainly not how I see it. Of course we all sin, fall short etc. However, a TRUE Christian rejects a sinful life. One cannot be both a murderous bankrobber and commited christian at the same time. Of couse a murderous bank robber can repent and be forgiven etc. However, he cannot be both a murderous bank robber and commited christian at the same time.
JimiTime wrote: » If Jesus had said to the adulterous woman, 'You are now a Christian, just make sure you confess after you fornicate from now on', you'd have a point. He didn't however. Becoming a Christian is about REAL change. Its your LIFE that changes. Paul going from persecutor to apostle etc.
PDN wrote: » You don't know, because you reject the biblical doctrine of assurance of faith. Again, there is room for legitimate debate as to where we draw the line. Stealing a milky way from Tesco because you are starving to death would not be as bad as stealing a milky way from a starving child in Africa. The desire to draw lines, and argue about precisely where to draw the line, is a sign of an unhealthy focus on works. My aim is not to get away with the absolute minimum without losing my salvation, but rather to please my loving heavenly Father in all I do as a response to the free undeserved grace and salvation I have received from Him.
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. 1 Jn. 5
lmaopml wrote: » Obviously as a Catholic, I believe that Peter was the 'rock'....and I guess my own personal reasoning would conclude that Jesus gave us saving grace, and told his apostles to spread the word, and do as he did.... The Church has been doing this for centuries. The Holy Spirit is very present in the Church and in it's people...
I guess we go by what we 'can' know, and what has been passed on from generation to generation, as being something that was 'sacred'. In the Catholic church, Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium are intrinsically entwined..The line connects directly to Jesus himself and his teachings and also what he did...
I guess, when I finally started actually thinking about these things, really it was the 'faith' in God, and realisation that there has to be more out there - God, came first for me, then I found his son and then I settled on where to worship...It makes sense to me that Jesus was a pretty good organiser and that he would leave people in charge who were good and holy men to pass on at first orally the faith and traditions and eventually to record them in sacred scripture. I believe the Holy Spirit guides his church, to save as many as possible...
I've often thought about how they must have felt at that time.....The eleven, sitting in that room, knowing what they knew, that one of them had betrayed their master and finally caused his death..., one of their brothers, and how heavy they must have felt...Just imagine that scene and the pure sorrow they must have felt.... Then Peter decided that they 'would' go on, they would get up, stop mooning around the place and continue the masters plan, they had to, and the darkness that Judas had left amongst them was replaced by a new spirit of endurance and conviction.... Peter says they will replace Judas the traitor from a worthy man amongst the followers to restore the twelve, and put light back where there was a gaping darkness, two men volunteered and one was chosen. Mattias - An Apostle of Christ! What a tremendous conviction they displayed, what a feeling it must have been - how they turned a corner in that room that day....
lol, I think I'm just chatting I guess Antiskeptic about my own faith and understanding yours in the process....I think you would be better off just saying what has to be resolved?
20"For," said Peter, "it is written in the book of Psalms, " 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it,' and, " 'May another take his place of leadership.'21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
antiskeptic wrote: » Recalling that I am questioning the means whereby you draw your conclusions about the nature of the physical church (at the point of coming into being). You cite 'personal reasoning' here and focus that reasoning on what scripture appears to you to say. Isn't this the essence of what the sola scriptura view does too - with you having stated yourself as seeing problems in that approach?
I'd note that a centralised Catholic-style church isn't required in order that the word of God be spread.
I understand this is what you believe. My question enquires into the basis whereby you hold as you do. You say, for instance, that the line connects to Jesus and I'm asking you how you conclude the line actually attaches to him. You appear to be relying on what you consider to 'make sense to you'. Comsider what you say here..
I'm glad to see that you aren't relying on the kind of circular argumentation that many of your denominational brethern seem to rely on: "Christ established the Roman Church as his representitive on earth - because the Roman Church he established says so".
Which means we can look at your reasoning itself. Am I correct in suggesting that the basis of your position is "what I think would be the way God would do things. What it is that makes sense to me".
If so, would you accept that this is a very subjective thing and that you sail in the same boat as others who have subjective views as to what makes sense to them - including the view that holds God dealing directly with individuals through his Word.
Do you appreciate the problem posed? There are various references to the church of Christ being built on a foundation of the apostles. 12 apostles to be precise. Eph: 2:20 "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. Rev 21:24 "The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb"
Paul was an apostle. Which suggests that the 11 remaining disciples in Acts + Paul make up the 12 apostles. Which suggests that Peter's decision to act was Peter's idea - not God's. Indeed, scripture doesn't mention either God's involvement in the lot casting or God's imprimateur being placed on the result of the lot-casting process. What grounds have you for supposing Matthias an apostle. And how would you deal with the existance of 13 apostles when there appears to have only ever been 12?
Do you see the significance of Act's lot-casting? Assuming you now agree that Peter was acting on own authority and not God's, you have a situation where godly men (a key disciple no less) acting in ways that have nothing to do with God's intent. Which supports the idea that traditions can be set up which have nothing to do with God.
Which begs the original conundrum/question: how do you know whether an 'ancient tradition' is a godly one or a man-made one?
I know we're not focusing on scripture much but the following is interesting in the context of this discussion. Consider the Psalm verses Peter quotes prior to casting lots. 'May his place be deserted; let there be no one to dwell in it' ... yet lot's were cast in order to fill the deserted place?? 'May another take his place of leadership.' Paul was chosen to be an apostle just as every other apostle was chosen, not by Peter, not by lot .. but by Christ directly.
lmaopml wrote: » Oh dear no antiskeptic, I was just wondering about the physical nature of your own Church and belief at the time...The means to examine both are recorded in sacred scripture..I choose to see both....
I'm not going to be foolish and say that there aren't good people who really believe and trust their preachers etc. and neither would I say they are wrong to do so.... I am simply saying that the 'fullness' of faith and most responsibility towards the faithful, to my mind, is found in no other than the Catholic Church...
I understand this is what you believe. My question enquires into the basis whereby you hold as you do. You say, for instance, that the line connects to Jesus and I'm asking you how you conclude the line actually attaches to him. You appear to be relying on what you consider to 'make sense to you'. Comsider what you say here.. Ach sure this is easy! Jesus himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against true teaching...
Ach sure this is easy! Jesus himself said the gates of hell would not prevail against true teaching...
No, I don't do this because it is counterproductive...I'm a big fan of finding out for yourself...and of human rights and freedom of thought..I even have a soft spot for Luther believe it or not!
Certainly not! I don't claim to know what God 'thinks'...I simply believe that the gift of salvation is offered to everybody...and we find our way as best we can. I don't claim to know who falls short or who doesn't....I simply try to use my own reason to see the wisdom of my own faith...and boy, there's some wisdom there, should one wish to try to connect to it..
Yes, of course I believe that we find our way subjectively, when we feel we need to..... I think this is a brilliant age of honesty and questioning. Questioning is 'good'...and always will be...Faith is 'good' too.. ...I'm prepared to say if I am thinking arseways about something because I am one of the little people who is learning from those before and drawing on what 'can' be known. I will most definitely wipe egg off my face if I make an arse of expressing myself..lol... I 'reject' nothing either scripture wise or tradition wise in order to get the full picture; and always in the background I pray and make sure I am not trying to be something I am not.
Absolutley agree that Paul was an Apostle of Christ. The definition of Apostle must be considered here.. You must understand that the 'twelve' were the 'witnesses' to Christs resurrection..
I have no need to 'deal' antiskeptic. The 'twelve' Apostles were witness to the resurrection..These are the 'twelve' tribes of Isreal...one of which was broken in two.
What I see is picking and choosing of scripture....Especially when we recall key passages...Even St. Paul reminds us of (in scripture) interpreting things for our own ends...
...because I trust God's will antiskeptic. I choose to see the passages that say tradition is important and gives the full picture. I don't like to limit myself....
Please consider St. Pauls words himself...to the Corinthians... 'After that he was seen of James; and then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen by me also, as of one born out of due time.. The 'Apostle' Paul is given great due, but he knew himself even that there were twelve witnesses...
antiskeptic wrote: » With me interpreting scripture/history to preclude the notion of the physical per 'Rome'. And you effectively interpreting scripture/history to permit the notion of the church per Rome. Where does this leave your critique of the person who interprets scripture for oneself?
I understand your viewpoint. My purpose though, is to examine from whence 'to your mind'. Can you see the pointlessness of a dogmatic insistance that Rome represents the 'fullness' of the church - when that position is arrived at no differently than those who view things otherwise? i.e. by that same process of personal interpretation of scripture/history
That's not the basis by which you arrive at Catholic-teaching-the-true-teaching. That's merely the conclusion that follows if the Catholic position is the true one.
I've not read much of him directly to find out what he was like (indeed I gather he was a bit of a git ). But I'm glad you're prepared to explain how it is you conclude as you do.
I think your misunderstanding my query. Your position on Catholicism-The-True-Church appears to be a position arrived at by own reasoning/interpretation. If not, perhaps you can explain what else is involved. If so, then you are doing precisely what I do - no? In assuming you arrive at your position by reasoning/personal interpretation then I've got some queries regarding that: like how you conclude a tradition sacred for instance.
Good Which brings me back to my query on Tradition. What is your reasoning for supposing that this or that tradition sacred, as opposed to man-made. Surely it can't simply be that the tradition is old. Surely it can't be because the Roman church says so.
There were lots of people who were witnesses to Christs resurrection. Witnessing that doesn't make a person an apostle in and of itself. I'd agree that an apostle will have witnessed the risen Lord. Paul was a witness to that on the road to Damascus. If claiming that Matthias was an apostle then that claim would need some backing up, you might agree? Especially in the light of the point raised: that the 12 apostles upon whom the church is founded consists of the 11 uncontested apostles (the original 12 disciples - minus Judas) and Paul. There is no place for Matthias here. That fact, and the fact that there is no mention of him being an apostle would lead you to conclude that he wasn't an apostle. Which would point to Peter acting under own steam - not divine direction.
Aren't you doing the same you suggest I'm doing here: picking scripture and interpreting it to own ends? I'm merely pointing out that a simple reading of scripture suggests that Matthias wasn't an apostle. Now you might have traditional reasons for supposing he was but I don't see how you arrive at that view scripturally.
The same point can be made here too, no? Picking and choosing and self-interpretation?
Which brings me back to my original point: that at root, you are doing precisely as I am doing - the only difference between us is the different conclusions our reasoning and interpretation brings us to.
You've made a leap here. How we are to conclude Matthias an apostle from this? 'All' refers to whatever number of apostles there were at that time. That could be 11. You can't assume that Matthias was an apostle in order to support the contention that Matthias was an apostle.
"The main reason for getting them{signed mass cards}, apart from a show of sympathy, is to do something positive for the person who has died, by getting prayers said for them."
strobe wrote: » Hey I didn't want to start a whole new thread for this and the thread it's posted in is tagged [Catholic Only] so I figured I'd ask here if that's ok. I was just wondering what praying for someone, or having prayers said for someone that has died is supposed to do? Is this a strictly Catholic thing or a Christian thing in general? I thought that the deal was you either get into to heaven or you don't. Do some people hold to the view that God can be asked to change his mind on this in specific instances through prayer? Or are the prayers doing something positive for the person that is unrelated to entry into heaven? What would those positive things be? Thanks.
strobe wrote: » I was just wondering what praying for someone, or having prayers said for someone that has died is supposed to do? Is this a strictly Catholic thing or a Christian thing in general? I thought that the deal was you either get into to heaven or you don't. Do some people hold to the view that God can be asked to change his mind on this in specific instances through prayer? Or are the prayers doing something positive for the person that is unrelated to entry into heaven? What would those positive things be? Thanks.
Slav wrote: » However Orthodox do pray for the dead at least as much as Catholics but for a different reason since they consider Purgatory a heresy.
