Roman Catholic Resources
Comments
-
MJ. Smith said:
...
My personal experience has led me to value some resources more highly than I expected and to hide some that I had expected to be useful. It has lead me to a deeper knowledge in apologetics, helping me to get beyond the surface difference to the roots of our disagreement, And it has put the tools in my hands to verify assertions regarding what the Bible says.
...Interesting idea--I've not hidden any resources yet, but I do appreciate the ability to self-apply ratings to resources--that helps me sort things out.
It is tough sometimes to figure out if a purchase is the best use of a dollar--luckily Mr Google is in my other window and after a bit of additional research I usually get a feeling for the theological bent of a writer/resource. Personally, I'd appreciate if Logos would keep an single theological focus within each of it's bundles--if I want to purchase several viewpoints, then let me do that as separate bundles or add-ons...I have done this before in order to learn more about areas of Christianity where people disagree.
I began my Christian walk weakly, then became Fundamentalist, then re-trenched into what I'd call Conservative...the larger theme for me has been to discover what _I_ believe and why _I_ believe it, trying through a deep focus on Scripture to become more like Christ; I really appreciate the ability Logos gives me to springboard off many other's analysis--although I worry about reading resource snippets without the fuller context their author may have intended and am watchful for resources that don't clearly jive with what I see in scripture.
0 -
Joseph Colombo said:
Peter, at the risk of prolonging things, I have two hypothetical questions to try to clarify your position to my own mind.
First, would you not purchase, for example, the WBC or Anchor Bible commentary because of the presence of Roman Catholic authors in the sets? Or, Pelikan's Creeds and Confessions because Roman Catholic materials are contained therein?
Second, would you object if Logos bundled the Classics of the Radical Reformation intotheir base sets?
Joseph, let me answer your questions. I might buy resources that have RC contributors. But the point is I have the option. I can choose to or not. The problem is when I buy bundled packages (i.e. Platinum upgrade) For me to take advantage of the "good deal" of the package I must pay for the catholic resources. I have three choices.
1. don't buy the package.
2. give money to rome or
3. pay higher prices for individual resources.
All I am saying is that it is a shame that I am forced to choose 1. or 3.
As far as the radical reformation resources, I wouldn't mind because they too are least "protestant"
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:Sharon Jensen said:
If
a friend is asking advice on where to go to church, ask them why they
want to go to church. If it is to "become a Christian", don't send
them to church - take them to the Word of God. That is our job - not
the job of a pastor who is preaching to who knows how many people(and
who knows what types of beliefs each of them have). A pastor is to
shepherd the flock. So if someone asks you something about the Lord -
give Him the Word THE Logos!we agree here to. But what about the friend who claims to be saved. and goes to a specific church because he was told that was the one to go.. How are we going to know if he is ok or not? we have to know what the church teaches.. not from hearsay.
Hi Bryan, I have enjoyed talking with you. I want to answer your questions. I think you will find that almost all people, not all, just a very high percentage, do not know what they believe, do not know what their individual church believes, do not know what their denomination believes,and do not know what the Word of God says. Therefore, as you are a friend to your friend and you have fellowship in Christ Jesus, you will see quite quickly what sort of fruit is being manifested. As you talk to him, you will see what he believes about the Word, because that is where the center of discussions will be held. Let the Scripture show him when he is wrong. Just to clarify, I certainly understand how wrong most churches are in their teaching. We see evidence of it in the church at large. People's lives do not line up with the Word. It's just that I don't believe you are usually fighting a singular error in doctrine. You are fighting against untruth-belief systems that are founded on little knowledge rather than on the Word of God alone.
Bryan Brodess said:we agree in part.. what about when a person tells you you are not saved if you do not speak in tongues, or were not baptised for salvation. Or do not take the eucharist. How can I explain why I think they are wrong if I do not even know how they are coming up with their belief? If I do not know what they believe and try to tell them they are wrong and this is whyy all I do is make a fool of myself. I learned along time ago even alot of stuff I was taught and held on to was wrong.. it was not until I studied myself I found out..
I believe you don't answer them according to what their question is. You answer them according to what God says. Get out your Bible and start reading it together with them. I don't mean this to sound flippant, but, what I have found many times over is that when you let God speak for Himself through His Word, it tends to shut people up. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. If the Spirit is drawing them, they will listen and hear, rather than tell you you are not saved.
Bryan Brodess said:Amen sister!!
But remember one thing.. this was my point from the begining.
when you stand in front of Christ. You will stand by what you believed.. not by what you were taught.. The pope, the prioest, the pastor deacon or discipler will not be held responsible for your salvation if they taught you wrong.. You will be held accountable for not studying and testing their words to make sure they were correct..
The sad sad truth is many are fooled into not thinking of this by being told no one but certain people have been given full knowledge of interpretation. and we should listen to them only..and not try to interpret ourselves.. I guess the Holy Spirit.. which is given to us s unable to help us understand.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer you said anything different. I agree with you. And I agree with what you have said in your last paragraphs. Don't let anyone ever tell you that you need anything or anyone else. God has given you His Word and His Spirit. The Spirit is your resident Teacher. His Word is Spirit and Truth. I am not saying you shouldn't check yourself out with others as you go along. That is wisdom. But God is able to teach you what He wants you to know - He is God, you know![:)]
Bryan, please feel free to respond to me in my profile comments, if you like. For now, I am so grieved by so much of what I have read in this thread and the other one similar to it (not yours and not all others, but many posts) that I must retreat to My Lord's feet and be still. Amazing - He is the One Who has been bruised by it, and yet I hurt for Him. so I run to Him because He is my God.
In all that I say and do, I am trying to exalt the God of heaven and earth. He is worthy!
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:Sharon Jensen said:
If
a friend is asking advice on where to go to church, ask them why they
want to go to church. If it is to "become a Christian", don't send
them to church - take them to the Word of God. That is our job - not
the job of a pastor who is preaching to who knows how many people(and
who knows what types of beliefs each of them have). A pastor is to
shepherd the flock. So if someone asks you something about the Lord -
give Him the Word THE Logos!we agree here to. But what about the friend who claims to be saved. and goes to a specific church because he was told that was the one to go.. How are we going to know if he is ok or not? we have to know what the church teaches.. not from hearsay.
Hi Bryan, I have enjoyed talking with you. I want to answer your questions. I think you will find that almost all people, not all, just a very high percentage, do not know what they believe, do not know what their individual church believes, do not know what their denomination believes,and do not know what the Word of God says. Therefore, as you are a friend to your friend and you have fellowship in Christ Jesus, you will see quite quickly what sort of fruit is being manifested. As you talk to him, you will see what he believes about the Word, because that is where the center of discussions will be held. Let the Scripture show him when he is wrong. Just to clarify, I certainly understand how wrong most churches are in their teaching. We see evidence of it in the church at large. People's lives do not line up with the Word. It's just that I don't believe you are usually fighting a singular error in doctrine. You are fighting against untruth-belief systems that are founded on little knowledge rather than on the Word of God alone.
Bryan Brodess said:we agree in part.. what about when a person tells you you are not saved if you do not speak in tongues, or were not baptised for salvation. Or do not take the eucharist. How can I explain why I think they are wrong if I do not even know how they are coming up with their belief? If I do not know what they believe and try to tell them they are wrong and this is whyy all I do is make a fool of myself. I learned along time ago even alot of stuff I was taught and held on to was wrong.. it was not until I studied myself I found out..
I believe you don't answer them according to what their question is. You answer them according to what God says. Get out your Bible and start reading it together with them. I don't mean this to sound flippant, but, what I have found many times over is that when you let God speak for Himself through His Word, it tends to shut people up. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. If the Spirit is drawing them, they will listen and hear, rather than tell you you are not saved.
Bryan Brodess said:Amen sister!!
But remember one thing.. this was my point from the begining.
when you stand in front of Christ. You will stand by what you believed.. not by what you were taught.. The pope, the prioest, the pastor deacon or discipler will not be held responsible for your salvation if they taught you wrong.. You will be held accountable for not studying and testing their words to make sure they were correct..
The sad sad truth is many are fooled into not thinking of this by being told no one but certain people have been given full knowledge of interpretation. and we should listen to them only..and not try to interpret ourselves.. I guess the Holy Spirit.. which is given to us s unable to help us understand.
Sorry, I didn't mean to infer you said anything different. I agree with you. And I agree with what you have said in your last paragraphs. Don't let anyone ever tell you that you need anything or anyone else. God has given you His Word and His Spirit. The Spirit is your resident Teacher. His Word is Spirit and Truth. I am not saying you shouldn't check yourself out with others as you go along. That is wisdom. But God is able to teach you what He wants you to know - He is God, you know![:)]
Bryan, please feel free to respond to me in my profile comments, if you like. For now, I am so grieved by so much of what I have read in this thread and the other one similar to it (not yours and not all others, but many posts) that I must retreat to My Lord's feet and be still. Amazing - He is the One Who has been bruised by it, and yet I hurt for Him. so I run to Him because He is my God.
In all that I say and do, I am trying to exalt the God of heaven and earth. He is worthy!
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
What if one of the
riders was carrying dynamite and on his way to blow up your wife and
children. How would you feel about subsidizing him?Actually, I feel it is VERY important to subsidize him through mental health facilities and teaching good reasoning skills in educational facilities. [:)] I speak as one whose high school friend was killed, along with his entire family, on Christmas eve by one who thought he was Jewish and Communist - they were neither. Yes, this was many years ago but the mindset of the killer and those who egged him on is a constant concern of mine.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
In Kansas the Catholic churches are installing baptistries for the immersion of adult believers.
Immersion is generally seen as the fullest image of baptism ... but what many people forget is that Catholic practices also developed in desert countries and at times, in secret. The pouring of water rather than immersion was a matter of practicality rather than theology - some is better than none. Sprinkling (rather than pouring) has not been a Catholic practice to the best of my knowledge.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Matthew C Jones said:
In Kansas the Catholic churches are installing baptistries for the immersion of adult believers.
I wonder if the Catholics water their baptistries or just let them grow on their own.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Sharon Jensen said:
(The Word speaks for Itself, you know!)
I'm sure that you are famaliar with Act 8:26-39 which has other implications. Like all of us, in my opinion - take it as such -you need to step back to consider where you learned your particular understanding of the role of Scripture and Scriptural interpretation. It is my personal belief, not a taught doctrinal position, that Satan's most successful ploy to lead us astray is making us certain that we are right. I hope that I never stop struggling to understand God's self-revelation - an aspect for which I admire many Jewish thinkers.
Yes, I am familiar with Acts 8.
Martha, we should not study the Bible to find implications. We need to search for clear, repeated doctrine and then believe such. What you have quoted is an event. Doctrine never comes from an event. (although it will never contradict true doctrine either) Events and implications need to be interpreted by clear, repeated doctrine. Scripture alone interprets Scripture.
Thank you for your opinion. Actually, that is what I did almost 20 years ago. I studied and am studying the Bible inductively and I learned my particular understanding of the role of Scripture and Scriptural interpretation from the Bible itself.
I, too, believe that Satan uses that particular ploy, although I don't think it is nearly as helpful to him as the one where he leads people to believe that they cannot know for certain "thus says the Lord". I do not know all things, of course. But that which I have learned in the Word of God, which the Word of God clearly repeats over and over, that which the Holy Spirit bears witness to my spirit--those things I can and do know for certain.
However, wisdom is vindicated by her children - so I always come to the Word of God with an empty cup. By this I mean that I am, in my attitude, pouring out all that I have learned previously, being willing to let God fill my cup up with truth. This does not mean I through out what He has taught me previously, just an attitude to learn.
A phrase I have heard is "Context is King."
I say, quite so, and add, in keeping with the truth that wisdom is vindicated by her children:
If Context is King
Then Observation is Queen
If King and Queen continue to rule wisely,
Their progeny of Princes Interpretaion and Princesses Application will vindicate their sovereignty.
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:swiss;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:12.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;
mso-ascii-font-family:Arial;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;
mso-bidi-font-family:Arial;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
text-align:justify;
line-height:115%;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->I am working out my salvation with trembling and fear. I tremble when I handle the Word of God. God says that He has magnified His Word together with His Name. I trust Him as the Author and Finisher of my salvation, to cause me to stand blameless before Him, with great joy! And therefore I may, and must, walk confidently and humbly in what He has said. (The two fit very well together.)[:)]
Sharon
wordcenterministries.org
0 -
John Bowling said:
which makes me wonder whether Martha is a lay person
To the best of my knowledge I am a lay person - one who has preached at a penance service at which 7 Dominican priests were present. I am known for being extremely orthodox - practically Medieval - which happens to often look liberal today. My tastes lean towards the east i.e. a great deal of the theology I read is from Eastern rather than Western sources. I have a good sense of humor regarding statements taken out of context or misunderstood because of the multiplicity of meanings assigned a word or difficulties in accurate translation. I had intended to become a lay pastoral assistant (i.e. run a parish that lacked a full-time priest) after retiring from my secular job - for a number of reasons, I've taken a different path.
And if you are going to quote Catholic sources, could you please recognize that it is a Latin rite within the Catholic Church that is commonly called "Roman Catholic" ... there are no "Roman Catholic" teachings, only Catholic (Church) teachings. There are church disciplines, such as priest celebicy, that apply specifically to the Latin rite. And please, spend a little time learning the scope of the authority, language and interpretational rules of the documents you cite. If you were to read Ludvig Ott, you would be surprised, I suspect, at how short the list of dogmas one must believe to be Catholic is.
And to put your comments on Luther in perspective - for years it was forbidden for a Catholic to be cremated because cremation was used by some opponents of the Church to emphasize their disbelief in the bodily resurrection. It is still forbidden if that is the reason for cremation - otherwise cremation is fine.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
my brother in law is a lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious to Christ.. after he was saved..
What branch of Lutheranism is this? It doesn't jibe with the few Lutheran branches I know much about.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
my brother in law is a lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious to Christ.. after he was saved..
What branch of Lutheranism is this? It doesn't jibe with the few Lutheran branches I know much about.
I don't know. I just know he does not believe, and claims his church does not teach it..
0 -
Dan Sheppard said:
I wonder if the Catholics water their baptistries or just let them grow on their own.
I hold to the God-made-only theory of baptistries - you set a hose above a block of granite and wait for the water to gouge out a hole large enough to immerse an adult. Oops - the hose is man-made so I'm going to have to reconsider my practical theology.[:D]
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
my brother in law is a lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious to Christ.. after he was saved..
What branch of Lutheranism is this? It doesn't jibe with the few Lutheran branches I know much about.
I don't know. I just know he does not believe, and claims his church does not teach it..
Can any Lutheran's help us out here?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
And if you are going to quote Catholic sources, could you please recognize that it is a Latin rite within the Catholic Church that is commonly called "Roman Catholic" ... there are no "Roman Catholic" teachings, only Catholic (Church) teachings.
The "Catholic Church" refers to itself as Roman (Catechism 834, Vat I 2.12), so I don't see why anyone would have a problem with saying that it's teachings are Roman Catholic. But I guess I can call it whatever you prefer.
MJ. Smith said:And please, spend a little time learning the scope of the authority, language and interpretational rules of the documents you cite. If you were to read Ludvig Ott, you would be surprised, I suspect, at how short the list of dogmas one must believe to be Catholic is.
Perhaps that depends on what Catholic you ask and what era you live in. According to this source, Ott's work isn't official Catholic dogma and, at least in the English translation, may have "theological errors". I find it a bit odd though that we now need a special hermeneutic to interpret Catholic teaching.
MJ. Smith said:And to put your comments on Luther in perspective - for years it was forbidden for a Catholic to be cremated because cremation was used by some opponents of the Church to emphasize their disbelief in the bodily resurrection. It is still forbidden if that is the reason for cremation - otherwise cremation is fine.
Since Luther's teachings haven't changed, I don't see how that applies to Pope Leo X's bull (esp. since he qualified it "For all times"). But I'll let you have any final remark here and bow out like I said I would.
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
John Bowling said:
The "Catholic Church" refers to itself as Roman (Catechism 834, Vat I 2.12)
No, it doesn't. Please re-read. This is a reference to the Church of Rome - that is, the diocese of Rome, of which the Pope is bishop.
The only place where the Catholic Church ever refers to itself as Roman is in ecumenical dialogues with the Anglicans... and in some legal documents in ex-English Colonies...
0 -
Damian McGrath said:John Bowling said:
The "Catholic Church" refers to itself as Roman (Catechism 834, Vat I 2.12)
No, it doesn't. Please re-read. This is a reference to the Church of Rome - that is, the diocese of Rome, of which the Pope is bishop.
The only place where the Catholic Church ever refers to itself as Roman is in ecumenical dialogues with the Anglicans... and in some legal documents in ex-English Colonies...
Well I didn't say I'd give YOU the last word. [;)] ... but then if I respond to you I'll end up making 20 additional posts...
perspectivelyspeaking.wordpress.com
0 -
Hi Peter,
Peter Cellini wrote, "Clearly, here in Logos Land the Reformation is over, Protestantism is dead, and ecclesiastical seperation is passe.
But maybe we can at least persuade Logos to credit the money we spend on catholic resources toward indulgences for our dead relatives."
I use Logos because it is a "Library System" and even in the most Fundamentalist of seminaries, one would expect the Library to contain books from a broad spectrum of traditions, literature, and science. The ability to read across a broad spectrum is what helps us, as Disciple of Jesus, accomplish one of two goals:
1. Refine and defned the Faith against false teaching
2. Learn and grow from traditions that are not our own, but still embrace the same Gospel.
I, for one, am glad Logos is in the business of helping me build a Library so I can grow in knowledge and properly discern the Word of God. The alternative, would be to trust logos to tell me what books are "approved" and which ones are not.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion brother, but where we part company is in thinking that building a good library marks the end of the Reformation.0 -
John Bowling said:
I find it a bit odd though that we now need a special hermeneutic to interpret Catholic teaching.
No more odd than I see the special hermeneutics of the myriad of Protestant stuff. [:)] However, should you ever want to understand what Catholics actually believe and why, feel free to email me privately.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Peter Cellini said:
Clearly, here in Logos Land the Reformation is over, Protestantism is dead, and ecclesiastical seperation is passe.
Peter,
Are you aware of the different Lifeworks collections put out by Nelson? You can have a Libronix library sanitized by your favorite theologian. There is the John MacArthur Library, The J. Vernon McGee Library (my favorite), Max Lucado, John Maxwell, Jack Hayford and even a Jimmy Swaggart Library! None of these collections have any Catholic material in them.
Joe makes a good point about Logos being a library. If you went to a seminary that only taught about what you already heard from the pulpit since you were little you would not be adequately prepared to encounter differing belief systems. The Masters Seminary (John MacArthur) would never graduate someone who hasn't studied about other doctrinal stances. All six of the SBC seminaries teach about divergent doctrines. Same with Trinity, Wheaton, Biola, Pepperdine and so on. If your objective is to stamp out the "infidels" as Al Queda calls their non-conformists, you won't get much support from Logos or the majority of forum readers.
Logos 7 Collectors Edition
0 -
I don't get what you folks don't get. I know all about the resources I should study and buy. I have been a logos customer for many years. I was also a catholic for many years.
My only question is why must i subsidize rome in order to get a good deal on non-catholic resources?
0 -
Grace & Peace to you Peter,
Folks do understand your question. Before I attempt to respond, I'll try to acknowledge what we've heard.
At risk of short-changing your position, you want to know why you have to buy resources that contribute to the Roman Catholic church in order to get a good deal on a collection. In essense, you're asking why there aren't protestant-only collections. For you, it's an issue of conscience, that you aren't in good conscience able to support the RC church.
Are you able to hear their responses? 9 pages of attempts to help you have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Bottom line, you & I may not like the packages. PIck a reason. But the choice remains the same. Either buy it or don't. Either way, stop whining & call Logos. They're the only ones who could give you a different answer.
I ask your forgiveness for being so blunt.
Grace & peace to you.
Grace & Peace,
Bill
MSI GF63 8RD, I-7 8850H, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD, 2TB HDD, NVIDIA GTX 1050Max
iPhone 12 Pro Max 512Gb
iPad 9th Gen iOS 15.6, 256GB0 -
Scott S said:
In November 2008, the Pope taught that Justification is
by faith alone. This news seems to have
eluded many people who are still arguing with outdated, instead of current
Catholic teaching.The Pope said in the article you linked, "For St Paul, as for all his contemporaries, the word "Law" meant the
Torah in its totality, that is, the five books of Moses." He seems to restrict "works" to only "works of the law" - the Torah in totality (he seems to be in agreement with the interpreters of the New Perspective on Paul here). But this is a reductionistic view of works. Anything that is done in order to try to earn God's favor, from "works of the Law" as the Pope interprets them to a NT ethic of love is what the entire Biblical witness seems to think should be categorized as works (cf. Eph 2:8-9). I do not think that anything the Pope says here is really in disagreement with the Council of Trent and the current Catechism. Rome still teaches that people can become righteous through acts of love. If the Pope does disagree with Trent, Trent anathematized him.
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Shawn Drewett said:
John MacArthur's book "The Gospel According to the Apostles"
For my own quick and dirty way of evaluating a teaching, I rely on:
1) Scripture
2) Early Church creeds
3) William A. Jurgen's Faith of the Early Church (patristic quotations indexed by doctrines)
4) Catechism of the Catholic Church
5) Ludvig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (which marks each statement with a degree of certainity)
Do you hold Magisterium or parts of it (i.e.Pope ex cathedra) as infallible, and equal in authority to the bible. If you do than your "quick and dirty" evaluation process is flawed. MJ, you seem very sincere, and intelligent, I do not say this to offend you. But, this is the bottom line to this whole discussion. One's view of the bible will drive his/her doctrine.
That said I have absolutely no problem with LOGOS providing Catholic resources. They can be very informative. Just as in reading any fallible commentary, if in reading them you come across something that clearly contradicts the word of God, the teaching should be rejected.
0 -
Mark said:
Do you hold Magisterium or parts of it (i.e.Pope ex cathedra) as infallible, and equal in authority to the bible. If you do than your "quick and dirty" evaluation process is flawed.
Yes, just as Judaism recognizes the Oral Torah, I accept the Magisterium - the thrust of which is that the Holy Spirit will insure that the body of faith will be passed on accurately - despite human flaws distorting the faith in differing ways. Considering my quick-and-dirty method covers Scripture and Magisterium (not just current but also historical), I feel that I am missing your point. What is your method of exploring a particular doctrine for apologetics purposes when you have no more than 4 hours to devote to the task? My quick-and-dirty is my answer to that question.
Mark said:One's view of the bible will drive his/her doctrine.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. The view of Scripture is a very fundamental difference between Christian groups. Unfortunately, I rarely find that individuals want to discuss those differences. I changed my tagline the other evening to a Russian Orthodox quotation that I think speaks indirectly to this question. I also provided resources via topics.logos on orthopraxis and lex orandi, lex credendi for anyone interested in beginning to explore the root differences.
Mark said:you come across something that clearly contradicts the word of God, the teaching should be rejected.
Absolutely - that is a good, solid Catholic statement. [:)] However, if you look at the sola scriptura theological school, there seems to be a great deal of disagreement about what it means. I'll follow the example of the Ethiopian eunch and allow myself to be taught until I am certain that I can accurately ascertain its meaning myself. Do not read that to mean I am an uncritical student - a teacher has to provide solid credentials (again see my tag line).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark said:
One's view of the bible will drive his/her doctrine.
Okay, I think I may have found a way to show how fundamental our differences are - without feeble attempts to contrast it to your view, which you could rightly said I am not qualified to do.
When I enter into my "church" (which can be anywhere) to celebrate Mass, I enter into God's time. And in God's time, I participate in the heavenly liturgy described in Revelation. In that heavenly liturgy, I hear God speak His Word (in three passages), I respond to His Word with a psalm, I hear His Word broken open to feed me (the homily). I then participate in Jesus' sacrifice of Himself on the cross and am fed His Body and Blood. In this God time, I meet Jesus Christ as truly present in the assembly, in the Word, in the priest, in the Body and Blood. After being fed from both the table of the Word and the table of Sacrifice, I am sent out into the world to love and serve the Lord - back into clock time.
This gives the hearing of God giving His Word (in God time) precedence over reading ink on paper in clock time. It puts the actual encounter with God in worship above the encounter with God in reading.
This view is not simply Catholic - it applies to the Orthodox and the vast majority of the Oriental churches. There are at least some Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans who either share or are sympathetic to this view.
Our chief work (office) is the Divine Office i.e. prayer consisting primarily of hymns, psalms, scripture readings and intercessory prayers. This is an outgrowth of the Jewish prayers at the time of the early church. The monasteries hijacked the practice and made it too complicated and time-consuming for laity but in various abbreviated forms, laity keeps stealing it back (origin of the rosary, for example).
The most natural method of Bible study to fit into this life style, is lectio divina leading to simply sitting basking in the presence of God.
Bible study as supported by Logos is secondary - critical for people involved in faith formation (religious education) at any level, for apologetics, for theology, for personal growth in the faith.
Does this succeed in giving you a sense of how I view the Bible - and the gulf between my view and yours (or at least many on the forums)?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark said:
Do you hold Magisterium or parts of it (i.e.Pope ex cathedra) as infallible, and equal in authority to the bible. If you do than your "quick and dirty" evaluation process is flawed.
Yes, just as Judaism recognizes the Oral Torah, I accept the Magisterium - the thrust of which is that the Holy Spirit will insure that the body of faith will be passed on accurately - despite human flaws distorting the faith in differing ways. Considering my quick-and-dirty method covers Scripture and Magisterium (not just current but also historical), I feel that I am missing your point. What is your method of exploring a particular doctrine for apologetics purposes when you have no more than 4 hours to devote to the task? My quick-and-dirty is my answer to that question.
MJ, This is no small difference. To elevate the Magisterium to the level of the Bible, will produce doctrines that contradict or add to the Bible (i.e. sacramental system, view of Mary, purgatory etc...) The Holy Sprit has insured that the body of faith will be passed on accurately, despite human flaws... this is the fundamental purpose of the bible, as it was written by "men moved by the sprit, spoke from God". No other writings carry this level of authority, necessity and sufficiency. The Holy Sprit never works in such a way as to contradict the Bible. This is why the Magisterium could not be a product of the Holy Sprit, and is fallible. The authority, necessity and sufficiency of the bible alone, is indeed at the heart of Sola Scriptura. It is why men like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale dedicated their lives to putting the bible in the hands of the common man, in a language he/she could read. It is why most LOGOS users love this software so much. Again, I mean no disrespect...
M
0 -
MJ
I wrote my last response prior to reading this response... I guess you are a night owl also. I need to think a bit about your current response. I may have some questions, is it ok with you to pursue further?
M
0 -
Mark said:
This is no small difference. To elevate the Magisterium to the level of the Bible, will produce doctrines that contradict or add to the Bible
I agree it is a significant difference - see the second post. However, the Church preceded the Bible, determined its canon, preserved it ... As a matter of dogma, the magisterium cannot contradict the Bible or add what is not at least hinted at in the Bible. If a proposed book for inclusion in the canon contradicted the magisterium it was not included. To understand the place of Tradition/Magisterium you need to begin by looking at the relationship between the written and oral Torah. Then you can trace how this Jewish heritege played out in Christian theology.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark said:
I guess you are a night owl also
Very much so - and I have to get up early tomorrow to take my Mother to the eye doctor ... either get up early or miss by caffeine fix. Yes, it's fine with me to explore it further - if others want us to take it offline, I'll send you my email address.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Mark said:
It is why men like John Wycliffe and William Tyndale dedicated their lives to putting the bible in the hands of the common man, in a language he/she could read.
Hmm, sound alot like Jerome into Latin, Sts. Basil and Cyrus who invented the Cyrillic alphabet for this purpose, Admitted Wycliffe and Tyndale had an unfair advantage - the printing press. For English -from timeline files I shared for L3: (one of the things I love about Logos is the ability to present and save information like this).
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark said:
This is no small difference. To elevate the Magisterium to the level of the Bible, will produce doctrines that contradict or add to the Bible
I agree it is a significant difference - see the second post. However, the Church preceded the Bible, determined its canon, preserved it ... As a matter of dogma, the magisterium cannot contradict the Bible or add what is not at least hinted at in the Bible. If a proposed book for inclusion in the canon contradicted the magisterium it was not included. To understand the place of Tradition/Magisterium you need to begin by looking at the relationship between the written and oral Torah. Then you can trace how this Jewish heritege played out in Christian theology.
I am sorry but I must politely disagree. And again ask where the humility is. Peter called Pauls letters scripture in his letters. There is a quote from luke, and it is called scripture.
God put the bible together. Inspired the writers to write it, And made sure every church had a copy.. otherwise they could not quote each other and call it scripture.
Scripture was writtten as the church was born.. Was the churches instruction manual, as the OT was the Jewish instruction manual. We see in the time of Christ what happened when people added to the torah. They rejected Christ, because they placed their man made laws above Gods ( and Christ purposely broke their manmade laws) we see the same today with all the extra biblical writings of many churches, including the church headed in Rome..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:
If you believe your eternal life is based on what you do on earth, and anything other than faith in the work of Christ ( this can not be constituted as a work for two reasons.. Your depending on Christ to do all the work. and Jesus himself in john 6 said it was the work of God we believe ( have faith ) in him.. then you believe in a works based gospel..
it does not matter if you call it works, if you call it means or pipelines of Grace.. you are doing something ( ie baptism, communion, confession, etc etc etc) in hopes of being rewarded by God with eternal life. That is a works based Gospel.. now matter how you try to twist it..
UM, really? Quite a bit of Luther's Protest was to try to make clear that the Word and Sacraments ARE means of Grace and are rightly celebrated when this is made clear. As a Lutheran, I very much would echo Word Alone, Grace Alone and Faith Alone as the proper way to proclaim Christ Alone, but this faith comes through the means that God has given us. As 1 Peter says, Baptism saves us.
I made am open statement.. And I stand by it.. how diud Luther come into it?? I was not speaking against Luther...
You may not have intended to speak against Luther, but while I applaud your much of your statement about Grace, when you start speaking against the Means of Grace you are attacking the way God comes to us, and the source of the saving word of God and of our salvation to Lutheran ears. This is why Luther had such a problem with Zwingli and eventally had to say that he has a different Spirit... As the Augsburg Confession states the official Lutheran possition:
"It is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God out of grace for Christ's sake through faith when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness in his sight, as St. Paul says in Romans 3 and 4. To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments. Through these, as through means, he gives the Holy Spirit who produces faith, where and when he wills, in those who hear the gospel. It teaches that we have a gracious God, not through our merit but through Christ's merit, when we so believe. Condemned are the Anabaptists and others who teach that we obtain the Holy Spirit without the external word of the gospel through our own preparation, thoughts, and works." (Augsburg Confession, German text, Articles 4 & 5 - trans. Eric Gritsch)
Bryan Brodess said:Grace means unmerited.. it means NO WORK.. if works are added, it is not grace.. Paul makes this clear..he also calls anyone who tries to mix grace and works a fool ( those are his words not mine)
There are many types of faith.. Do I believe God will keep his word and give me eternal life as he promised because I had faith in his work?? This is salvic faith. or justifiable faith
do I trust God when he says if I do this ( insert whatever sin you can think of ) I will damage myself.. and possibly damage others, and he has something better for me? then I am growing in Christ and becoming sanctified. yet this faith has absolutely nothing to do with my eternal life.
to say I must do anything ( be baptised, go to church, go to confession etc etc) in order to earn eternal life. it is no longer a gift, but a reward.. and this it is not out of grace..because it was earned, not unmerited.
As a Lutheran, I certainly echo that if we don't "have to" do anything to earn eternal life. However, things ARE done to us and we GET TO do things.
As the Anglican Phillip Cary put it, Luther is not quite Protestant in many ways. His helpful simplification is that "Protestants" generally have the following logic:
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ
Conclusion: I am saved.
However, for Luther the logic is a bit different:
Major Premise: Christ told me, "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
Minor Premise: Christ does not lie.
Conclusion: I am baptized and so have new life in Christ and can trust this and return to this no matter how I feel on any day.
See his article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2215011/Why-Luther-is-not-quite-Protestant-by-Phillip-Cary
Bryan Brodess said:again my argument is not against lutherans.. I do not my brother in law is a lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious to Christ.. after he was saved..
Lack of participation in the Eucharist is an old problem. As Luther lamented in the Preface to the Small Catechism,
"Finally,because the tyranny of the pope has been abolished, people no longer want to receive the sacrament, and they treat it with contempt. This, too, needs to be stressed, while keeping in mind that we should not compel anyone to believe or to receive the sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to administer the sacrament to them. This can be done by telling them: You have to worry that whoever does not desire or receive the sacrament at the very least around four times a year despises the sacrament and is no Christian, just as anyone who does not listen to or believe the gospel is no Christian. For Christ did not say, "Omit this," or "Despise this," but instead [1 Cor. 11:25*], "Do this, as often as you drink it. . . ." He really wants it to be done and not completely omitted or despised. "Do this," he says.Those who do not hold the sacrament in high esteem indicate that they have no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no dangers, no hell. That is, they believe they have none of these things, although they are up to their neck in them and belong to the devil twice over. On the other hand, they indicate that they need no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God, nor any other good thing. For if they believed that they had so much evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the sacrament, in which help against such evil is provided and in which so much good is given. It would not be necessary to compel them with any law to receive the sacrament. Instead, they would come on their own, rushing and running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist that you give them the sacrament."
And also Lutherans have always celebrated infant Baptism as God adopting us into his family. As the Augsburg Confession 9 says, "Concerning baptism it is taught that it is necessary, that grace is offered through it, and that one should also baptize children, who through such baptism are entrusted to God and become pleasing to him." Admittedly, there has been more than a bit of discussion as to what we mean by "necessary". Do I deny that Jesus brought the thief on the cross into the kingdom, by no means. But It is necessary to US to have something to trust, not to God. And when people claiming to be Christians say that the very special way we are united with Christ's Death and Resurection is not really important, I have very serious problems.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
When I enter into my "church" (which can be anywhere) to celebrate Mass, I enter into God's time. And in God's time, I participate in the heavenly liturgy described in Revelation. In that heavenly liturgy, I hear God speak His Word (in three passages), I respond to His Word with a psalm, I hear His Word broken open to feed me (the homily). I then participate in Jesus' sacrifice of Himself on the cross and am fed His Body and Blood. In this God time, I meet Jesus Christ as truly present in the assembly, in the Word, in the priest, in the Body and Blood. After being fed from both the table of the Word and the table of Sacrifice, I am sent out into the world to love and serve the Lord - back into clock time.
This gives the hearing of God giving His Word (in God time) precedence over reading ink on paper in clock time. It puts the actual encounter with God in worship above the encounter with God in reading.
This view is not simply Catholic - it applies to the Orthodox and the vast majority of the Oriental churches. There are at least some Anglo-Catholics and Lutherans who either share or are sympathetic to this view.
Very well said, Martha. This Lutheran would rather say "I am drawn into God's time by the Holy Spirit in faith" rather than simply "I enter into God's time". I would also want to add that while there is a very real participation in the heavenly worship, it is frustratingly partial. Luther once commented that he was never truly ever able to Pray the Lord's Prayer as he should. But this does not stop the Holy Spirit, and we are blessed with a vision of this heavenly worship which while always partial and leaving us wanting more, it is enough as our "combat ration" in this world.
MJ. Smith said:Our chief work (office) is the Divine Office i.e. prayer consisting primarily of hymns, psalms, scripture readings and intercessory prayers. This is an outgrowth of the Jewish prayers at the time of the early church. The monasteries hijacked the practice and made it too complicated and time-consuming for laity but in various abbreviated forms, laity keeps stealing it back (origin of the rosary, for example).
As a Benedictine Monk once told me, it is a lot easier to show that you pray a LOT rather than that you do it well. This is always a temptation for Christians, and not just those in fellowship with Rome.
While I am not totally sold on the Rosary, I was quite pleased at how Christocentic a devotion it truly is when it was explained to me. Some of my resistance is reacting against a piety where the people sat praying the rosary while the clergy were mumbling the mass with Sanctus bells to allert the assembly when something important was happening. Admittedly Rome has tried to encourage a view of worship like yours above for quite a while instead, but I do have some knee jerk reactions still.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Mark said:
This is no small difference. To elevate the Magisterium to the level of the Bible, will produce doctrines that contradict or add to the Bible
I agree it is a significant difference - see the second post. However, the Church preceded the Bible, determined its canon, preserved it ... As a matter of dogma, the magisterium cannot contradict the Bible or add what is not at least hinted at in the Bible. If a proposed book for inclusion in the canon contradicted the magisterium it was not included. To understand the place of Tradition/Magisterium you need to begin by looking at the relationship between the written and oral Torah. Then you can trace how this Jewish heritege played out in Christian theology.
Yes, the contents of what made it into the Bible was found by how it was used in Worship in the Church. However, the Church is always a child of the Word of the promise that Christ gives her. When the Church is doing what it should be doing it is assaulted with attacks on this message. To preserve this divine message the Church, when under assault, confesses the faith. Often these confessions of faith are in the forms of Creeds. Often times we have to use "unbiblical" words to preserve the Biblical content. The most famous example of this, of course, is "homoousion" in the Nicene Creed. That term is not used in the Bible. However, Arius was able to corrupt the biblical terms and in order to defend the fact that the word we receive from Jesus is God's final answer, we as the chuch are free to use "unbiblical" terminology to preserve the message.
If this Lutheran can dare to use a mariological example since Mary is understood as a "type" for the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mother famously answered, "let it be to me according to your word" and she sings and we join her song because "The Almighty has done great things to me". Jesus comes through the church's proclaimation through the promise of God given through his messengers. Since this is the case, is it not better to make the connection to our Lord explicict so we can better understand the history?
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
God put the bible together. Inspired the writers to write it, And made sure every church had a copy.. otherwise they could not quote each other and call it scripture.
Scripture was writtten as the church was born.. Was the churches instruction manual, as the OT was the Jewish instruction manual. We see in the time of Christ what happened when people added to the torah. They rejected Christ, because they placed their man made laws above Gods ( and Christ purposely broke their manmade laws) we see the same today with all the extra biblical writings of many churches, including the church headed in Rome..
Yes, we have the Bible we have because of God's will. But it is much more than an instruction manual. As we Lutherans put it - we must distiguish between the Law and the Promises - wherever they are found in the Bible. The Law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth come through Jesus Christ. If the Bible is only a list of instructions, then why did God come down to us to share our life at Christmas?
The arguement that "they rejected Christ because they placed their man made laws above God's" is questionable. First of all, the Jewish canon at the time was in flux. The temple Priests only accepted the Torrah of Moses, for example, as God's Word, yet we know how Jesus got along with them. Also, as Paul points out "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". But God saves us through his foolishness, and this foolishness gives much more than any law.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
We have gotten quite off track in this discussion. As I recall, this discussion started because an ex-Roman Catholic was upset that any money he was paying for his resources would financially support Rome because in his (and many of your opinion) Rome does not teach the Gospel.
If Rome teaches the Gospel has almost been talked to death here. But do any of the resources in the standard collections financially support Rome? Of course, to get a final answer, we need to look at Logos' finances, but apart from that, I have looked at the collections they offer. There is very little that is specifically Roman Catholic in the standard collections. I see the following:
Douay Rheims Bible - Old enough that it is public domain. I suppose it is possible that Logos is paying a bit for the electronic version, but looking at the info about the book in Logos makes it look like this is not the case.
A bunch of old writers that are important for many "branches" of Christianity (eg. Imitation of Christ, Augustine's Confessions)
I collection of Church Fathers with Protestant Footnotes.
A study or St. Cyril's theology issued for some reason without an Imprimatur.
Their Lectionary.
A few Biblical and Historical studies (eg the Ugaritic Library includes some Catholic scholarship)
In addition there is a collection by Anglicans who were recovering their roots...
There is, frankly little there that should be objectionable, even if you chose to object.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
One of the most important things I have learned from reading theology from outside my "tradition" is that why someone says something is at least as important as what they are saying. It would be good to try to understand this before answering or reacting. I admittedly certainly have a problem with this as well.
It is almost impossible to overstate how much Catholic theology is shaped by reacting against Gnosticism - the first great heresy the Church had to face. Because of this, Catholic Theology wants to talk about how the mystery of redemption comes to and influences our bodies. As the baptismal creed states, we believe in "carnis resurrectionem" - that our very flesh will be brought into life everlasting. As a result, Catholic Theology has a problem with Reformation formulations that seem to spiritualize away from our fleshly bodies.
Dogma is generally defined carefully and once defined it may be reinterpreted but isn't taken back. The way that it is reinterpreted is usually by adding elements to the story, so to speak. To some extent, you can see this even back in Chalcedon where Jesus is said to be "in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter". How exactly we are to talk about the two natures without confusing, changing, dividing or separating them is not fully defined and is still a task for theology and Christian proclaimation to this day. The dogma instead recognizes the fact that if we DO make it so that Jesus doesn't have a "real" human and divine nature or that certain things Jesus does only happen with one of the natures that this is a disaster for theology and is not the teaching of the Church. Likewise for the Trinity, they took two words (ousia and hypostasis) which had been synonyms and made a useful distiction between them, letting us talk about both the oneness and threeness in God.
While what is the truth does not change, the Church's understanding of it does develop over time. And the Church has felt free to take the time to listen for the Holy Spirit because she knows that time and especially the future belongs to our Lord.
There is also a heirarchy of truth in Catholic Theology. Some things are seen as more central than others. While none of it is viewed as being in error, to rightly understand the Church's teaching, you should not confuse frill with a load-bearing wall.
There is also quite a bit of diversity within the choir of Catholic Theology. While many essentials have been dogmatically defined, there is also quite a bit of room for God to speak in many different voices. As monolithic as the Vatican appears to many of us, much of what they say and do is to try to respect all these voices and keep the flock together.
This is why even when I see partial and problematic convergence expressed in the Joint Declaration of ten years ago, I rejoice. Unfortunately it seems that Rome has been more clear as to how partial this is while we Lutherans generally either reject it as not a full statement of the Gospel (which it does not claim to be) or celebrate it as a complete agreement on the Gospel (which, again, it does not claim to be). However, it IS a statement that much of our Lutheran language has a place in the theological choir, so to speak. Exactly how this is has not been worked out.
"It is not by reading, writing, or speculation that one becomes a theologian. Nay, rather, it is living, dying, and being damned that makes one a theologian." Martin Luther
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:
While I am not totally sold on the Rosary, I was quite pleased at how Christocentic a devotion it truly is when it was explained to me. Some of my resistance is reacting against a piety where the people sat praying the rosary while the clergy were mumbling the mass with Sanctus bells to allert the assembly when something important was happening.
I have much the same reaction ... my own practice is the Jesus Prayer with prayer ropes, a more Eastern practice.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:
You may not have intended to speak against Luther, but while I applaud your much of your statement about Grace, when you start speaking against the Means of Grace you are attacking the way God comes to us,
Sorry. But grace means unearned favor. So do I take the word literally and make it mean what it means. that it is freely given not because of what I did. but because of who and what God is.. or twist and turn it like you are attempting to do and make it something that is earned? Sorry but I can not twist the words God inspired. Again Paul made it clear.. if it is of grace, is is not through works otherwise grace is no longer grace.
If I give you a gift, and in turn tell you you have to do something in order to recieve it it was no gift. it was a prize you earned.. I can not make it any simpler. God said we are saved by grace.. it is a gift.. it can not be earned by any means, or else it is not grace, but it is works.
Kenneth McGuire said:and the source of the saving word of God and of our salvation to Lutheran ears. This is why Luther had such a problem with Zwingli and eventally had to say that he has a different Spirit... As the Augsburg Confession states the official Lutheran possition:
"It is taught that we cannot obtain forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through our merit, work, or satisfactions, but that we receive forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God out of grace for Christ's sake through faith when we believe that Christ has suffered for us and that for his sake our sin is forgiven and righteousness and eternal life are given to us. For God will regard and reckon this faith as righteousness in his sight, as St. Paul says in Romans 3 and 4. To obtain such faith God instituted the office of preaching, giving the gospel and the sacraments.
rom 3: 20 -
20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Proof positive as to why the law could save no one.. all the law did was prove we needed a savior!
Rom 3: 21 - 25:
21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:fo all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Here we se it. Justified by faith.. it is a gift. it is not earned.. it is not done through a sacramental system it is done through believing in him.. John 6: 29 makes it clear.. it is the WORK OF GO)D ( not our work ) that we BELIEVE in CHRIST.
rom 5: 25:
25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.
What was it that appeased the fathers wrath and saved us?? Christ death.. not a buch of sacramental works. but Christs work on the cross.. and how do we get it?? through FAITH!
Romans 4:4-6
4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:
Again paul makes it cxlear.. If you attempt to work your way to forgiveness through a set of rules, tradition or any type of "work" You have done nothing. Your still in your sin,, your debt is even greater.. But to those who, through faith, trust God.. Christ work is imputed to you, and your sins are forgiven.
The rest of chapter 4 covers how abraham was saved before the law.. so why are jews trying to still work for their salvation.. Thus I ask today.. why is the churhc still trying to work for their salvation through a set of sacramental rules and regulation.
Rom 3 and 4 spoke not one word of sacraments.. only salvation through faith.. not of works.
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:Grace means unmerited.. it means NO WORK.. if works are added, it is not grace.. Paul makes this clear..he also calls anyone who tries to mix grace and works a fool ( those are his words not mine)
There are many types of faith.. Do I believe God will keep his word and give me eternal life as he promised because I had faith in his work?? This is salvic faith. or justifiable faith
do I trust God when he says if I do this ( insert whatever sin you can think of ) I will damage myself.. and possibly damage others, and he has something better for me? then I am growing in Christ and becoming sanctified. yet this faith has absolutely nothing to do with my eternal life.
to say I must do anything ( be baptised, go to church, go to confession etc etc) in order to earn eternal life. it is no longer a gift, but a reward.. and this it is not out of grace..because it was earned, not unmerited.
As a Lutheran, I certainly echo that if we don't "have to" do anything to earn eternal life. However, things ARE done to us and we GET TO do things.
The only thing done to us that is important is to be baptised into Christs death burial and ressurection by the Holy Spirit of God where our sins are washed clean. and we are justified freely by having faith in the work of Christ on the cross. Once we are saved.. out of thanks to our new savior.. we do the thingts he asks. Like get baptised, take communion, assemble ourselves. And learn to live a life free of sin.. But this is because we are saved.. and have Gods power to help us do these things.. We do not do them to help us get saved.. otherwise we turn the grace of God to aworks.. and try to earn his free gift..
Kenneth McGuire said:As the Anglican Phillip Cary put it, Luther is not quite Protestant in many ways. His helpful simplification is that "Protestants" generally have the following logic:
Major Premise: Whoever believes in Christ is saved.
Minor Premise: I believe in Christ
Conclusion: I am saved.
However, for Luther the logic is a bit different:
Major Premise: Christ told me, "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"
Minor Premise: Christ does not lie.
Conclusion: I am baptized and so have new life in Christ and can trust this and return to this no matter how I feel on any day.
See his article: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2215011/Why-Luther-is-not-quite-Protestant-by-Phillip-Cary
Or better yet lets put it this way.. The demons believe yet tremble.. Why? they do not have faith.. Jesus said humble yourself come to the throne of Grace.. place your complete trust in me, and I will save you.
Those who try to work for it have failed to place their trust in Christ.. they are still relying on themselves.. That is why "few there are that will enter the narrow Gate"
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:
again my
argument is not against lutherans.. I do not my brother in law is a
lutheran, he does not practice eucharist. and does not believe water
baptism is essential to be saved, but is an answer of a good conscious
to Christ.. after he was saved..Lack of participation in the Eucharist is an old problem. As Luther lamented in the Preface to the Small Catechism,
"Finally,because the tyranny of the pope has
been abolished, people no longer want to receive the sacrament, and
they treat it with contempt. This, too, needs to be stressed, while
keeping in mind that we should not compel anyone to believe or to
receive the sacrament and should not fix any law or time or place for
it. Instead, we should preach in such a way that the people make
themselves come without our law and just plain compel us pastors to
administer the sacrament to them. This can be done by telling them: You
have to worry that whoever does not desire or receive the sacrament at
the very least around four times a year despises the sacrament and is
no Christian, just as anyone who does not listen to or believe the
gospel is no Christian. For Christ did not say, "Omit this," or
"Despise this," but instead [1 Cor. 11:25*], "Do this, as often as you drink it. . . ." He really wants it to be done and not completely omitted or despised. "Do this," he says.Those who do not hold the sacrament in high
esteem indicate that they have no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no
death, no dangers, no hell. That is, they believe they have
none of these things, although they are up to their neck in them and
belong to the devil twice over. On the other hand, they indicate that
they need no grace, no life, no paradise, no heaven, no Christ, no God,
nor any other good thing. For if they believed that they had so much
evil and needed so much good, they would not neglect the sacrament, in
which help against such evil is provided and in which so much good is
given. It would not be necessary to compel them with any law to receive
the sacrament. Instead, they would come on their own, rushing and
running to it; they would compel themselves to come and would insist
that you give them the sacrament."And also Lutherans have always celebrated
infant Baptism as God adopting us into his family. As the Augsburg
Confession 9 says, "Concerning baptism it is taught that it is
necessary, that grace is offered through it, and that one should also
baptize children, who through such baptism are entrusted to God and
become pleasing to him." Admittedly, there has been more than a bit of
discussion as to what we mean by "necessary". Do I deny that Jesus
brought the thief on the cross into the kingdom, by no means. But It
is necessary to US to have something to trust, not to God. And when
people claiming to be Christians say that the very special way we are
united with Christ's Death and Resurection is not really important, I
have very serious problems.I am sorry I have translated John 6 over and over again. As peter himself said.. YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE.. Jesus said we must take the word.. for those who eat his word will never hunger and never thirst.. The eucharist does not fit this requirement. because you keep eating over and over,, yet you still hunger.. My God did not lie.. I want to eat the tru food one can eat and never die.. Not a wafer I have to eat over and over again and still not know if I will die or truely have "eternal " life..
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:
God put the bible together. Inspired the writers to write it, And made sure every church had a copy.. otherwise they could not quote each other and call it scripture.
Scripture was writtten as the church was born.. Was the churches instruction manual, as the OT was the Jewish instruction manual. We see in the time of Christ what happened when people added to the torah. They rejected Christ, because they placed their man made laws above Gods ( and Christ purposely broke their manmade laws) we see the same today with all the extra biblical writings of many churches, including the church headed in Rome..
Yes, we have the Bible we have because of God's will. But it is much more than an instruction manual. As we Lutherans put it - we must distiguish between the Law and the Promises - wherever they are found in the Bible. The Law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth come through Jesus Christ. If the Bible is only a list of instructions, then why did God come down to us to share our life at Christmas?
Why did God come down?? Because if he did not come down.. we would have no hope of eternal life..
I do not agree. s the parable goes..Luke 18Kenneth McGuire said:The arguement that "they rejected Christ because they placed their man made laws above God's" is questionable. First of all, the Jewish canon at the time was in flux. The temple Priests only accepted the Torrah of Moses, for example, as God's Word, yet we know how Jesus got along with them. Also, as Paul points out "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". But God saves us through his foolishness, and this foolishness gives much more than any law.
10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. he Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week I give tithes of all that I get.'ut the tax collector standing far off would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, bu beat his breast, saying, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner!' tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Christ made it clear. the pharisee did not see himself as a sinner, thus did not need a savior.. He also believed, because he did a few OT sacraments that he was saved already..
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
But grace means unearned favor.. it means NO WORK.
from Logos:
grace, the English translation of a Greek word meaning concretely ‘that which brings delight, joy, happiness, or good fortune.’ Grace in classical Greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to the good fortune, kindness, and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds.
The LXX employs this word to translate the Hebrew root meaning ‘favor.’
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (357). San Francisco: Harper & Row.To me, the initial question to ask in order to understand each other, is who taught you that "grace means unearned favor? Bible Word studies are intended to ferret out such information, but they succeed only to the extent that we wrestle with the questions rather than accept our Logos generated report as telling us the answer. One of the substantial advantages of Logos is that, if we choose our resources wisely, we can get such questions "thrown in our face" when we would not search out such diversity in a ink and paper library.
I would also explore what you mean by work - if sometimes sounds as if even giving assent is "work"; I would explore what you mean by earn as you classify statements as "work to earn" that would never occur to me to include in those terms.
Anyone know of a good dictionary of comparative theological terms i.e. how a Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Calvinist ... theologies define specific terms?
I have also noticed something interesting in a couple of threads - how heavily Paul is quoted, how little the Gospels are quoted. This aligned with statistics produced in answer to a question (pre-forum) regarding what texts the Logos sermons used the most often. As I recall, there were some Gospels but lots of Paul.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:Kenneth McGuire said:
Yes, we have the Bible we have because of God's will. But it is much more than an instruction manual. As we Lutherans put it - we must distiguish between the Law and the Promises - wherever they are found in the Bible. The Law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth come through Jesus Christ. If the Bible is only a list of instructions, then why did God come down to us to share our life at Christmas?
Why did God come down?? Because if he did not come down.. we would have no hope of eternal life..
My point exactly. The Gospel is NOT law. It is MORE than Law. So when speaking of the Bible and its authority we should speak of it as more than just a rule book. Anything less suggests that all we need is Law and not a Savior.
Bryan Brodess said:
I do not agree. s the parable goes..Luke 18Kenneth McGuire said:The arguement that "they rejected Christ because they placed their man made laws above God's" is questionable. First of all, the Jewish canon at the time was in flux. The temple Priests only accepted the Torrah of Moses, for example, as God's Word, yet we know how Jesus got along with them. Also, as Paul points out "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". But God saves us through his foolishness, and this foolishness gives much more than any law.
10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. he Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week I give tithes of all that I get.'ut the tax collector standing far off would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, bu beat his ***, saying, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner!' tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Christ made it clear. the pharisee did not see himself as a sinner, thus did not need a savior.. He also believed, because he did a few OT sacraments that he was saved already..
My example was temple priests. The temple priests were quite different from the Pharasees.
Do you really deny what Paul says about the Cross in 1 Cor and Galatians? It breaks the legal system... Jesus became Cursed for us. This is folly to many, but to those of us being crushed under life's heavy load, it is the mystery of how we are redeamed into God's family.
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:
As peter himself said.. YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE.. Jesus said we must take the word.. for those who eat his word will never hunger and never thirst.. The eucharist does not fit this requirement. because you keep eating over and over,, yet you still hunger..
By your logic, may I only read the Bible once in my life? As Jesus himself said: "Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” We are fed from the table of the Word far more frequently than from the altar of sacrifice. And I seem to remember something about hungering and thirsting after righteousness ... but if I have fed on His Word once ...
Your argument is a example of why I like to use formal argument mapping tools - both sides believe that their responses rebut the other side's assertions ... but neither side recognizes the responses as rebuttals - classic talking pass each other.
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0 -
Bryan Brodess said:Kenneth McGuire said:
You may not have intended to speak against Luther, but while I applaud your much of your statement about Grace, when you start speaking against the Means of Grace you are attacking the way God comes to us,
Sorry. But grace means unearned favor. So do I take the word literally and make it mean what it means. that it is freely given not because of what I did. but because of who and what God is.. or twist and turn it like you are attempting to do and make it something that is earned? Sorry but I can not twist the words God inspired. Again Paul made it clear.. if it is of grace, is is not through works otherwise grace is no longer grace.
If I give you a gift, and in turn tell you you have to do something in order to recieve it it was no gift. it was a prize you earned.. I can not make it any simpler. God said we are saved by grace.. it is a gift.. it can not be earned by any means, or else it is not grace, but it is works.
Yes, Grace is unearned favor. But how does Grace come to us sinners? Does it just pop in there? Or does it come from the very physical ways God has given us - namely people tell us about Jesus by preaching it, baptizing sinners and passing on Jesus' Body and Blood?
The Gospel is not ... a "new law," on the contrary, ... a "new life." - William Julius Mann
L8 Anglican, Lutheran and Orthodox Silver, Reformed Starter, Academic Essentials
L7 Lutheran Gold, Anglican Bronze
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
But grace means unearned favor.. it means NO WORK.
from Logos:
grace, the English translation of a Greek word meaning concretely ‘that which brings delight, joy, happiness, or good fortune.’ Grace in classical Greek applied to art, persons, speech, or athletics, as well as to the good fortune, kindness, and power bestowed by the gods upon divine men, moving them to miraculous deeds.
The LXX employs this word to translate the Hebrew root meaning ‘favor.’
Achtemeier, P. J., Harper & Row, P., & Society of Biblical Literature. (1985). Harper's Bible dictionary (1st ed.) (357). San Francisco: Harper & Row.To me, the initial question to ask in order to understand each other, is who taught you that "grace means unearned favor?
Maybe it is to you, But I look at reality.. When one says grace is equal to a gift.. it means unearned. for a gift can not be earned, it is freely given, if it is earned it is not a gift but a reward.
second paul said grace can not be earned by works, or else it is not grace.. The problem with looking at defenitions is defenitions are given by people and are thus biased as to ones view.
Lastly, I have always knows that favor can be translated as something earned. But grace means only freely given, or thanks for recieving something you did not earn..
Scripture can not contradict. If paul says grace can not be earned by works.. then it can not be translated someplace else in scripture to mean a reward earned by works.. if the bibel contradicts it is a lie is it not??
That is one nice thing about logos.. it does give us valuable resources.. But one thing we must all take into account.. No matter what resource we use. Scripture must NEVER contradict. If God contradicts himself he is not God, if scripture contradicts itself it is not from God..
A work is anything done.. Faith is not a work. it is depending on someone else to do the work for you.. As I said repeatedly Jesus said in john 6 that it is the work of God we believe in him.. and what does everyone who believe ( has faith in his words ) receive?? Eternal life. Never hunger, never thirst, will be raised ( not delivered) on the last day. to me it gets no clearer than this..
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:Kenneth McGuire said:
Yes, we have the Bible we have because of God's will. But it is much more than an instruction manual. As we Lutherans put it - we must distiguish between the Law and the Promises - wherever they are found in the Bible. The Law came through Moses, but Grace and Truth come through Jesus Christ. If the Bible is only a list of instructions, then why did God come down to us to share our life at Christmas?
Why did God come down?? Because if he did not come down.. we would have no hope of eternal life..
My point exactly. The Gospel is NOT law. It is MORE than Law. So when speaking of the Bible and its authority we should speak of it as more than just a rule book. Anything less suggests that all we need is Law and not a Savior.
Who called the bible a rule book? it was not I. I said instruction manual.. How do I know how to get saved? the bible. How do I know I am a sinner? the bible. How do I know how to react in certain situation? the bible.. Instructions is not a set of rules. it is guidance.. The bible lets me know all I need about salvation. how to grow in christ. and how to act in every situation. It tells me who my father is, Who my savior is. What I am saved from. What I can look forward to.. My hope.. you name it.
The torah was a book of rules yes. But what did the NT writters say those rules did?? They led us to Christ..
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:
I do not agree. s the parable goes..Luke 18Kenneth McGuire said:The arguement that "they rejected Christ because they placed their man made laws above God's" is questionable. First of all, the Jewish canon at the time was in flux. The temple Priests only accepted the Torrah of Moses, for example, as God's Word, yet we know how Jesus got along with them. Also, as Paul points out "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree". But God saves us through his foolishness, and this foolishness gives much more than any law.
10"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. he Pharisee standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week I give tithes of all that I get.'ut the tax collector standing far off would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, bu beat his ***, saying, 'God be merciful to me, a sinner!' tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Christ made it clear. the pharisee did not see himself as a sinner, thus did not need a savior.. He also believed, because he did a few OT sacraments that he was saved already..
My example was temple priests. The temple priests were quite different from the Pharasees.
Do you really deny what Paul says about the Cross in 1 Cor and Galatians? It breaks the legal system... Jesus became Cursed for us. This is folly to many, but to those of us being crushed under life's heavy load, it is the mystery of how we are redeamed into God's family.
It is not I who deny this. It is whoever places a bunch of rules. Like being baptised in water, taking the eucharist, Confessing to a priest, Going to church, Obeying the law, etc etc etc in order to make the cross count towards your eternal life that is doing this.
Yes your right. The cross did break the law.. So why do so many want to put themselves back under a law by mixing works of any kind with grace in order to earn what God calls a gift.. eternal life? because I can not comprehend why anyone would do this..
0 -
MJ. Smith said:Bryan Brodess said:
As peter himself said.. YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF ETERNAL LIFE.. Jesus said we must take the word.. for those who eat his word will never hunger and never thirst.. The eucharist does not fit this requirement. because you keep eating over and over,, yet you still hunger..
By your logic, may I only read the Bible once in my life? As Jesus himself said: "Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.” We are fed from the table of the Word far more frequently than from the altar of sacrifice. And I seem to remember something about hungering and thirsting after righteousness ... but if I have fed on His Word once ...
Your argument is a example of why I like to use formal argument mapping tools - both sides believe that their responses rebut the other side's assertions ... but neither side recognizes the responses as rebuttals - classic talking pass each other.
Jesus said in John 6
Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
here we have the whole context of the passage.. This food God will give us..
the people then ask what work they must do in order to recieve this food.. what was Christs response??
vs 28 - 29 : Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
which is what I have been saying.. where are the sacraments??
vs 35 - 40 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Where are the sacraments here??
vs 35 - 40 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.
Here is the bread.. whoever comes.. whoever believes or has faith.. where are the sacraments??
vs 44 - 51 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. 46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[g] has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
again where are the sacraments... or the eucharist?? Christ is showing how we can eat once and never have to eat or drink again.. but liver forever ( spiritualy speaking.
vs 53 - 58 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed,and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
Is it not clear.. whoever has not eaten is dead.. Whoever eats is not only alive,, but will live forever.. why do you keep eating the food which God said you can eat and never die..?? it makes NO SENSE~!!
vs 61 -63 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Here is is.. can not get any simpler. Who inspired the word of God?? according to scripture the Holy Spirit.. Jesus claimed he never spoke from his own self but spoke as the spirit told him to speak.. So when we listen to what God said through the Holy spirit. not only the words of Christ but the whole gospel.. we taste the gospel.. When we eat it fully and digest it and have faith in it.. we are given eternal life.. It is not the eucharist.. it is the gospel which gives life..
vs 67 - 71 - Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?” But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Peter made it clear he understood what gives eternal life to whover eats.. it is the words Christ spoke.. John 1: 1 said in the beging was the word, the word was God and the word was with God.. the word is Christ.. who is salvation..
Just reading is not enough.. You must understand. and trust fully.. that is why salvation is because of faith..
How anyone gets the eucharist out of the above passage I will never comprehend..
0 -
MJ. Smith said:
Your argument is a example of why I like to use formal argument mapping tools - both sides believe that their responses rebut the other side's assertions ... but neither side recognizes the responses as rebuttals - classic talking pass each other.
I know exactly what you are saying. I have heard it many times. Always the same answer..
I said look at john 6. and somehow you went to 1 cor.. 1 cor and john 6 have nothing in common.. The flesh in john 6 gives eternal life to everyone who eats.. the flesh in 1 cor is supposed to be eaten on a regular basis in remembrance of the true flesh which was given to us..
0 -
Kenneth McGuire said:Bryan Brodess said:Kenneth McGuire said:
You may not have intended to speak against Luther, but while I applaud your much of your statement about Grace, when you start speaking against the Means of Grace you are attacking the way God comes to us,
Sorry. But grace means unearned favor. So do I take the word literally and make it mean what it means. that it is freely given not because of what I did. but because of who and what God is.. or twist and turn it like you are attempting to do and make it something that is earned? Sorry but I can not twist the words God inspired. Again Paul made it clear.. if it is of grace, is is not through works otherwise grace is no longer grace.
If I give you a gift, and in turn tell you you have to do something in order to recieve it it was no gift. it was a prize you earned.. I can not make it any simpler. God said we are saved by grace.. it is a gift.. it can not be earned by any means, or else it is not grace, but it is works.
Yes, Grace is unearned favor. But how does Grace come to us sinners? Does it just pop in there? Or does it come from the very physical ways God has given us - namely people tell us about Jesus by preaching it, baptizing sinners and passing on Jesus' Body and Blood?
So, Abraham was saved by grace.. who baptised him or what communion did he take? How about Noah, or adam, or david or many of the OT saints??
Grace is offered, we must recieve it.. how do we recieve it? by taking it in faith.
if you offer me a gift I do not have to take it. I can reject it.. Or I could mock your gift by trying to earn it.. even though you offered it for free..
0
