[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
so he surely would be labelled anti-catholic.
[/quote]
So, you admit he’s a bigot. Thanks for admitting you quote bigots to make your point.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:There’s a point I’ve been making for a couple years in here.[/quote]Your point is that you don’t know Catholics that actually practice Catholicism…yet you supposedly know what practicing Catholicism brings about. Lol. I’m glad I quoted this. [/quote]No Chris that wasn’t the point. The point was that the “Church” (I’ll give ya the upper case C for future reference) tolerates (I would say engenders) vaaaast apostasy on a truly multitudinous scale. Her pews are populated largely with ritualistic religionists who on the street would not be mistaken for Christians by just about anybody.
If I were to behave and speak in these forums like many of the self professed Catholics here do? And if it were discovered by my church (I’ll take the little c )? I would be brought before the elders, rebuked in love and prescribed a path of proactive repentance which I would follow or be denied communion as a first step. If repentance were not forthcoming (more biblical steps in there) I would be publicly rebuked and excommunicated lest the glorious name of Jesus be reproached and dishonored on their watch with their tacit compliance.
To be absolutely fair there are even more horrific specimens of alleged protestantism around here for which this would also be true. In some cases much more so.
I am not saying this to hurt YOU Chris. It may take a little while longer, but you will eventually see that.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
My Catholic friends certainly didn’t explain it to me with any sense of ‘gravity’.
And currently, the Catholics in my family aren’t exactly by the book either.
So, if it wasn’t/isn’t offensive to the Catholics I know, why should I be concerned?
You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[/quote]
The Muslims I know eat bbq pork with me every Sunday afternoon, I’m still not going to throw a dead pig in the mosque (whether the muslims I know care or not). Sacred is sacred, doesn’t matter whether the people you know are faithful or not.
[/quote]
I agree that communion is a most sacred act. I’ve always held it in the highest esteem.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Sacred is sacred, doesn’t matter whether the people you know are faithful or not. >>>[/quote]I will have to agree with this. It is not godly or useful to publicly profane what is sacred to someone else whether it is to me or not. (almost always and I only say almost because there could conceivable be some rare exception)
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
I agree that communion is a most sacred act. I’ve always held it in the highest esteem.[/quote]
Yet, earlier:
[quote]It’s very rare that I attend a Catholic service now…only for some family event.
But I still enjoy communion at Mass and I get some sort of defiant satisfaction out of it as an added bonus.[/quote]
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: You are so wrong about this it’s not even funny. Peter and John also bestowed the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-24, esp. vs. 18).
[/quote]Yep, missed that one. I only searched “Peter”. A lazy student has been caught.
This has already been pointed out earlier in our exchange, and I’m not disputing it.
Chris, this is what I was going to point out to you in regards to Peter’s name not appearing after Acts 15. The pattern on the preaching of the gospel was this:
…and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Act 1:8 KJV)
This is why the woman of Canaan was initially rebuffed by Jesus with this answer: “But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Mat 15:24 KJV)
By Acts 15, the preaching of the gospel has now moved to the Gentiles, and Paul was given this work:
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (Gal 2:7 KJV)
I am not arguing that Paul replaces Peter, or that Acts highlights a defect of Peter (have no idea where you got that idea). It is obvious they each have their own work. In drawing attention to the preeminence of Paul in the NT, I’m answering a hypothetical- If Peter was the leader of the Apostles, then we see him being superseded by Paul. If there was such a thing as a first pope, then Paul would’ve been the man, if we take such a man to be responsible for the practical and doctrinal development of the NT church.
And Paul was both these things. The record of the expansion of the church is the record of his church planting journeys. All of the pastoral epistles written to local congregations were written by Paul. The structure of the local congregation was prescribed by him. Even the revelation of the mystery of “Christ in you” (Col 1:27) was given to Paul. Notice his claim to fame here:
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. (Gal 1:11)
For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal 1:12)
And he did not consult with the others on it for 3 years, but began to preach “immediately” after receiving his revelation. He even calls the gospel “my gospel” in 3 places. Here is one:
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, (Rom 16:25)
That’s not to say Peter’s 8 chapters aren’t important. However, his contribution to the NT cannot
compare in volume or import to Paul.
In light of all this, I cannot take seriously the claim that Peter is the rock the NT church is founded on.
[/quote]
On one level, I see the force of your point - if an apostle’s influence or significance were measured by the number of texts he contributed to the biblical canon, his appropriation in systematic theology, and his role in the proliferation of the gospel among the Gentiles, Peter is hardly a blip on the radar. However, I think that is an extremely narrow view of what constitutes apostolic influence.
Almost a decade ago, Richard Bauckham published a work called “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses,” which focused on defending the gospels as compendiums of eyewitness testimony. He argued convincingly that each of the gospels present the testimony of various eyewitnesses. As an example, some of the gospels portray miracle stories with named figures, while others don’t. Scholars have traditionally asked why names are left out of some accounts and included in others. Bauckham, however, points out that the real question is why names are included at all, as names typically drop out over time in oral traditions. In reality, he argues, the reason why some names are included is because the particular author of the gospel is drawing from a particular named individual in the composition of his gospel.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because, as Bauckham convincingly argues, the people responsible for the original formulation of the Jesus traditions were the Twelve. In other words, the original twelve, including Peter, were the ones who originally taught Jesus’ teaching and framed the stories about Jesus’ life. THis doesn’t mean they made up the stories, but they did have a formative, controlling influence on how the stories were told. That’s in large part why, despite some differences, the gospels all tell the stories about Jesus in remarkably similar ways.
I’d say that makes Peter pretty important, wouldn’t you? Even if only as part of the original Twelve.
The point is, Peter was formative at the very beginning of the church’s life. He was instrumental in passing on the teachings of Jesus, teachings which the gospel authors and Paul himself would later draw upon. For example, Paul’s claim in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 to pass on what he received from the Lord, though initially seeming to describe a direct revelation, is actually a formula that refers to oral transmission rather than direct revelation. The use of the aorist of paralambanw (I received) with the neuter relative pronoun (“what”) was, in short, a common way in antiquity of saying, “this is what I was taught.” The teaching itself originally derived from Jesus (“from the Lord”), but it was passed on to Paul through the Apostles. You actually see the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
I’m not denying that Paul had special revelation, but rather that not everything he taught was a product of direct revelation. The rhetorical strategy of a text (i.e., what the author is attempting to accomplish through it) governs the text’s interpretation. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is arguing primarily THROUGHOUT THE LETTER that he and the other apostles are unified in their teaching, that the Corinthians are wrong to divide themselves up along party lines, saying, “I am of Paul” or “I am of Cephas.” Thus, Paul has no problem using the traditional formula for oral transmission, because it clearly shows that he and the other apostles are in perfect harmony in their teaching on both the issue of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11) and the death, burial, resurrection, and post-resurrection appearances of Christ (1 Cor. 15), as well as Paul’s teaching on the resurrection itself (1 Cor. 15:12-58).
In Galatians, Paul’s rhetorical strategy is fundamentally different. He is arguing for the uniqueness of his gospel as it pertains to the extension of God’s salvation to the Gentiles. THIS (God’s sovereign decision to offer grace to those neither biologically descended from Abraham nor observing the demands of Torah) is the uniqueness of Paul’s gospel - Gentiles are not required to submit to the Torah, to circumcision or anything else (Gal. 2:3). So yes, in Galatians (which you cited) Paul does seek to distinguish his unique revelation as something received directly from Christ, but even there in Galatians 2:2, he admits that he eventually submitted his teaching to the appraisal of the “pillars of the church” (James, Peter, and John). In other words, he recognized the authority of those who had come before him.
Finally, the extent of Paul’s authority compared to Peter’s cannot be judged based on the number of letters written. Paul pioneered the use of letters by Christian leaders to minister to their congregations; since Peter didn’t start writing letters until relatively late in his life, it isn’t really fair to compare Paul’s contribution to Peter’s. Paul may have been an innovator in the use of letters for theological communication (after all, all of his letters, including Philemon, are significantly longer than letters usually were), but that isn’t the same thing as saying he possessed more authority.
My point is, though his commission and his unique revelation was derived from Christ himself, Paul himself was shaped by the previous work Peter and the other apostles had done.
Also, Pat really wasn’t denying the Scriptural status of Paul’s letters. He certainly wasn’t saying that the authority of Paul’s letters is contingent upon the realization of their authority by the church. However, since God did not provide some sort of clear blueprint or letter dictating the exact contents of the canon, we as Protestants rely on the decisions of the Catholic church. We are dependent upon them in this area; as he has rightly asked multiple times, on what grounds do you recognize the boundaries of the canon as established by Catholics without recognizing their authority in other areas? If you aren’t dependent on the Catholics, why go to so much work to harmonize James with Paul rather than simply omitting James altogether? Why not leave out letters like Philemon or 2 John? What are YOUR implicit criteria for canonicity?
I will have to eventually come back to this post, but not until I get an answer outta dearest Christopher to my 10 scale question about his Church (see Chris, there’s that bid C again =] )
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
My Catholic friends certainly didn’t explain it to me with any sense of ‘gravity’.
And currently, the Catholics in my family aren’t exactly by the book either.
So, if it wasn’t/isn’t offensive to the Catholics I know, why should I be concerned?
You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[/quote]
The Muslims I know eat bbq pork with me every Sunday afternoon, I’m still not going to throw a dead pig in the mosque (whether the muslims I know care or not). Sacred is sacred, doesn’t matter whether the people you know are faithful or not.
[/quote]
I agree that communion is a most sacred act. I’ve always held it in the highest esteem.[/quote]
You certainly aren’t treating it as such. Partaking in defiance of Catholic sensibilities?
My argument is based on analogy; I am not calling Catholics here “the weaker brothers.” Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 8-9 is that each individual Christian must be willing to set aside his or her liberty for the sake of the family when necessary. In the 1st century context, that meant not eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols in front of someone whose conscience would convict them for doing so. In other words, there are times when you must set aside your freedom out of deference to your Christian brother or sister. You may not believe that the elements are actually the body and blood of Christ; you may believe that everyone has the right to partake. But if you are surrounded by brethren who believe that the elements really do convey grace and that those out of fellowship with them shouldn’t partake, you are being unloving when you partake. How does doing something that could offend your brother for no better reason than your personal satisfaction please God?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
so he surely would be labelled anti-catholic.
[/quote]
So, you admit he’s a bigot. Thanks for admitting you quote bigots to make your point. [/quote]
Is he a bigot? Is he intolerant of others opinions? It seems you are a bit intolerant of his opinions; that would make you bigoted.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: On one level, I see the force of your point - if an apostle’s influence or significance were measured by the number of texts he contributed to the biblical canon, his appropriation in systematic theology, and his role in the proliferation of the gospel among the Gentiles, Peter is hardly a blip on the radar. However, I think that is an extremely narrow view of what constitutes apostolic influence. [/quote]I don’t think narrow is the appropriate adjective. I have limited myself to what we know as fact to be sure.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:I’d say that makes Peter pretty important, wouldn’t you? Even if only as part of the original Twelve. [/quote]Certainly Peter is important; he is one of the main apostles. I have stated more than once I think that I’m not disputing this.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: The point is, Peter was formative at the very beginning of the church’s life. He was instrumental in passing on the teachings of Jesus, teachings which the gospel authors and Paul himself would later draw upon. For example, Paul’s claim in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 to pass on what he received from the Lord, though initially seeming to describe a direct revelation, is actually a formula that refers to oral transmission rather than direct revelation. The use of the aorist of paralambanw (I received) with the neuter relative pronoun (“what”) was, in short, a common way in antiquity of saying, “this is what I was taught.” The teaching itself originally derived from Jesus (“from the Lord”), but it was passed on to Paul through the Apostles. You actually see the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. [/quote]I wouldn’t have assumed 1 Cor. 11:23-25 means direct revelation, since the word “revelation” wasn’t used. I do not argue that the opinions of the other apostles weren’t important to Paul, or that he preached a separate gospel, or that he did not learn from them at all.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: In Galatians, Paul’s rhetorical strategy is fundamentally different. He is arguing for the uniqueness of his gospel as it pertains to the extension of God’s salvation to the Gentiles. THIS (God’s sovereign decision to offer grace to those neither biologically descended from Abraham nor observing the demands of Torah) is the uniqueness of Paul’s gospel - Gentiles are not required to submit to the Torah, to circumcision or anything else (Gal. 2:3). So yes, in Galatians (which you cited) Paul does seek to distinguish his unique revelation as something received directly from Christ, [/quote]His “revelation” referred to in Gal 1:12 is not just this, as this was something all the apostles were aware of early on in Acts. Peter’s vision was given for the purpose of showing them this. Paul added detail to this, showing that the Gentiles did not merely receive access to salvation through the gospel of grace, but were also “fellowheirs” in Christ:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29 KJV)
This was very radical actually, and even some of the other leaders among the disciples didn’t seem to be willing to accept it. I think the dissimulation of Peter and Barnabas which Paul mentions in Gal 2 has something to do with being taken aback by this added information. This is the “mystery” of the “same body” Paul refers to in Eph 3.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: but even there in Galatians 2:2, he admits that he eventually submitted his teaching to the appraisal of the “pillars of the church” (James, Peter, and John). In other words, he recognized the authority of those who had come before him. [/quote]This doesn’t seem to be accurate as you’ve stated it. I don’t think he would have been submitting his teaching in the sense of asking for their approval as authorities over him. At least it was not necessary for them to add to or correct anything about what he was teaching as Gal 2:6 makes clear.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Paul pioneered the use of letters by Christian leaders to minister to their congregations; since Peter didn’t start writing letters until relatively late in his life, it isn’t really fair to compare Paul’s contribution to Peter’s.
[/quote]I think Paul did so because it was his job to do so. Not because he was especially innovative. Peter wrote less because he wasn’t given the same job as Paul. It’s not unfair to Peter to realize this.
You’re a good student for sure. I guess I’m not clear on whether or not you are arguing for the possibility of Peter being the first “pope”. How about a succinct statement on that.
If I have time, I will address your last paragraph in a separate post.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Sweet Revenge wrote:
My Catholic friends certainly didn’t explain it to me with any sense of ‘gravity’.
And currently, the Catholics in my family aren’t exactly by the book either.
So, if it wasn’t/isn’t offensive to the Catholics I know, why should I be concerned?
You guys are the really the first serious Catholics I’ve met.
My real-life face-to-face experience has been with the luke-warm, former and recovering types.
[/quote]
The Muslims I know eat bbq pork with me every Sunday afternoon, I’m still not going to throw a dead pig in the mosque (whether the muslims I know care or not). Sacred is sacred, doesn’t matter whether the people you know are faithful or not.
[/quote]
I agree that communion is a most sacred act. I’ve always held it in the highest esteem.[/quote]
You certainly aren’t treating it as such. Partaking in defiance of Catholic sensibilities?
My argument is based on analogy; I am not calling Catholics here “the weaker brothers.” Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 8-9 is that each individual Christian must be willing to set aside his or her liberty for the sake of the family when necessary. In the 1st century context, that meant not eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols in front of someone whose conscience would convict them for doing so. In other words, there are times when you must set aside your freedom out of deference to your Christian brother or sister. You may not believe that the elements are actually the body and blood of Christ; you may believe that everyone has the right to partake. But if you are surrounded by brethren who believe that the elements really do convey grace and that those out of fellowship with them shouldn’t partake, you are being unloving when you partake. How does doing something that could offend your brother for no better reason than your personal satisfaction please God?[/quote]
My Catholic friends, escorts if you will, said nothing of being offended. When they finally got around to telling me Church dogma forbade it, trust me, it was with an eye roll. It was explained along the same lines that there will be no sex before marriage – right (!), as if that ever happened! So I certainly didn’t get the learned and nuanced education that you fine folks have here.
If anyone was offended, that would have been me. (1) To a visitor, I fould the Church to be mostly cold, sullen, mechanical and unhospitable. (2) I thought the CC tradition of not sharing communion with Christian visitors was arrogant and dismissive. I guess you could say I responded in kind. (3) I was compelled to assert that no dogma could or would get between me and fellowship with Christ, anytime, anywhere. What a disgrace to think that anyone would attempt to withhold that from anyone else!
Anyway, no need to worry. It’s nothing I even remotely go out of my way to do. Like I said earlier, it’s a very rare occurance to find myself in a CC these days.
I deny this emphatically. The reason is simple. I do not believe the early christian church = the Roman Catholic church.
[quote]pat wrote: This is what I see and I find it confusing. I am a Christian, you are a christian. As Christians we are called to love one another, to unite despite our differences and proclaim the kingdom of Gad together. We were separated by the sins of man, and perhaps the will of God as well. But we are to transcend this to be one body in Christ, despite our differences. We as Catholics are called to love and support our protestant brothers and sisters and to unite in Christ no matter the differences.
But I see you trying to tear us down, to bring us down, make us small and invalid, to say we are not who we are and that the whole thing is a lie and that we aren’t even Christian. Is this what you have been called to do? Try an tear apart your fellow Christians point out the other’s sins and say “See, look how very bad you were and are?”, to divide and sow the seeds of hate between Christians? Between Christians.
Like it’s not hard enough to be Christian in this age, now we have to have other Christians tell us we’re bad horrible people who’s history and truth have all been a lie and suddenly this new reality, nobody has ever heard of is suddenly the truth?
My history has sins, your history has sins. Why should I not point yours out?
“He who has no sin,…”. Just sayin’ [/quote]
Pat,
You say you are confused, so why not ask for a clarification, instead of accusing me of hating the RC and rewriting history? In fact, I don’t need to rewrite history to find ample negative material about the RCC. Actually, it is you who has attempted to rewrite history by trying to put the excesses of Calvin in the same league as the RCC. Anyone who knows RC history knows this a reaaal stretch. When I pointed it out, you brought up Westboro. A group of 40 relatives, your joking right? Their behavior is despicable, but I haven’t read they have tried to burn anyone yet.
I will clarify my intent for you. My posts have nothing to do with any anger towards Roman Catholics such as yourself. Still, please feel free to be as vehement as you feel appropriate. I was educated in RC institutions for 4 years, so have an interest in the institution. I came over to this thread because my conversation with Chris was moved here. I’ve stayed because I know something about the topics being discussed. Do you remember the OP? It was this-
I don’t know if Forbes is a RC, but its a legit question that I KNOW many RC have. My answer to the above would be:
- Make sure you know what Scripture says, and you can read it yourself to find out.
- If a tradition contradicts the above, abandon it.
Now, if you have spent your whole life as a RC, I realize this will be difficult. But, it’s the right thing to do if you want to walk with God, because “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psa 138:2 KJV)
As a non-catholic this is no dilemna for me. But there are other serious issues. If I were to find my church does or condones that which contradicts Scripture in a serious way, I could abandon it. For example, if Westboro was a Southern Baptist church, and I was also a member of another SB church, I would ask my local church pastor if the SB leadership has publicly condemned Westboro’s behavior. If he were to say no, I would then ask if he condemns it. If he agreed, I would expect him to leave the SB convention at some point, if they would not make a public stand against Westboro. If he would not do this, I would leave the SB church and never attend one again.
From the Wikipedia article here (Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia) -
In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.
How many of the guilty priests have been defrocked? I think only a small percentage. EVERY SINGLE PRIEST guilty of such a crime should be. If I was a RC, I could not in good conscience remain attached to the institution.
But, because you are tied to this institution as a spiritual slave, you cannot do it. You read this as my attempt to tear you down. What I’m trying to do is help you see reality. You can walk with God without the RCC. But you must know Christ as the Scriptures define Him, and trust Him alone for your salvation. The RC does not teach this; she teaches “another gospel”, as Paul warned of. If you trust in her doctrines, I don’t believe you are a Christian. I believe you are deceived. It doesn’t matter that you use the bible, or similar vocabulary, you are no closer to salvation than a professed atheist. In fact, you are even worse off, because you assume you walk with God like those in Mt 7, who called Him Lord and assumed they were accepted of Him because of their “many wonderful works”. But Christ said, “then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I know others who have left the RCC. It’s never been an easy decision. The first step is to see the lie, and my intent is to help you see it. I have spent hours typing posts for this thread. I don’t have ANY need to do so. I’m not here to debate you. Everything you have posted so far I have heard before more than once. If I have not helped you, perhaps I have helped some silent reader. I will post what I feel I should post; you may accept it, reject it, or avoid it. You may respond or ignore it. I will have no animosity towards you in any case.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:<<< I do not believe the early christian church = the Roman Catholic church.[/quote]Certainly not what the Catholic church would become. I believe God in His wisdom used the then catholic church to canonize a body of scripture that would stand for all time as the judgement and condemnation of what that church herself would become. A divine kick in the nads if you will. A public humiliation. Whatever that thing in Rome had become by the time of Luther and Wittenberg, anything vaguely approximating a Christian church was most assuredly not one of the possibilities. The perpetual torrent of loud public Christ dishonoring scandal and corruption is merely a symptom of her necrotic theological heart.
I hasten to add that in spite of this, I will not be the one to declare every one of her individual members lost in an ipso facto manner. Certainly any in her communion who would finally see God will do so in spite of and not because of that abominable “Church”. The God I know is THAT gracious. Think of it as a sort of semi hypocritical, hopefully thinking, protestant version of “invincible ignorance”.
I view this recent wave of ecumenism, Catholics and evangelicals together, as absolutely Satanic. It is a slick attempt by Rome to spiritually absorb all who call themselves by the name of Christ. I reject it. Categorically and permanently. I would joyously prefer an honorable death in the flames as a heretic and long for the days when those lines of demarcation were clearly seen by all.
My beloved Christopher will not be happy with this post. I am simply unable to do otherwise. My heart yearns for devout, sincere Catholic people seeking the Lord in the sacerdotal abyss of that Church. This is not enjoyable to me. AT ALL.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
But you must know Christ as the Scriptures define Him, and trust Him alone for your salvation.[/quote]
Beautiful. Clouds parting. Sunlight streaming. Books and voices fading away. Music.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]pat wrote: This is what I see and I find it confusing. I am a Christian, you are a christian. As Christians we are called to love one another, to unite despite our differences and proclaim the kingdom of Gad together. We were separated by the sins of man, and perhaps the will of God as well. But we are to transcend this to be one body in Christ, despite our differences. We as Catholics are called to love and support our protestant brothers and sisters and to unite in Christ no matter the differences.
But I see you trying to tear us down, to bring us down, make us small and invalid, to say we are not who we are and that the whole thing is a lie and that we aren’t even Christian. Is this what you have been called to do? Try an tear apart your fellow Christians point out the other’s sins and say “See, look how very bad you were and are?”, to divide and sow the seeds of hate between Christians? Between Christians.
Like it’s not hard enough to be Christian in this age, now we have to have other Christians tell us we’re bad horrible people who’s history and truth have all been a lie and suddenly this new reality, nobody has ever heard of is suddenly the truth?
My history has sins, your history has sins. Why should I not point yours out?
“He who has no sin,…”. Just sayin’ [/quote]
Pat,
You say you are confused, so why not ask for a clarification, instead of accusing me of hating the RC and rewriting history? In fact, I don’t need to rewrite history to find ample negative material about the RCC. Actually, it is you who has attempted to rewrite history by trying to put the excesses of Calvin in the same league as the RCC. Anyone who knows RC history knows this a reaaal stretch. When I pointed it out, you brought up Westboro. A group of 40 relatives, your joking right? Their behavior is despicable, but I haven’t read they have tried to burn anyone yet.
I will clarify my intent for you. My posts have nothing to do with any anger towards Roman Catholics such as yourself. Still, please feel free to be as vehement as you feel appropriate. I was educated in RC institutions for 4 years, so have an interest in the institution. I came over to this thread because my conversation with Chris was moved here. I’ve stayed because I know something about the topics being discussed. Do you remember the OP? It was this-
I don’t know if Forbes is a RC, but its a legit question that I KNOW many RC have. My answer to the above would be:
- Make sure you know what Scripture says, and you can read it yourself to find out.
- If a tradition contradicts the above, abandon it.
Now, if you have spent your whole life as a RC, I realize this will be difficult. But, it’s the right thing to do if you want to walk with God, because “thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psa 138:2 KJV)
As a non-catholic this is no dilemna for me. But there are other serious issues. If I were to find my church does or condones that which contradicts Scripture in a serious way, I could abandon it. For example, if Westboro was a Southern Baptist church, and I was also a member of another SB church, I would ask my local church pastor if the SB leadership has publicly condemned Westboro’s behavior. If he were to say no, I would then ask if he condemns it. If he agreed, I would expect him to leave the SB convention at some point, if they would not make a public stand against Westboro. If he would not do this, I would leave the SB church and never attend one again.
From the Wikipedia article here (Catholic Church sexual abuse cases - Wikipedia) -
In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.
How many of the guilty priests have been defrocked? I think only a small percentage. EVERY SINGLE PRIEST guilty of such a crime should be. If I was a RC, I could not in good conscience remain attached to the institution.
But, because you are tied to this institution as a spiritual slave, you cannot do it. You read this as my attempt to tear you down. What I’m trying to do is help you see reality. You can walk with God without the RCC. But you must know Christ as the Scriptures define Him, and trust Him alone for your salvation. The RC does not teach this; she teaches “another gospel”, as Paul warned of. If you trust in her doctrines, I don’t believe you are a Christian. I believe you are deceived. It doesn’t matter that you use the bible, or similar vocabulary, you are no closer to salvation than a professed atheist. In fact, you are even worse off, because you assume you walk with God like those in Mt 7, who called Him Lord and assumed they were accepted of Him because of their “many wonderful works”. But Christ said, “then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
I know others who have left the RCC. It’s never been an easy decision. The first step is to see the lie, and my intent is to help you see it. I have spent hours typing posts for this thread. I don’t have ANY need to do so. I’m not here to debate you. Everything you have posted so far I have heard before more than once. If I have not helped you, perhaps I have helped some silent reader. I will post what I feel I should post; you may accept it, reject it, or avoid it. You may respond or ignore it. I will have no animosity towards you in any case.[/quote]
Desperate. You, the supposed bible Christian, gets corrected on the bible (Jesus naming Peter, endowment of holy spirit, hierarchical church), and having been embarrassed, resort to this uninspired trash. Go join Tiribulus on my whack-a-doo list.
[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Go join Tiribulus on my whack-a-doo list.[/quote]whack-a-doo list? YOU ran away from ME after a critical unforced error my old friend. I may not have handled that as deftly as I should have, but THAT’S what happened.
EDIT:This especially, is not enjoyable to me. AT ALL. This situation with Sloth is the worst for me. I have genuine affection for him =[
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Desperate. You, the supposed bible Christian, gets corrected on the bible (Jesus naming Peter, endowment of holy spirit, hierarchical church), and having been embarrassed, resort to this uninspired trash. Go join Tiribulus on my whack-a-doo list.[/quote]
If I am corrected with the bible, I will not feel embarrassed.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: On one level, I see the force of your point - if an apostle’s influence or significance were measured by the number of texts he contributed to the biblical canon, his appropriation in systematic theology, and his role in the proliferation of the gospel among the Gentiles, Peter is hardly a blip on the radar. However, I think that is an extremely narrow view of what constitutes apostolic influence. [/quote]I don’t think narrow is the appropriate adjective. I have limited myself to what we know as fact to be sure.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote:I’d say that makes Peter pretty important, wouldn’t you? Even if only as part of the original Twelve. [/quote]Certainly Peter is important; he is one of the main apostles. I have stated more than once I think that I’m not disputing this.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: The point is, Peter was formative at the very beginning of the church’s life. He was instrumental in passing on the teachings of Jesus, teachings which the gospel authors and Paul himself would later draw upon. For example, Paul’s claim in 1 Cor. 11:23-25 to pass on what he received from the Lord, though initially seeming to describe a direct revelation, is actually a formula that refers to oral transmission rather than direct revelation. The use of the aorist of paralambanw (I received) with the neuter relative pronoun (“what”) was, in short, a common way in antiquity of saying, “this is what I was taught.” The teaching itself originally derived from Jesus (“from the Lord”), but it was passed on to Paul through the Apostles. You actually see the same thing in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8. [/quote]I wouldn’t have assumed 1 Cor. 11:23-25 means direct revelation, since the word “revelation” wasn’t used. I do not argue that the opinions of the other apostles weren’t important to Paul, or that he preached a separate gospel, or that he did not learn from them at all.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: In Galatians, Paul’s rhetorical strategy is fundamentally different. He is arguing for the uniqueness of his gospel as it pertains to the extension of God’s salvation to the Gentiles. THIS (God’s sovereign decision to offer grace to those neither biologically descended from Abraham nor observing the demands of Torah) is the uniqueness of Paul’s gospel - Gentiles are not required to submit to the Torah, to circumcision or anything else (Gal. 2:3). So yes, in Galatians (which you cited) Paul does seek to distinguish his unique revelation as something received directly from Christ, [/quote]His “revelation” referred to in Gal 1:12 is not just this, as this was something all the apostles were aware of early on in Acts. Peter’s vision was given for the purpose of showing them this. Paul added detail to this, showing that the Gentiles did not merely receive access to salvation through the gospel of grace, but were also “fellowheirs” in Christ:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29 KJV)
This was very radical actually, and even some of the other leaders among the disciples didn’t seem to be willing to accept it. I think the dissimulation of Peter and Barnabas which Paul mentions in Gal 2 has something to do with being taken aback by this added information. This is the “mystery” of the “same body” Paul refers to in Eph 3.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: but even there in Galatians 2:2, he admits that he eventually submitted his teaching to the appraisal of the “pillars of the church” (James, Peter, and John). In other words, he recognized the authority of those who had come before him. [/quote]This doesn’t seem to be accurate as you’ve stated it. I don’t think he would have been submitting his teaching in the sense of asking for their approval as authorities over him. At least it was not necessary for them to add to or correct anything about what he was teaching as Gal 2:6 makes clear.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Paul pioneered the use of letters by Christian leaders to minister to their congregations; since Peter didn’t start writing letters until relatively late in his life, it isn’t really fair to compare Paul’s contribution to Peter’s.
[/quote]I think Paul did so because it was his job to do so. Not because he was especially innovative. Peter wrote less because he wasn’t given the same job as Paul. It’s not unfair to Peter to realize this.
You’re a good student for sure. I guess I’m not clear on whether or not you are arguing for the possibility of Peter being the first “pope”. How about a succinct statement on that.
If I have time, I will address your last paragraph in a separate post.
[/quote]
I don’t really think the texts support your singling out of Galatians 3:29 as the primary Pauline revelation. First of all, it is questionable whether or not the apostles were aware of what I mentioned earlier in Acts. According to the timeline of Acts, it appears that Paul had already begun to preach when Peter received his vision. Moreover, Peter’s vision did not include the recognition that Gentiles did not need to submit to the demands of the Torah. If you examine the progression of the gospel’s spread in Acts, you see (1) it begins with the Jews, God’s chosen people, (2) spreads to Samaria (where those closest religiously and ethnically to the Jews were located), (3) then to God-fearers (a particular category of Gentile who worshipped Yahweh, supported the temple, and often kept food laws, but refused to get circumcised). Cornelius, as it notes in 10:2, was a God-fearer. Now unlike Paul’s gospel, Acts 10-11 does not contain any reference to the irrelevance of Torah observance, including circumcision. Rather, Peter’s realization, which he spreads to the church, is that even Gentiles have been granted the opportunity to repent (11:17-18). This doesn’t mean that they were considered exempt from circumcision; in fact, given the necessity of the Jerusalem council and the fact that the early Christians still considered themselves Jewish, it is more than likely that Peter and the rest of the Jewish-Christian leadership expected Gentiles to undergo circumcision and to keep Torah.
Paul’s unique revelation is not that Gentiles also are part of the family of Abraham, but that SINCE they are part of the family of Abraham by faith, and since the “true” Jews had ALWAYS been part of Abraham’s true family only by faith, circumcision was unnecessary. The church in Jerusalem was not aware of this; they thought the Gentiles were simply becoming Jews, and Judaism already had a paradigm for how Gentiles could do that (i.e., baptism and circumcision). The early church initially took up that paradigm; Paul came in and demonstrated why it was wrong.
Secondly, Paul specifically says that the mystery he preaches in Ephesians 3 “which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to Godâ??s holy apostles and prophets” (3:5). In other words, Paul wasn’t the only one preaching the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s redemptive purposes nor the only one to whom their inclusion had been revealed. Moreover, despite having received that revelation himself independent of Apostolic teaching, Paul did submit his gospel to be examined by the pillars of the church “for fear that he had run in vain” (Gal. 2:2). Granted, they did validate his gospel, but that just confirms my point. Paul recognized that they possessed authority; he wanted to make sure that what he was teaching was truth and not some private “interpretation.” He went to the authorities, not to some random believers in Antioch.
Also, I am not denying the providential hand of God in Paul’s writing of the letters. My point, however, is that what Paul did was highly innovative - he used the letter genre for unprecedented purposes and in an unprecedented manner. But if GOD was the ultimate determining factor in who wrote what book, then it seems strange to infer that Paul should possess greater authority. After all, God is the one ultimately responsible for the Scriptures, not Paul or Peter.
As far as a succinct statement goes concerning Peter’s potential status as Pope, no, I don’t think the textual evidence supports an early date for the later conception of the papacy or the attribution of that later conception to Peter. My argument, however, is not in defense of Peter’s status as pope, but rather in defense of Peter’s unique authority in the early church. You don’t have to deny the latter to deny the former, and I don’t want to be the one denigrating or marginalizing one of God’s authoritative messengers, especially one as influential as Peter was in the early church.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: I don’t really think the texts support your singling out of Galatians 3:29 as the primary Pauline revelation. First of all, it is questionable whether or not the apostles were aware of what I mentioned earlier in Acts. According to the timeline of Acts, it appears that Paul had already begun to preach when Peter received his vision. Moreover, Peter’s vision did not include the recognition that Gentiles did not need to submit to the demands of the Torah. If you examine the progression of the gospel’s spread in Acts, you see (1) it begins with the Jews, God’s chosen people, (2) spreads to Samaria (where those closest religiously and ethnically to the Jews were located), (3) then to God-fearers (a particular category of Gentile who worshipped Yahweh, supported the temple, and often kept food laws, but refused to get circumcised). Cornelius, as it notes in 10:2, was a God-fearer. Now unlike Paul’s gospel, Acts 10-11 does not contain any reference to the irrelevance of Torah observance, including circumcision. Rather, Peter’s realization, which he spreads to the church, is that even Gentiles have been granted the opportunity to repent (11:17-18). This doesn’t mean that they were considered exempt from circumcision; in fact, given the necessity of the Jerusalem council and the fact that the early Christians still considered themselves Jewish, it is more than likely that Peter and the rest of the Jewish-Christian leadership expected Gentiles to undergo circumcision and to keep Torah.
Paul’s unique revelation is not that Gentiles also are part of the family of Abraham, but that SINCE they are part of the family of Abraham by faith, and since the “true” Jews had ALWAYS been part of Abraham’s true family only by faith, circumcision was unnecessary. The church in Jerusalem was not aware of this; they thought the Gentiles were simply becoming Jews, and Judaism already had a paradigm for how Gentiles could do that (i.e., baptism and circumcision). The early church initially took up that paradigm; Paul came in and demonstrated why it was wrong.
[/quote]The must be circumcised AND keep the Torah? Then what freedom have they gained. I don’t see how you can square this with the decision of the counsel in Acts 15. And in Acts 21, even when all of Jerusalem was in an uproar, they confirmed the same, see vs 25.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Secondly, Paul specifically says that the mystery he preaches in Ephesians 3 “which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to Godâ??s holy apostles and prophets” (3:5). In other words, Paul wasn’t the only one preaching the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s redemptive purposes nor the only one to whom their inclusion had been revealed.[/quote]No he wasn’t. But I believe the doctrine of the “body of Christ” was revealed to him first. He told the others.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: Paul recognized that they possessed authority; he wanted to make sure that what he was teaching was truth and not some private “interpretation.” He went to the authorities, not to some random believers in Antioch. [/quote] Yes, after 3 years, he went and “conferred” with them.
[quote]KingKai25 wrote: My argument, however, is not in defense of Peter’s status as pope, but rather in defense of Peter’s unique authority in the early church. You don’t have to deny the latter to deny the former, and I don’t want to be the one denigrating or marginalizing one of God’s authoritative messengers, especially one as influential as Peter was in the early church. [/quote]Yes, I have said more than once I know Peter to be one of the main apostles. Why would you be perceived as denigrating or marginalizing Peter? Why would I.