royox
Member
Brutal reasoning. Guess that's what happens when you get cornered by your own "ogic"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Christianity [OT] The Word became flesh and dwelt among us
Brutal reasoning. Guess that's what happens when you get cornered by your own "ogic"
Airola
Member
Then there's no gospel.
I can't 100% stop sinning. You can't. Your mom can't. Your neighbour can't. Jesus was the only person who lived without sin and died without sin.
What if you can be without sinning until the last minute in your life and aren't quick enough to repent it? If that's ok, how about two sins before death? How about three?
When you call out people for living in sin and claim it is necessary to completely live without sin to be saved, and when you imply you are saved, you are making pretty big claims about your holiness.
It seems you imply people who live with some sin are endorsing sin. Or that they aren't repentant of any of their sins if they are still living with some sin.
Even when we knowingly turn away from sinful things and repent and keep ourselves from falling back on that sin again, I'm sure most if not all of us still sin in ways we don't even notice. Often we don't even know we are sinning. Often we do.
Everyone should always encourage people to sin no more and to repent and to stay living without sin. But if that's all it took and that's something we are able to do, we wouldn't need Christ at all. To me, the point of Christianity is to accept how fallen from grace we are and to accept God's mercy that came in Christ. And we need that mercy through our whole lives. It's not enough that you accept Christ and promise to be without sinning and be able to stay away from sin. If you would stop sinning after that, you would not need Christ anymore. But the fact is that you and me and all of us will sin again and that's why accepting our fallenness until the day we die is important so that we can have the mercy we so desperately need.
I believe that faith in Christ in general helps you to turn away from sin at least temporarily and at least from some sinful actions. And you certainly want to sin less when you have faith in Christ. But the best you can do is not to be sinless, but to sin less.
How about a person who was an adulteress, a liar, a drunkard, a fonicator and everything else now is able to turn away from all of those except from being a drunkard? Is that person still saved? Or is his fallenness in that certain situation a sign that he never was really saved and a true believer?
You know, this isn't that far from being a Pharisee. They made judgments on people's holiness by measuring their lives on the rules of God all the while being subject to the same laws and transgressors of the same sins. How is this different from that, except now you have also put the need to believe in Christ to the list of what you have to do and not do.
Personally I'm a wreck of a human being when compared to the glory of God and what I should be as an imagebearer of God. Now, I certainly do some good things and I certainly am often kind to the people I meet, but the ugly side of me.... whoah that's a tough thing to live with. Let's take only one thing I struggle with - gambling, which is pretty much based on greed. Even when I'm able to stay away from it I'm sure I would still have the lust to gamble even on my death bed. And if I could live forever, I'm positive I would fall into that sin or another sin at some point in time. The thing is that our turning away from sin should be so drastic that even if we would be able to live forever in these bodies and never die we would never ever fall back on any sin ever again.
So is there a line somewhere what comes to the potential of our salvation? Is my will to gamble and be greedy a small enough sin for God to "overlook" it. If it is, what other sins are? If it isn't, are there some smaller sins that might be overlooked? If there aren't any sins like that, how that would make you to be in God's eyes? Would you be someone who God looks and says "that Sax guy there is pure and completely free from any and all sins"?
The point is that we all are sinners. And while we ought to live without sin, we can't. And that's why we deserve the judgment we get. But with Christ we have a redeemer for those sins, and while we shouldn't and wouldn't use that as some sort of a "free pass" to sin, it's still the only thing that is there to both help us to avoid the ultimate death in God's judgment and also help us to sin less. While we can't completely stop being sinners, we still can trust in Christ to help us get closer to God and help us to sin less.
The reason this is the gospel, the Good News, is that it's available for absolutely everyone. From the most evil criminal to the one who has only stolen one candy from a shop, or the one who only once talked shit about his neighbor. I recognize my fallenness and can only put my trust in that if God loves even the worst sinner and if he's willing to save that person too if the person accepts him, then I probably have a shot too. If not, I'm screwed beyond redemption, that's for sure. Sometimes I sin less, sometimes I sin more. Sometimes I'm awfully repentant on everything, sometimes I'm in a bad mood and say fuck it to everything. Sometimes I repent more, sometimes I repent less. Sometimes I don't repent at all. And sometimes I repent that I don't repent. But something that always seems to happen is that no matter how much I have repented at some point I at some point notice I have fallen again - be it being unkind, be it lust, be it greed, be it telling gossips, be it being uncaring, be it lying etc etc etc etc. For some of my issues prayers and my faith have helped a lot in staying away from certain sins, yet still 5 years later I find myself being in the same pit of sin I was before. Sure, I try to get out of there again, and sure I repent, but I know that isn't the thing that keeps me out of sin and that isn't the thing that gets me away from God's eventual wrath. The only thing I can put my trust in is Christ's work on the cross. The core for the whole thing lies solely in that.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
So when Christ himself said to people sin no more, Or when he said don’t keep sinning or worse will happen to you, what do you think he meant by that? If you are saying it is impossible to stop sinning then I’m not sure I can say you know who Christ or the Holy Spirit is. This is my biggest problem with the Catholic Church. It’s as if it’s the church of sinners.
You know how often I’m tempted to go and sin? Probably daily. Could I do so? Yes. I used to do it all the time. I was such a sexual deviant not too long ago. I look back at those days and it disgusts me how far apart from God I was and thinking just because I prayed every night that made it ok. It doesn’t work that way. Not at all. I’m almost 100% positive that once the disciples were with Christ, outside of the one who turned on him, they left tsin. Pretty much everyone who he dealt with in the Bible was a sinner but the salvation came in following him.
Do I still sin? Yes. But the sins of my past are a mountain compared to the relative few grains of sand I have left. And I have no one to thank but God for that. Isn’t that whole thing part of the sanctification process? When we seek, we’re cleaned. He fixes us. I can only hope that by the time my body gives out I can say that I sinned no more.
As far as Christ goes, He is the son of God. Of course he was without sin. And even though he wore flesh just as you and I do, he was still never tempted by it. Repentance comes from turning from the sins and living as Christ did. By that all past sins are forgiven. He came to show us it could be done.
Here. What do you make of this?
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: “For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”
Hebrews 10:26-39 NKJV
You know how often I’m tempted to go and sin? Probably daily. Could I do so? Yes. I used to do it all the time. I was such a sexual deviant not too long ago. I look back at those days and it disgusts me how far apart from God I was and thinking just because I prayed every night that made it ok. It doesn’t work that way. Not at all. I’m almost 100% positive that once the disciples were with Christ, outside of the one who turned on him, they left tsin. Pretty much everyone who he dealt with in the Bible was a sinner but the salvation came in following him.
Do I still sin? Yes. But the sins of my past are a mountain compared to the relative few grains of sand I have left. And I have no one to thank but God for that. Isn’t that whole thing part of the sanctification process? When we seek, we’re cleaned. He fixes us. I can only hope that by the time my body gives out I can say that I sinned no more.
As far as Christ goes, He is the son of God. Of course he was without sin. And even though he wore flesh just as you and I do, he was still never tempted by it. Repentance comes from turning from the sins and living as Christ did. By that all past sins are forgiven. He came to show us it could be done.
Here. What do you make of this?
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people.” It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. But recall the former days in which, after you were illuminated, you endured a great struggle with sufferings: partly while you were made a spectacle both by reproaches and tribulations, and partly while you became companions of those who were so treated; for you had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your goods, knowing that you have a better and an enduring possession for yourselves in heaven. Therefore do not cast away your confidence, which has great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that after you have done the will of God, you may receive the promise: “For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”
Hebrews 10:26-39 NKJV
Last edited:
Airola
Member
First of all, Jesus hadn't died yet and hadn't risen from the dead yet. He only said "it is finished" at a certain point of his life. What was finished?
Of course he says "sin no more" and he doesn't mean only that one sin but all of them. That's what we are measured against. If you want to be as perfect as Christ, you will do zero sins ever, even if you continued living a million years from now. Zero. Ever. Anything more than that and you are not perfect anymore.
People were made to be that perfect, but even the first ones ever, Adam and Eve, failed in that. And we never became better.
Of course Jesus wouldn't go and say "sin a little bit less." No, his words come from the perfect mouth and tells what is the standard for perfection. Anything less than saying "sin no more" would be against his nature. But that was God's stand on things from the very beginning.
And really, yeah we should tell people to sin no more too. But the thing is that while it's ok and good to tell that, we can't use it to create a divide between each other. When you say to someone that they should sin no more, you should be including yourself in that command/suggestion at the same time too. If you are still sinning after you tell others to sin no more and if you are scolding others for still sinning, then you would be a hypocrite. But it of course doesn't mean we all shouldn't be thinking everyone should stop sinning completely. It's just that we maybe should know our nature better in that we are still subject to the same fallenness and that we are all still standing on the same ground in a world subject to God's wrath some day. We can teach. We can tell people if something they do is wrong. But we should stay humble in that we know our own nature is not any better than that.
When Jesus told the adulterer that she shouldn't sin anymore, part of the story was also heavily about sinful people judging sinful people. While he tells the woman to sin no more, he also figuratively gives "the middle finger" to all the sinful people around the woman who were ignoring their own sins and pointing another person's sins to the point that they were ready to end her life. "Sin no more" is not the only thing to learn from this story.
It looks as if you are still on one sort of a "high" from getting really into the faith, and I hope you will never lose that. But it tends to bring in certain sense of self-righteousness in that one would start to put their own perceived sinlessness on a pedestal and downplaying the sins they still do while starting to focus on the sins other people do.
So what part of "sin no more" you don't understand then if you have those relative few grains of sand still left? What if you'll die tomorrow? Or the next minute? Would those grains be held against you in a way that makes you lose your salvation?
Plus are you sure you aren't just noticing the most notable sins in you going away but are not seeing all the other sins that don't seem to be as terrible when compared to the big ones? I mean, for an alcoholic it's a major sign and a major triumph when they get their alcohol problem away. Every day they are without alcohol feels like they have won another day. And that triumph feels so huge they never see the other underlying problems. And sometimes they might even get new sins from losing one. An ex-alcoholic could become bitter and resentful and judgemental towards some others. It doesn't stop turning away from that one sin from being a major triumph but it doesn't really necessarily solve other problems that feel less serious when compared to that one big thing. Like in your case it feels as if you have become more dismissive towards others in certain situations around certain topics because of your triumph - and I'm afraid that might be counted as a sin too. Now, I don't know your heart and all we see here are words written so I don't know if there is any real animosity behind the words and I certainly wouldn't know how you would treat people you meet in real life. Could very well be you're the nicest person ever to them.
Look, I totally agree that we will sin less when we are walking with Christ. But just as you have shown here, we are not really completely free from sin even during that walk. You have just admitted yourself that you still sin. And you are even downplaying those sins because you feel you have conquered some bigger sins. But really, a sin is a sin. There's no way around it. I don't mean to say you turning away from some sin is done in vain. Even if you at some point would cave in temptation it was amazing that you were able to do it as long as you did. And we should always encourage others that if you were able to turn away from it once, you will be able to turn away from it again. Or better yet, if God was able to help you once, he is able to help you again. But what no-one can guarantee is that you will stay away from it forever. As I said before, your conviction should be so big that even if you lived forever you would be able to say right now that you wouldn't ever do it again in literally a million years. And if you were to say that, you would have to explain why do you still have those "relatively small grains" of sin with you.
Do you know anyone who claims to sin no more? Do you think there are old Christians who would say "no, I haven't sinned a single sin anymore"?
And please don't get me wrong. I don't want to undermine your triumph. And I don't want to grow a seed that makes you think you can't stay away from some certain sin that has been very troublesome. I sincerely hope you can stay away from those sins forever and I believe it is possible to stay away from certain sins. I'm just saying we can never be completely rid of all of them - not in this life. I think we should aim to get rid of them though.
I'm saying that just as you feel you have got rid of some huge sin, who says the people you claim that live in sin haven't got rid of some other sins? Your sins are your sins. Their sins are theirs. While you can turn away from one and still have some sins lingering in you, the people you are accusing of living in sin might surely have their sins still lingering in them but they could've turned away from something else. And you would never know that because they don't do that sin anymore. So whenever we judge others of living in sin we should always remember that they probably have done other sinful things that they have been able to turn away from. They could as well look at you and see the sins you still do, and while those sins look just small grains to you they might see those sins a massive hill. That's because they don't know how huge mountain of sin you have already been turned away from. And just like they don't know your heart, you don't know theirs.
It's someone encouraging people to stay in faith in time when they were expecting the end coming any day now all the while being persecuted, tortured and killed by others. Encouraging to continue being good and having faith even when facing terrible times. Ultimately it's better to be mistreated than to cave in to sin.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
It’s a process. I don’t believe it’s possible to stop sinning over a few days after spending decades doing so. But eventually yes. You’d want to kick the habit completely. Sin is no different than any other addiction. In fact it’s greatly capitalized upon. And I’m not accusing anyone of living in sin. I’m saying Christ always said to leave sin. What is repentance if you don’t leave sin?
Go back to him telling many to leave sin and not to sin. Think about this. Why would he tell people to leave sin if their sins would be forgiven anyway? You think after he died those people were like, OH WHAT? He’s GONE? My sins are paid in full? LETS SPEND OUR SOULS! No. In fact saying that his death covered everything and that’s that would make him a liar because he explicitly told people not to. There was no “oh just wait til I’m gone TEEHEE”
Go back to him telling many to leave sin and not to sin. Think about this. Why would he tell people to leave sin if their sins would be forgiven anyway? You think after he died those people were like, OH WHAT? He’s GONE? My sins are paid in full? LETS SPEND OUR SOULS! No. In fact saying that his death covered everything and that’s that would make him a liar because he explicitly told people not to. There was no “oh just wait til I’m gone TEEHEE”
Last edited:
appaws
Banned
It's not. There has not been one example of a Catholic telling a non-Catholic that they are not Christian. Just orthodox Christians trying to discuss topics relating to Christian belief...and being met with insults, anti-Catholic bigotry, and endless walls of text from a single ego-maniacal poster that prevent any sustained discussion from happening.
I have been on Neogaf for over 10 years. Much of that time being the bete noir of the constant anti-gun threads, and I have never blocked a single user until now. I finally blocked Sax. Not because I don't like arguing, I am an attorney after all. And my best friend is a very committed Lutheran, we argue all the time about these things (although usually over beer!). It just isn't fun anymore.
Last edited:
appaws
Banned
You are absolutely right about this, taken in a Christian context.
The problem with your approach though is that this story is constantly trotted out by non-believers and justifiers of immorality as an (supposed) example of Jesus being non-judgmental. We always have to remind them of the last part, the "sin no more" part, because that is what THEY LEAVE OUT!
They want a Christ who says modern pseudo-philosophical things that justify ongoing sin. A hippy Jesus who says everything is OK as long as it is between two consenting adults.
We can't give in to that. It is a lie from the Devil. Yes, people should not be hypocrites and condemn others while sinning themselves. But remember, God doesn't adjust his moral judgments to conform to that of modernity. The same things are wrong now that were wrong in first-century Palestine....and Christians have a duty to tell people that, even when they don't like it.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Christ would be considered a bigot in today’s world view. Odd how I get blocked when we actually agree on how sin works. 
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Then come back telling things about churches filled with sinners when you are finally not one yourself.
Do you think you will never do any of the sinful actions you have already repented? Or maybe a better question is to directly ask have you ever even once made a sinful action you had previously repented? Have you ever repented doing something you had repented before? If so, how could you ever say you have turned from sin? Who knows when is the next time you repent something you have repented once or twice or more times before. Who knows when is the next time you repent something you didn't at first even realize you had to repent. Who knows what sins get you by surprise that you didn't even know existed in you.
If you really think that is not going to happen to you, well, I tell you you have some tough times ahead with yourself. Optimism is great, but we got to keep it real. Jesus might tell us to sin no more but he also told an awful lot of examples on how impossible it is to us to be completely pure. Not only the act of adultery is bad but mere lust is just as bad. Not only being violent is bad but just calling a brother stupid is somehow even worse. We should pluck our eyes out if they tempt us. We should be willing to hate our mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters and ourselves because sin lives in us and our families and everyone. He goes on to say it's like a camel trying to fit through the eye of a needle. I very much believe he told this to show how it seems to be pretty much impossible for us and to say how there's no way around that fact and that's why we need a Savior.
I personally don't know a single person who has been able to get that far in being sinless. Maybe you end up being the first I know about. If that really is so, I honestly am glad for you.
Huh? I'm not understanding you here. Do you think the only consequence of sin is damnation after death? That the reason to be without sin is to be at ease with God?
Sinful actions have harmful consequences right now. Not just after we have died but right now. The consequences were there thousands of years ago. The consequences are here now. Sin is not bad just because it goes against God but it's bad because of what it does in this world too. It's not as if forgiveness takes away all the damage sin has caused or will cause. We may be forgiven but sin continues to break the world. It's not only important to turn away from sin just because your relationship with God will be better, but also because it makes this world be less against what God wants it to be and it makes this world to be less broken. Of course he would tell everyone to not sin even if we would be forgiven.
I totally understand Jesus calls everyone to be without sin. I think that's not an issue to anyone. But the issue is when people claim to be without sin and holding themselves above others because of that. That was the issue with Pharisees. That was the issue with the townspeople versus the adulteress.
If being completely sinless is what counts, what is the Gospel then? What is the Good News? Why did Jesus die? Why did Jesus have to die by the hands of executioners? Would've it just been ok to let Jesus say his thing and let people follow his example? Why have Jesus here at all?
Well, you did call Luther a heretic and called certain types of believers apostates. I'm not seeing that much difference in Sax's opinion of the Pope and Catholics (you did put some other Catholics in the same category of apostates though, I'll give you that).
And Bolivar did say a person following Christ has to be a Roman Catholic.
While I have no real issue with people saying that, it's not as if this thread didn't have a relatively big pro-Catholic and a slight anti-nonCatholic "bias" in its first few pages. Back then I had no idea though that things could get this harsh from a completely different angle. While I first was ready to defend a non-catholic position I sorta grew a major will to defend Catholicism, or at least parts of Catholicism, because of him.
Yeah, I actually tried to write something about that right after the part that you quoted. I tried to write something about it being a conclusive remark that should shut any possible loophole people might wrongly interpret from that. I had a hard time to construct understandable enough sentences so I ended up deleting what I had started to write. I figured maybe it's enough to just leave it in it's not the only part of the story that's important there. I mean, obviously we shouldn't leave that out - and I've told that several times myself when debating about things - but we also shouldn't forget that even if there are people who want to interpret it for their own gain it doesn't mean that part doesn't have as much merit as the "sin no more" part. It's really easy to just focus in one of the teachings there while it's really both mixed together where the core is.
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
The people who Christ told to sin no more literally walked WITH him. They witnessed him in the flesh. We don’t have that advantage. Nor is the world what it was back then. I can’t even imagine how many times over sin has multiplied. How much lifestyles of sin are celebrated. People weren’t born being force fed sin on a daily basis. I truly believe that’s one of the reasons Christ said we’d do things greater than He.
Let me give you an example and I’ll use something unique to Catholicism. In exorcisms it’s said that the priest have to be free from sin or the demons will use that weakness against them during the exorcism. If we truly had people following Christ, church leaders would be healing people of illnesses and casting out demons left and right. Instead we’re left with medications that mask and band aid serious problems as well as infestations misdiagnosed as a myriad of things.
I’m also not sure why you think I’m putting myself above anyone when I admit that I still sin. Aren’t there scriptures about those who are TURNING away? Doesn’t it say to gently restore those who are caught in sin? If I’m telling you these things perhaps I’m trying to help you by giving you what was given to me. And yes you’re right there are many things that sinning has an effect on. It’s a ripple. I’m pretty sure I explained gaining that understanding a few pages back. It takes understanding all the whys to repent. Maybe I don’t have all of them yet but I’ll tell you I’m always seeking those answers to help break the chains.
I look at it as the once you were a child but then it came time to put away childish things verse. At one time I had an entire toy chest but I’m still clinging onto a few GI JOES that I KNOW I have to get rid of but you become attached to things in ways. I’m hoping that’s where grace comes in. After all, He knows the heart.
As far as my church of sinners comment, I don’t think churches teach true repentance. They embrace being a sinner and us all being broken. We’re not supposed to remain broken. That’s what Christ came for. Healing and redemption. Then again if everyone did truly repent, churches wouldn’t stay in business for long would they.
Not an expert but Watcha got?
Let me give you an example and I’ll use something unique to Catholicism. In exorcisms it’s said that the priest have to be free from sin or the demons will use that weakness against them during the exorcism. If we truly had people following Christ, church leaders would be healing people of illnesses and casting out demons left and right. Instead we’re left with medications that mask and band aid serious problems as well as infestations misdiagnosed as a myriad of things.
I’m also not sure why you think I’m putting myself above anyone when I admit that I still sin. Aren’t there scriptures about those who are TURNING away? Doesn’t it say to gently restore those who are caught in sin? If I’m telling you these things perhaps I’m trying to help you by giving you what was given to me. And yes you’re right there are many things that sinning has an effect on. It’s a ripple. I’m pretty sure I explained gaining that understanding a few pages back. It takes understanding all the whys to repent. Maybe I don’t have all of them yet but I’ll tell you I’m always seeking those answers to help break the chains.
I look at it as the once you were a child but then it came time to put away childish things verse. At one time I had an entire toy chest but I’m still clinging onto a few GI JOES that I KNOW I have to get rid of but you become attached to things in ways. I’m hoping that’s where grace comes in. After all, He knows the heart.
As far as my church of sinners comment, I don’t think churches teach true repentance. They embrace being a sinner and us all being broken. We’re not supposed to remain broken. That’s what Christ came for. Healing and redemption. Then again if everyone did truly repent, churches wouldn’t stay in business for long would they.
Not an expert but Watcha got?
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Yeah, I definitely agree there with you. Well, I think there were insane amounts of sin back then too. And some things were definitely way more wrong than what they are now. I mean, there were times when people were killed for amusement. Babies were burned alive. There were lots of all kinds of debauchery going on. The world wasn't that much different really. But in general I agree that the world works in very different way in how sin is being spread around. Technology allows everyone to be slowly brainwashed into accepting sin. I was born in 1982 and I didn't even have access to internet and we didn't have lots of the fancy "life easing" stuff people now have. And I think by the time it was 1990 I was already deep into lust and laziness and greed and everything. I wonder what I would've become with current technological advances.
Well, you could also see that as people following Christ but this being an example of people just not being able to completely lose sin. We can change the sentence be "If we truly had people being able to turn from sin, church leaders would..." pretty easily.
Yeah sorry about that. When you say you are in the correct path and call out others that aren't and make claims about whole churches while saying your sins are relatively small it kinda sounds like you are putting yourself above others, even if just a tiny bit. But then again I guess everything what I'm writing could be interpreted as me putting myself above you and others. Not really sure how I should deal with that but I'm sorry for making such assumptions.
Maybe part of me is jealous of your conviction and ability to turn from sin that succesfully. I don't know. But yeah, in general I try to take people's testimonies about being able to leave sin as an encouragement and trying to do it here too. I think I feel some lines get crossed though when the testimony gets that extreme in that there are bold claims for eventually being able to get rid of all sin during this life. Part of me thinks it ironically takes away from the need for a Savior if there becomes a day when Savior is not needed anymore. Part of me just thinks that as I haven't been able to get even close to that and everyone else I know of haven't been able to get even close to that, that people claiming to go really far in that are either lying or deceiving themselves, and boy it's easy to believe both of those options as we get to hear about devout believers over and over again getting caught in doing things they say are wrong.
I kinda think that claiming it's possible to eventually get rid of all sin is quite the same as when people tell yoga and meditation and stuff like that will eventually make you perfect. In those situations too no-one eventually ends up being that perfect person. And some say they just aren't yet ready but that this meditation thing really makes them get further each time. I just think that no amount of work will do that for a human being and that there needs to be the Savior who takes care of the sins we repent and eventually the rest we struggle with. Now, I would perhaps agree that heaven is even better for those who did actually manage to sin less than others. I think that's fair. I think they who can be better in their walk with Christ surely deserve more bliss than those who didn't manage to be as good in that. But I don't think it has an effect on salvation though. Currently I'm not expecting to have any big rewards in any way and I'm just glad if mercy extends on my sorry ass too.
I don't think that text has really anything to do with having to get rid of old toys. Jesus himself says we should come to him as a child. Jesus says that unless we change and become like little children we don't inherit the kingdom of heaven. That is obviously subject to interpretations and I don't think it means we have to be like actual children and it's more about putting our trust in him like little children do. But I also think that what is said in Corinthians about putting away childish things means we have to remove all childlike things in us. The writer doesn't even write that as a commandment of any sort. It's not really even teaching that's what we are supposed to be. He just tells what happened to him.
As far as my church of sinners comment, I don’t think churches teach true repentance. They embrace being a sinner and us all being broken. We’re not supposed to remain broken. That’s what Christ came for. Healing and redemption. Then again if everyone did truly repent, churches wouldn’t stay in business for long would they.
Well, we are not supposed to remain broken but that's what we are. And while Christ helps us become spiritually new and unbroken, we still have the nature of our flesh as long as we live. Paul said in Romans 7 how he doesn't do what he would want to do, but he does what he hates to do. Meaning, he knows he shouldn't sin, yet he sins.
"For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing."
Romans 7:18-19
And in the end he thanks God for being there for him in this situation.
And he both sees himself being with God in his mind and also still being someone who has a sinful nature that is slave to sin.
"Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin."
Romans 7:25
Sure he later calls everyone to live in Spirit instead of Flesh and that continuing living in sin brings death. But really at the same time he just admitted he is still struggling with sin.
What comes to churches, yeah I think many churches are run like a business and that's some really shady stuff right there. But that doesn't mean all of the people within that church are corrupt or inherently too sinful.
Anyways, I wish you all the luck and hope Christ's blessings for you in your endeavor towards this state of complete sinlessness. It's not that the goal is bad and you shouldn't have that aim. The goal is very very very good. It's just something I don't think is achievable, but I seriously wish you succeed on that and prove me wrong.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
With God all things are possible.
“Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
I Corinthians 13:8-13 NKJV
“Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
I Corinthians 13:8-13 NKJV
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Christ is SON of “God”, His Father, MOST HIGH God and creator of heaven and earth. He is heir of all things and made “God” by His Father as a prince is eventually made King.
“God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits And His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: “You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will fold them up, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not fail.” But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool”? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister for those who will inherit salvation?”
Hebrews 1:1-14 NKJV
http://bible.com/114/heb.1.1-14.nkjv
DonJimbo
Member
He is part of the holy trinity god the father god the son and god the holy spirit so all three are one and all of them are god with god the father the creator god the son the messiah and salvator and god the holy spirit the knowledge and wisdom
Amen
AngularSaxophone
Banned
If you read that passage and think someone can sit next to themself, name themself and coronate themself then I don’t know what to tell you. It’s all right there and pretty clear. It’s 3 distinct entities under one title. Christ wasnt always “God”. He was given the authority by His Father. It even says “to which of the angels did He ever say...” meaning Christ specifically was given that title. At the baptism of Christ, all 3 are also present as 3 seperate entities with The Father Himself speaking from heaven saying “this is my Son in who I am well pleased.” And the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove. Also, God has no beginning. He always is and was. Christ DID have a beginning. The Holy Spirit even existed before Christ and was present at his spiritual birth. Lastly, you need at least 2 to bear witness. The Father, His son and the Holy Spirit all bear witness. God doesn’t testify for himself. He’s fair. 
It’s 3 distinct entities under one title. Christ wasnt always “God”. He was given the authority by His Father. It even says “to which of the angels did He ever say...” meaning Christ specifically was given that title. At the baptism of Christ, all 3 are also present as 3 seperate entities with The Father Himself speaking from heaven saying “this is my Son in who I am well pleased.” And the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove. Also, God has no beginning. He always is and was. Christ DID have a beginning. The Holy Spirit even existed before Christ and was present at his spiritual birth. Lastly, you need at least 2 to bear witness. The Father, His son and the Holy Spirit all bear witness. God doesn’t testify for himself. He’s fair.
Last edited:
Bolivar687
Banned
To be fair, I did list a few other denominations that fall under the Apostolic Church! But I don't apologize for stressing the importance of the episcopacy, as I honestly don't see how you could possibly interpret the New Testament any other way, and I've gone through the considerable scriptural evidence for why that is. Even under that line of thinking, I still think your earlier post is unfair, because I've never devoted my posts, let alone entire chains of them, into disparaging or vilifying anyone else's denomination. By the same exegesis that requires deference to the Apostles and their successors, I also know how strongly scripture pushes us toward ecumenism:
Mark 9:38-41 said:
Have you guys read anything good on the faith lately? I wanted to drop a couple brief writeups on what I've been working through:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
If we were supposedly left Catholicism, I’m pretty sure it’d say so in scripture. It doesn’t. It’s so weird how rome removed books deemed non canon but you’re so quick to list a litany of other books to read that definitely aren’t canonical.
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Initially I just meant to say this isn't supposed to be a thread where non-Catholics say Catholics aren't Christians - which has been pretty much Sax's stand. But I thought that to be fair I'd have to say the same thing other way around too. Even though you and others might've given some other denominations a pass you can't say this thread hasn't had its share of anti-Protestantism. I don't see the core of that being that far away from the core of anti-Catholicism. Sax surely brought that to an extreme and I can't say any of the Catholics here would've been that harsh, not even nearly. I didn't mean to say the anti-protestant stance would've been as bad as the anti-catholic stance by Sax. But while I'm ok with having criticism pointed towards every denomination out there I don't think this thread should be about being anti any denomination. The main point should be about discussing about the saving grace by the work of Christ and not about someone not being in the right house to worship God or someone being in the wrong house to worship God. Again, I'm not accusing any Catholic here being on the same "level" with Sax on denomination bashing. I'm just saying in the end it's a two way street.
Have you guys read anything good on the faith lately?
Not read but I've listened quite a lot of this Vin and Sori couple on Youtube. They are Christian and their thing is to listen a metal song, often even black metal, and analyze the lyrics. Not only the analyzing part is done with amazing intelligence but the videos often go wildly on different social, ethical and religious topics and they end up lasting from 30 to 60 minutes each. Some other videos are just about talking about different subjects with people who are on chat at the moment and taking calls from anyone - they even had a truly heartfelt talk with a nihilistic Nazi (Vin is black and the caller was all about making a country full of only white people, yet Vin managed to show only love to the guy). Vin has an amazing knowledge of the Bible and other religious texts and texts about religion and history. I hope he one day writes a book about faith. Dude is really one of the most intelligent persons I've listened to.
They do cuss once in a while so if that's an alarming thing for someone, then viewer discretion is adviced. But really the content of the videos and discussions is amazing.
Bolivar687
Banned
I couldn't agree more. (I also understand your reasoning btw and suspected that was actually the case.)
AngularSaxophone
Banned
It’s not about being anti catholic. It’s questioning how the church that calls itself Gods Church clearly does so many things that aren’t Christ like or scriptural at all. If we’re all supposed to be Christian at the end of the day then yes we’re supposed to call each other out on misteachings and errors. Scripture teaches correction.
VAL0R
Banned
I was a Protestant for most of my life and some of the people who are nearest and dearest to me remain Protestants. The huge difference between how, as a Catholic, I view Protestants and how, as a make-your-own religion cultist, Sax views Catholics, is I see Protestants as separated brothers who serve Jesus, Sax sees Catholics as basically following Satan. But nobody here really takes him seriously, so let's move on in our discussion from him specifically, at the moment.
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. It is a Church. It is the one true Church that Jesus Christ instituted himself, personally when he walked the earth, when he gave Peter the keys and told him he would build his Church upon him. To call Catholicism a denomination is actually insulting to Catholics. We are the Church of an unbroken chain of apostolic succession from Peter to this very day. We still have Saint Peter's bones under our Vatican (our Church is not just symbolically built upon him, but literally). In fact we have most or all the apostles remains, because they are our apostles, who represented our Church, the only ancient Church.
Then some one-thousand five-hundred years of our Catholic history later, a Catholic monk and priest, Martin Luther, created massive chaos and confusion by causing schism with strange new doctrines, some of them clearly diabolical, unknown throughout the entirety of Christian history. Luther, the founder of Protestantism abandoned his vows before God to remain celibate, married a nun and wrote ungodly trash such as Jews should have dung thrown at them, the biblical book of James was worthless straw worthy of being burned, and that men should sin heartily to receive great grace. A tragic number of people followed him in his folly. Of course they could not agree on anything for more than 10 minutes, and without a central Church Magisterium to guide them, they immediately began to fracture into multiple denominations. Five hundred years later we are at or approaching an incredible fifty thousand denominations now. That's chaos and confusion. God is the author of peace, not confusion. Yet the Catholic Church is still one and unbroken, even as Christ prayed to the Father she would be, 'May they be one even as we are one.' We are the only Church, the oldest Church, the first Church and we will be the last Church into eternity. And as the Lord said the gates of Hell will never prevail against us. But Protentant denominations will come and go, tossed about with every changing wind of doctrine and fancy of men and fashion of the times. But the Catholic Church will remain steadfast until our king returns and reclaims the keys he gave Peter to maintain during his absence (now with the successor of Peter who sits on his chair, the Pope). And so the stewards of the kingdom will hand over their authority back to their king, who will rule forever and his kingdom will have no end.
Despite their schismatic errors, Catholics still say Protestants have valid baptism, and call them fellow "Christians." Yet Protestants cannot enjoy the fullness of the faith. And so they need to return to their mother, Mother Church. I'll give just two of the many reasons why. Protestants do not have the Holy Eucharist. This cannot be understated. Jesus gives himself for us to eat and drink as the Bread of Life, imparting graces to us through this sacrament, and Protestants are starved of this. Neither do Protestants have access to the Sacrament of Penance (confession). This, to put it bluntly, makes it much harder to go to heaven. God only forgives mortal sins (sins leading to death of the soul) through either a valid confession through his ordained priesthood (the normal and "easy" means, which Protestants cannot do) or through an act of perfect contrition, which Protestants may or may not do after committing a mortal sin. A man may be contrite, but God requires "perfect contrition" to forgive mortal sins. That is to say, a repentance that comes from the love of God and sorrow for have offending Him in his goodness rather than a repentance that comes from fear of judgment, Hell or some other motive. This is the only type of repentance God will hear for one who commits a mortal sin - a sin which involves grave matter (very serious), with full knowledge and full consent. Again, unless you go through his Church and priesthood, where you need only contrition, not perfect contrition, for absolution of even mortal sins.
Last edited:
VAL0R
Banned
When I said Jesus was 'absent' I meant it in the sense that he is not physically, publicly walking around, teaching and leading his Church right now. As he said before his ascension, "I go away." Of course we believe he always with us spiritually and even physically in the Holy Eucharist.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
It’s not the church he left. If anything it’s the church that was hijacked. Just as the Catholics have hijacked various lands and properties around the world. You have to be seriously prideful to believe you’re the absolute church when there are many who are against the teachings and doctrines of Catholicism. You know where that comes from? The spirit. If there is no agreement then it’s not true.
VAL0R
Banned
Sax, I'm just going to refer you to your bishop for all future theological concerns:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Yeah because that’s an answer that the supposed church of God would give someone who was truly seeking answers. The Catholic Church is a joke. Answer this one simple question. If Christ said we’d do things greater than he, then why can’t people simply walk into the Catholic Church and be healed by the priest there as Christ healed?
Here’s another actually. Christ SPECIFICALLY calls out seven churches in the book of revelation. Explain how the 7 became one.
Here’s another actually. Christ SPECIFICALLY calls out seven churches in the book of revelation. Explain how the 7 became one.
Last edited:
Airola
Member
I don't think this "chain of apostolic succession" really matters much. Just because you can trace its history back to somewhere doesn't mean a "spiritual chain", so to speak, hasn't or couldn't be broken or at least damaged. No-one has ever said the successors to Paul wouldn't or couldn't be fallible. And what comes to keeping Peter's bones in such value, it could be interpreted as idol worshipping. I personally don't think it's that big of a deal in either way.
He had perfectly valid reasons to call out some of the things happening in Catholic church though. Paying with money for indulgence was as diabolical idea as it gets. There is no way around the fact that the Catholic church at one point was way off from being a perfect church. And I would even say it is way off being from a perfect church even today as long as there are members in lead who either participate in or hide child molestation or other severe crimes like that. And if you can "undo" what you have done by participating in sacraments I think that goes way further into the diabolical side of things. It's solely Jesus Christ who can clean one from that mess spiritually speaking, and that does not and should not guarantee getting out from that mess in this life. There should still be worldly punishments for worldly crimes and being "at ease" with Christ through sacraments should not give you a pass from the worldly punishment. Now, this is a problem in Protestant churches too. Same things happen there too, and they hide the crimes of their brothers too. What I'm saying is that there are no perfect Churches anywhere. I don't care what the history of the Catholic church is. Its history does not shine its armor that hides the crimes of its workers.
People can blame Luther for dividing people all they want but had the Catholic church been the perfect Mother Church it claimed to be the divide would've never happened. They can only blame themselves on that.
While some of the criticism of Luther is propagandist in nature and while I think you have really misunderstood the point of his "sin heartily" thing, I don't say Luther was without faults. I don't think priests should have a vow of celibacy so I don't think that's an issue. His anti-semitic views are an issue and some others are as well. But I don't think you have to be a sin-free perfect man to call out evil. And I don't think the history of a Church is a shield that should protect it from criticism.
Sure, the amount of denominations is crazy. But it's no wonder there are such a huge amount of denominations when even the "Mother Church" has so much spiritual chaos inside of it.
Well, physically speaking, maybe yeah. But the last Church will be the group of people who are living here last and who come together and call Jesus Christ their Savior. If at that point someone being called a Catholic makes any difference in who gets to be part of the group I think it will not end up well for them.
Here you are just plain wrong. At least Lutherans have Eucharist.
I don't think the idea of mortal sins is in the Bible. That's a Catholic idea.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Luther did cause a particular problem: he murdered any charity toward "church tradition". I totally understand why it took place. Starting from scratch on the basis of sola scriptura has the tendency of downplaying (if not outright excising) non-canonical traditions. But as a consequence there is a lot of hostility toward those old traditions and schools of thought. I wish that were not the case.
Some of the best modern Christian thought came from traditional, liturgical viewpoints like Dietrich Bonnhoffer and GK Chesterton. Yet this is often swept aside because it "was written by a Catholic/Lutheran". The ecumenical movement needs the coals stoked.
Some of the best modern Christian thought came from traditional, liturgical viewpoints like Dietrich Bonnhoffer and GK Chesterton. Yet this is often swept aside because it "was written by a Catholic/Lutheran". The ecumenical movement needs the coals stoked.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
If we were already given scripture by the spirit, why is anyone writing anything? Christ said go and preach the good news. Not write out books of your own opinions. It’s one thing to converse with another or a group but a book can be taken in many different contexts. If scripture itself can be twisted for the undiscerning then how much more dangerous is anything written from mans own thought? Look at how far philosophy has gone turning into science.
Airola
Member
You are not doing anything different here.
You are writing words. Words of your own opinions. Some of which you have gotten from others.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
And within a generation, Paul (primarily) was writing letters to churches all over the world reminding them to stick to what they were taught instead of chasing after flashy new doctrines originating from within the church. The first 500 years of the Christian church (and beyond) was one long ongoing conversation about the nature of God's word, the Gospel, the essence of the faith, etc. and this all could possibly fall under the category of "man's own thought".
Dismissing Christian history and historical discussion on these questions of faith is totally backwards. It's fine to disagree, point out error, and challenge it "as iron sharpens iron", but this pseudo-spiritual "just listen to the Spirit" can be just as dangerous as men who "write out books of their own opinions".
And when those who are "walking in the Spirit" stumble upon a revelation or insight into God's Word, they tend to write it down. The very notion of "walking in the spirit" has been elucidated upon and put into greater detail by men who "write out books of their own opinions".
AngularSaxophone
Banned
If we were face to face this would be conversation. I’m not saying writing should be tossed out altogether, I’m saying there really is no companion to scripture.
VAL0R
Banned
LOLOLOLOL. This explains a lot.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
With you all the way on that Airola.
I'd probably go further even, and say that the history of the church (meaning, as I always do, the broad inclusive everyone church) is not a history of theology but a history of politics disguised as theology, no matter how saintly or inspired we might think our particular heroes were; and that arguing, as we so often seem to, about doctrinal differences and historical interpretations, is entirely besides the point. However right we may think we are about the one true way and for whatever reason, we are - each of us - probably wrong in something important somewhere. And berating someone else's version of the faith while aggrandizing our own is kind of the opposite of Christian (and Pauline) humility.
I count myself in that too.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Some people draw a distinction between The Church as the spiritual body of Christ (as in "we believe in one holy, Christian, and apostolic church") and The Church as the physical organization on earth entrusted with delivering the Gospel message. If a church is delivering the Gospel faithfully, they are fulfilling the second of those descriptions. However, that does not mean that church -- or even their cluster of affiliated churches -- encompasses the whole territory of the first description, the Body of Christ.
Eastern Orthodox have the humblest standpoint on this matter. They hold "we know where the Holy Spirit is, not where he isn't". In other words, they believe in salvation outside of the Eastern Orthodox church (meaning, EO churches are but one part of the Body) but maintain that their church is the only one truly fulfilling that second role: the physical organization on earth entrusted with delivering the Gospel message.
This is historically correct. Sinful grievances performed by the Catholic church doesn't invalidate the concept of Bishops or of Primacy of Peter. Those concepts can be called into question on their own merits or shortfalls but Catholic misbehavior doesn't -- itself -- make them false. There has been a serious case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and the current state of the church is clear evidence of that. Doctrine is watered down in most evangelical churches, not usually out of spite but out of ignorance.
I was raised Protestant and am currently a confirmed Lutheran, though I'd hardly say I'm either. I'm... merely a Christian? I learned nearly all the various denominations and standpoints and schisms over the years, so much so that it has become like static to me. Good Christian theologians and apologists were either good or not good, regardless of their "denomination". That's the Christian tradition I was taught.
Thinking out loud: I do think it would go a long way for Protestants to learn and acknowledge this history. You can't have a Holy Bible without "one Holy, Christian, and apostolic church".
Eastern Orthodox have the humblest standpoint on this matter. They hold "we know where the Holy Spirit is, not where he isn't". In other words, they believe in salvation outside of the Eastern Orthodox church (meaning, EO churches are but one part of the Body) but maintain that their church is the only one truly fulfilling that second role: the physical organization on earth entrusted with delivering the Gospel message.
Source
This is historically correct. Sinful grievances performed by the Catholic church doesn't invalidate the concept of Bishops or of Primacy of Peter. Those concepts can be called into question on their own merits or shortfalls but Catholic misbehavior doesn't -- itself -- make them false. There has been a serious case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" and the current state of the church is clear evidence of that. Doctrine is watered down in most evangelical churches, not usually out of spite but out of ignorance.
I was raised Protestant and am currently a confirmed Lutheran, though I'd hardly say I'm either. I'm... merely a Christian? I learned nearly all the various denominations and standpoints and schisms over the years, so much so that it has become like static to me. Good Christian theologians and apologists were either good or not good, regardless of their "denomination". That's the Christian tradition I was taught.
Thinking out loud: I do think it would go a long way for Protestants to learn and acknowledge this history. You can't have a Holy Bible without "one Holy, Christian, and apostolic church".
Bolivar687
Banned
You should.
Following the Ascension, one of the first things the twelve did was to select Matthias to replace Judas, with Peter deriving this, as much with Catholic doctrine, from the Old Testament. (Acts 1:20-26). Christ clearly created a hierarchical Church (Matthew 19:28), and instituted the Sacraments for them to carry out: Holy Orders and Baptism (Matthew 28:19), Anointing of the Sick (Mark 6:13), teaching them in private to administer Holy Communion (Luke 22:19) and Reconciliation (John 20:23).
Although succession isn't as important as the necessity of the episcopacy. It's not enough to hear the Word itself unless we have the apostles to teach us the tradition behind it (Acts 8:30-31). After all, the Devil (Matthew 4:6) and those who denied the Eucharist (John 6:31) were well-versed in scripture, and the Pharisees who persecuted Christ were all masters in the law of Moses. Throughout all the letters of Paul, he stresses the early Christian communities to heed the apostles. The Gospel and letters of John were intentionally written to correct the errors of the early Christians, almost all of which are now today the distinguishing features of mainline protestantism and evangelicalism.
It's Peter - surely you must think that's significant. He was personally told to lead Jesus' flock (John 21:17). It was Peter who all the leaders deferred to in the moment of decision, carrying out God's intent on the universalization of the faith (Acts 10:34). And he was the head of this hierarchy that now persists today.
The Catholic Church is too large to be the totemic organization you're generalizing it as. There were great priests during the reformation, just as there are good priests today, and bad priests back then, just as Jesus knew in his own time that not all of his disciples and followers were faithful to him (John 6:64).
Jesus (Matthew 19:12) and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:7-8) both did.
Ironically, many of them also have apostolic succession. I believe most of the Protestant denominations who believe in the Real Presence do, as well.
It comes from the letters of John. (1 John 5:16).
Last edited:
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Where can the sick go and be healed besides the hospital?
Airola
Member
Sure, it was important to first have someone from those who had actually witnessed Jesus. And I think the twelve hold special place because they were so close to Jesus and were chosen to start the mission. They are the groundstones with the cornerstone. What comes after that is whole another deal. I think it is important that those who were chosen would use their reasoning and knowledge to choose the next. But here it's when things become tricky. It is not guaranteed they make the best choices. It is not guaranteed that the people they choose will be good. Especially when going further into future, the more things could become shaky the further they get from the people who actually witnessed Jesus in person.
And the thrones were given to the twelve only. It doesn't mean their successors have that kind of authority.
I support priesthood. I support papacy. But I don't think it matters where those priests end up preaching. If they want to distance themselves from something that feels wrong to them, then so be it. That's why I also support the existence of denominations.
By the way, Acts 8:30-31 is something I think Sax should take to his heart
If there's a verse that goes against his "don't listen to teachings of men" babble that is it
Sure, Peter is a super important person. But that doesn't mean his bones should necessarily be preserved and even less worshipped. I get its historical value though. I understand that having those bones there gives something concrete to get people's minds wrapped into real history. It gives great historical context. It's like "there, that's true history right there - Peter was a real person." But the bones give zero spiritual value in themselves what comes to salvation. Peter was not Jesus. Peter was not God.
Agreed, but if you are calling it the Mother Church then prepare to have some backlash to come to the whole church too when part of it fails.
In general though, as I said, these problems are in every church. It doesn't make those whole churches bad. But when there is a problem and especially when the head of the church doesn't address the problems, it is no wonder if people want to leave and join together in another group that has distanced them from the things they see problematic. It doesn't mean that they would think the Catholic church as a whole would be something irredeemable or that there aren't good things going for it, but it means these people have the strength of conscience. One thing that is amazingly great thing in Protestantism and creating denominations is that they show the problems in wherever they saw them didn't lose their faith in Christ. Sometimes people lose their faith altogether when they get to be disappointed with the collective. But here we see they still agree with the core of the message. They just don't feel it's good for them to continue being there. If that's the case I think it's better to move one than to grow any possible bitterness towards the people in the original place. It's for the best of everyone.
You mean they thought priests have to vow for celibacy, or that they had the vow, or that they though it was a big issue or all of them?
My point is that there is no place in the Bible where celibacy is commanded for priests. Jesus says "if you can" clearly acknowledging it could be a trouble to some and giving the option to not go into that. Paul does the same thing. He even encourages that if it is too big of an issue, then go ahead and marry. Surely they both say it would be best for them if people could be celibate but they never claim it's the thing they must do.
Yes, Lutherans believe there should be a connection.
I personally don't believe though that this connection means that much. I mean, imagine if that chain, for some reason, suddenly got broken for a few generations. Maybe there were a massive nature disaster or something. It wouldn't then matter who would read the Bible and preach the Gospel, would it? I think we can get the idea of what is really the most important thing and which things can be lost without it affecting to our salvation when we go through this thought game of "what if there was only one person alive" as if a person in that scenario should still be subject to salvation, then everything that is not possible with only one person is not ultimately important and everything that is possible with only one person is.
I would connect that to the blaspheming the Holy Spirit kind of thing. I thought all sin is mortal in the sense that we need a Saviour for every single one of them or it will be death in a spiritual sense to us.
But I'll look into it more. Could be I'm wrong about it.
Bolivar687
Banned
Today is the feast of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, also known as Edith Stein, one of the six co-patron Saints of Europe.
Born to a devout Jewish mother, she became an atheist as a teenager. She served in World War I as a nurse with the Red Cross. She studied phenomenology under Edmund Gusserl, wrote her dissertation on empathy, received her doctorate summa cum laude, and is said to have influenced other philosophers at the time. She converted to Catholicism in 1922 and taught at Catholic schools and institutes before joining the Carmelite nuns in 1933. The SS seized her and other Jewish converts after the Dutch Bishops released a statement denouncing the Nazi's antisemitism. She was killed at Auschwitz in 1942.
Born to a devout Jewish mother, she became an atheist as a teenager. She served in World War I as a nurse with the Red Cross. She studied phenomenology under Edmund Gusserl, wrote her dissertation on empathy, received her doctorate summa cum laude, and is said to have influenced other philosophers at the time. She converted to Catholicism in 1922 and taught at Catholic schools and institutes before joining the Carmelite nuns in 1933. The SS seized her and other Jewish converts after the Dutch Bishops released a statement denouncing the Nazi's antisemitism. She was killed at Auschwitz in 1942.
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
If we're talking about Christian writers during that time period, her stuff is up there with Dietrich Bonhoffer in my opinion. She does not shy away from the truth.Today is the feast of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, also known as Edith Stein, one of the six co-patron Saints of Europe.
Born to a devout Jewish mother, she became an atheist as a teenager. She served in World War I as a nurse with the Red Cross. She studied phenomenology under Edmund Gusserl, wrote her dissertation on empathy, received her doctorate summa cum laude, and is said to have been influenced other philosophers at the time. She converted to Catholicism in 1922 and taught at Catholic schools and institutes before joining the Carmelite nuns in 1933. The SS seized her and other Jewish converts after the Dutch Bishops released a statement denouncing the Nazi's antisemitism. She was killed at Auschwitz in 1942.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
So can you show me in scripture where we’re supposed to have feasts for random people? Wouldn’t that be elevating someone to the level of God? Christ would have dedicated a feast to James the just but I don’t think that’s anywhere in scripture either.
““When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword”; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Isaiah 1:12-20 NKJV
““When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the LORD, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. If you are willing and obedient, You shall eat the good of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You shall be devoured by the sword”; For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.”
Isaiah 1:12-20 NKJV
Last edited:
Airola
Member
Can you show me in scripture where it is prohibited for people to honor fellow Christians who have done great things for the faith and have been unlucky enough to become victims of evil people?
People have birthday parties where they feast for someone who is one year older than before. I'm sure this is a way better reason to have a feast for anyone.
AngularSaxophone
Banned
I just did. Birthday parties are a pretty secular activity so I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with that one. And no we’re not to honor each other in that way. It’s reserved for God. How is that any different from taking any other activity reserved for God and bestowing it upon a human? It’s all idol worship.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
Feasts to celebrate our shared communal history dates back to at least the time of the Exodus.
In what respect is the person being worshipped?
In what respect is the person being worshipped?
AngularSaxophone
Banned
Again, show me another feast in the Bible that’s dedicated to a person. And I’m not referring to a banquet thrown by kings for the people either. Do you suppose people feasted across the land for Isaac?
Last edited:
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
In what respect is the person being worshipped?
"Show me where it's allowed in the Bible" is an intellectually and spiritually bankrupt standpoint. For someone who was just saying that we should "listen to the spirit" more, I'm confused why you're demanding a scriptural support for something rather innocuous and educational.
And surely you are aware of why the calendar of saints became a thing, right? You're aware that it was historically done to help unify churches across vast distances and to counteract the many various local pagan holidays, right?
AngularSaxophone
Banned
So you counteract the pagan holidays by doing what the pagans do? Where’s the sense in that? And how is it not worship? Go back to my Isaac example. A feast was held for him. By who? Direct family. It’s not like Abraham went to all of the temples and ordered them to all have feasts in the name of Isaac. If you can’t grasp how that’s a problem then it’s not me who’s spiritually bankrupt. It’s like there’s a group of people that are indoctrinated to the point where they have no discernment whatsoever.
DunDunDunpachi
Banned
In what respect is the person being worshipped?
(for the third time now)
Asking me "and how is it not worship?" is not answering the question.
Calling to attention our past is how we can preserve "the great cloud of witnesses" spoken about in Hebrews 12 for the purpose of "[throwing] off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and [letting] us run with perseverance the race marked out for us".
When you conflate a feast to idol worship, I'd expect you to back up your position instead of falling prey to the warning in Titus: "But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless."
S
SLoWMoTIoN
Unconfirmed Member
If the holy spirit is god what is the holy spirit?
Similar threads
- Locked