With the election of a new Pope you will undoubtedly hear reference to a statement that was release by the Vatican through Cardinal Ratzinger's office in 2000. It was titled "Dominus Iesus" and it clarified the views of the Roman Catholic Church concerning other Christian denominations and other religions. The statement implies that "Churches such as the Church of England, where the apostolic succession of bishops from the time of St. Peter is disputed by Rome, and churches without bishops, are not considered 'proper' churches." They suffer from "defects." This statement includes all denominations of Christianity with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Religions other than Christianity are considered to be "gravely deficient." Their rituals can constitute "an obstacle to salvation" for their followers. The document is infallible since it was "explicitly approved and confirmed by the pope."
Since the Church teaches that a very lengthy interval in Purgatory or an eternity in Hell awaits the unsaved, the adverse consequences of an individual following another religion (or a Christian denomination other than the RCC) are severe -- perhaps infinite infinite in nature.
Some of you may be outraged by these statements but there is really nothing new in the document. It reflects long-standing inclusivist beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church: that the Church alone possesses the full truth; all other faith groups have only elements of truth. To a secular individual. this may seem like an arrogant stance. However, it is hardly unique. Many, perhaps most, faith traditions also believe that they alone possess the entire truth, and view all other religions as being at least partly deficient.
This 5 year old statement is quickly becoming news again because "Dominus Iesus" was published by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was released on SEPT 5, 2000. The document had been ratified and confirmed by the Pope John Paul II on JUNE 16, 2000 "with sure knowledge and by his apostolic authority." The document appears to have been triggered by the growth in acceptance of "relativistic theories which seek to justify religious pluralism." Some within the RCC, and many more without, had been suggesting that:
At least some religious truth is subjective: valid for some but not for others;
Concepts from other spiritual sources can be absorbed into Christianity "without regard for consistency, systematic connection, or compatibility with Christian truth;" Scripture can be read and interpreted independently of church tradition.
Cardinal Ratzinger quotes a variety of documents to reemphasize that:
"The full revelation of divine truth is given" in the "mystery of Jesus Christ."
The Church does not expect any additional, future, public revelation.
Nothing needs to be taken from other religions and added to Jesus' message in order to make it complete.
Only the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are without error.
It is the Holy Spirit who has sown the "seeds of the word" in diverse customs, cultures and religions around the world, preparing them for future "full maturity in Christ."
Jesus is the only savior of mankind.
He divides Christian denominations into three groups:
The Roman Catholic Church which was established by Jesus Christ: "he himself is in the Church and the Church is in him...."
Eastern Orthodox Churches which are united with the RCC by the: "Apostolic succession..." (Christ's disciples consecrated the first bishops of the Church, who subsequently consecrated other bishops down to the present day), and
"a valid Eucharist" (a valid celebration of the Mass).
These are "true particular Churches." The Church of Christ is "present and operative" in these churches even though they do not, at this time, accept the primacy of the pope.
The remaining Christian denominations which have not preserved the Apostolic succession. They are not "churches in the proper sense." However, their members are "incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church."
Members of the RCC are not to look upon Christianity as a collection of Christian denominations. The Church of Christ does exist today; it is not to be considered a future goal to which all denominations "must strive to reach."
Cardinal Ratzinger describes the status of non-Christian religions:
The Church of Christ is the instrument by which all humans are saved.
Salvation is accessible to those who are not members of the "Church" -- (i.e. not Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox Christians). It comes through grace which originates with Christ and "enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation."
The prayers and rituals of other religions may help or hinder their believers. Some practices may prepare their membership to absorb the Gospel. However, those rituals which "depend on superstitions or other errors... constitute an obstacle to salvation."
Members of other religions are "gravely deficient" relative to members of the Church of Christ who already have "the fullness of the means of salvation."
He discusses inter-religious dialog:
Dialog with other branches of Christianity and with other religions is part of the RCC's mission of evangelizing the world.
Dialog implies the equality of the dignity of the individuals taking part -- not the equality of their various beliefs and practices.
42 comments:
"The document is infallible since it was "explicitly approved and confirmed by the pope."
"Only the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired by the Holy Spirit and are without error."
How can both be true? How can the approval of any man other than Jesus make something infallible?
Well I thought I might get a few comments on this post. I will explain things from the Catholic point of view. The office of the Pope is guided by the Holy Spirit. It is that spirit that is infallible. If anything is approved thorugh the office of the Pope is is deamed infallible. It is not the man but the office that can not commit error. You don't have to agree but that is the belief.
On the other issue... Scott what you call "rubbish" I call truth. In essence the theif on the cross DID attend a Catholic Mass. There was a worshiping of belivers at the foot of the cross, the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ and the fullfilment of the scripture through which we are promised salvation. Attend a Catholic Mass this Sunday and you a bound to see the same things.
"Powerball-my friend, did the thief on the cross attend Catholic mass?"
Yeah, and Job wasn't a Hebrew either.
There are ordinary means and extraordinary means that God uses to save souls.
Do not limit God's love for all humanity. We can not contemplate the depths of it.
The truth hurts. It is usually greeted with anger. It cuts to the heart and makes the flesh lash out. I've experienced it myself many times.
The most loving thing you can do for someone is share the truth with them. The reaction is typical.
Gal 4:16 “So now have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?”
While the Holy Spirit is indeen infallible, it is quite possible that Popes throughout history haven't always 100% of the time acted within the confines of the Holy Spirit, but rather acted in the flesh. Papal contradictions over time indicate that they have occasionally acted or made proclaimations within the flesh.
When I attended Catholic school, it was a Catholic teacher who told us about how in the middle ages, there were basically three ways for those born of nobility to gain power and wealth. First was to be first born, second was to marry a first born, and third was to join the church. If someone's motivation for joining the Catholic church as a priest is wealth and power, it is fair to say that the Holy Spirit could be completely unknown to them.
The pope is only infallible when speaking definitively from his position as pope (Peter's successor, Holy Ghost inpired) on matters of faith and morals. If you limit it to that, you will find that the line of Popes has never contradicted itself.
Scott H., I believe you are playing a little to loose with D.I. I believe it says that protestants' beliefs and practices do not avail themselves of all means of grace available, which may be an obstacle to their salvation, not a direct reason for damnation or 'prolonged' purgatory.
peace to you in Christ,
Terry ><>
Peter was corrected by Paul on matters of Jewish tradition.
Yes, we all know that Peter was corrected once by Paul, and rightly so, for showing deference toward one group of believers over another, for not practicing what he preached. But he never preached that anyone should do that. The preaching itself remained infallible, protected by the Holy Spirit.
Scott H. I read D.I. several years ago. Is the portion in parenthesis your inclusion or is it in the original?
In general, I recall it said that God offers His salvation through His Church, the body of Christ on earth, and that the further one gets from that, the more severe or grave are the obstacles to their salvation. As powerball said, it is really no different than anyone else saying they know the true way of salvation and any deviation from it imperils one's soul.
Peace,
Terry ><>
Eugenius IV condemned Joan of Arc (1412-31) to be burned as a witch and heretic, but she was beatified by Pius X (1903-14) in 1909 and canonized by Benedict XV (1914-22) in 1920. Contradiction.
Galations. 2:11-14, when Paul corrected Peter.
"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Pope Boniface VIII, 1302.)
So on one hand, Dominus Iesus says that non-Catholics CAN be saved, yet Pope Boniface said that that non-Catholics CAN NOT be saved. Well, which is it?
D.I. is nothing new. Study Church history with an open mind. It's always been the deal.
Yes, we Catholics know that Paul once corrected Peter's unchristian action of showing preference to one group of believers. Just once, Peter's practice did not match his preaching. However, Peter never said that such and error was correct, and there was never any need to correct Peter's preaching.
Scott H. it has been a few years since I read D.I. Is the section in parenthesis original or your own inclusion? Either way, I would say that it does not say that simple membership in a protestant church causes damnation or increased necessity of purgation. It does however indicate that the further one moves from the fullness of truth given by God to the body of Christ on earth, the more danger one's soul is in of either of these things.
Again, that is no different than anyone else saying that their Church teaches the truth and others err when they contradict that truth.
Peace,
Terry ><>
Sorry, I might have sent a double post due to a computer glitch.
I believe it was an english bishop who condemned Joan of Arc, not the pope. My recollection of the historical accounts is that she wanted to appeal to Rome but was burned BEFORE she could.
what you quote pope boniface as saying in no way says that non catholics cannot be saved.
I agree with 3:53 anonymous, this is all nothing new.
Peace,
Terry ><>
Luke 23:43 Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.”
1 Thes. 4 - The Coming of the Lord
13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope.
14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.
15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep.
16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
18 Therefore encourage each other with these words.
Looks like a non-stop flight to me...
Then what WAS he saying??? Pretty clear to me that he was saying that only Catholics can be saved. As a non-catholic, I am subject to Christ, NOT the Roman Pontiff. So does that make me hellbound according to the Catholic church?
As Paul said to Peter in Galations 2:14, "How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
If Peter was Pope, and therefore infallible, if he said that Gentiles had to follow Jewish customs, it would have been so and Paul would have been a heretic to correct him.
Keeping in mind the thief was told directly from Christ that that very day he would be in paradise, AND that he had no chance for 'good works' to accompany the salvation won for him by the daeath of Christ, I fiond it very difficult to ascribe to the view of the Catholic church regarding salvation.
The Apostle Peter himself says the following:
1 Peter 1
13 Therefore, prepare your minds for action; be selfcontrolled; set your hope fully on the grace to be given you when Jesus Christ is revealed.
14 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance.
15 But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do;
16 for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”
17 Since you call on a Father who judges each man's work impartially, live your lives as strangers here in reverent fear.
18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.
20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
22 Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart.
23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
24 For, “All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall,
25 but the word of the Lord stands forever.” And this is the word that was preached to you.
While the context of the passage is personal holiness in the here and now, there is the truth given that we are not redeemed by anything else, less or more, than the precious blood of Christ - verse 18-19. Verse 17 in no way associates the works with the redemption, but does associate them to a God who sees, knows and judges.
So, in the Catholic churches opinion, only people who attend the Catholic church gain entrance into heaven, am I correct in this?
The thief was absolved of his sins by Christ. He did not have an opportunity to commit any mortal sins (i.e. sins that endanger one's salvation) after that. When a priest absolves someone's sins, he does so by Christ's authority. If someone who has been absolved of mortal sins were to die before committing another mortal sin, he/she would be saved. As for "in paradise this day" as an argument against purgatory, it's a non-issue. Purgatory is not believed to be temporal - at least not by earthly standards. Untold eons could pass in purgatory in the blink of an eye on earth.
Paul never corrected Peter's doctrine. He just pointed out his failure to practice what he preached. That’s why he called it hypocrisy. Pays to actually read the scripture being given doesn't it?
Did the apostles believe you had to obey their teachings to have the truth, or were they willing to let every believer figure it out by their lonesome?
1 John 4:6 "We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. "
2 John 9 "Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son."
5:31 anon, why don't YOU read it? All of it. You obviously haven't. In addition to the hypocrisy issue, he also said "How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"
5:47 anon, the popes aren't apostles.
RC teaching says precisely that people can still be saved even if not explicit members of the RCC.
staying on the point of papal infallibility and D.I., Boniface said exactly what it says: salvation is subject to the pope, NOT that one is damned if not Catholic. This is all coming from Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom with the power to bind and loose. Mt 16:18-19.
So what is that subjectivity? Again, it is not damnation to anyone outside the church, nor is it in any way a replacement of Christs atonement. In fact, given that Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, I would say it is just the working out and fulfillment of Christ's plan of spreading the gospel of salvation. For instance, most protestants believe in the bible as authoritative, but do not recognize that it was a pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, who determined which books belong in the NT. So they have unwittingly subjected themselves to his judgement...
You don't have to agree, it's just what we beleive. I'm just trying to show (in my oafish way) how it all fits together, and what is not a part of it.
Gotta go for now,
God Bless,
Terry ><>
RC teaching says precisely that people can still be saved even if not explicit members of the RCC.
staying on the point of papal infallibility and D.I., Boniface said exactly what it says: salvation is subject to the pope, NOT that one is damned if not Catholic. This is all coming from Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom with the power to bind and loose. Mt 16:18-19.
So what is that subjectivity? Again, it is not damnation to anyone outside the church, nor is it in any way a replacement of Christs atonement. In fact, given that Jesus gave Peter the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven, I would say it is just the working out and fulfillment of Christ's plan of spreading the gospel of salvation. For instance, most protestants believe in the bible as authoritative, but do not recognize that it was a pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, who determined which books belong in the NT. So they have unwittingly subjected themselves to his judgement...
You don't have to agree, it's just what we beleive. I'm just trying to show (in my oafish way) how it all fits together, and what is not a part of it.
Gotta go for now,
God Bless,
Terry ><>
"The thief was absolved of his sins by Christ."
So is everyone who trusts by faith in the finished work of Christ.
Matt 1:21 "...Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."
Peter himself said, "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12
And again, "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." 1 Peter 1:18-19
"He did not have an opportunity to commit any mortal sins (i.e. sins that endanger one's salvation)"
Where in Scripture do we ever have that? God in his wisdom, love, grace and mercy devises a plan to save ruined man ... but only to a point? I don't see one reference (explicit or implicit) in Scripture to give me any sense that God is 'short on the deal' and I must do something on my own to ensure salvation.
"When a priest absolves someone's sins, he does so by Christ's authority."
Scripture is clear on WHO can forgive sin - it must be one who is sinless themselves. I have yet to find myself or anyone else that fits that bill - save Christ alone.
"Purgatory is not believed to be temporal - at least not by earthly standards. Untold eons could pass in purgatory in the blink of an eye on earth."
This seems like a very convenient explanation. If it were true, the Scriptures would adress it. They don't.
To hold that there is more than one infallible source (Scripture, Church, men of God, etc.) then you have to hold that none of these can ever disagree. The subject of our security in Christ is plain from Scripture - and is opposed by the teaching of the Church; they both cannot be true.
The sum of it all ...
The foundation of God stands sure, he knows who are His. (2 Tim 2:19)
"...it was a pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, who determined which books belong in the NT. So they have unwittingly subjected themselves to his judgement..."
And so it could not possibly have been that God chose that man for any other reason than his position of Pope?
Let's not limit God.
I don't doubt the blessing God has worked on this earth through those found in the membership of the Catholic Church.
You said he was led of the Spirit to put the Holy Books together, then you say we have subjected ourselves to his judgement. Which is it? Did this man act out the leading and guiding of the Spirit of God for the benefit of mankind and the spread of the Gospel? or did he make the call as to which books were to be included and which ones weren't?
"No one can serve two masters." (Matt 6:24)
Either the Holy Spirit decided or the man decided. I prefer to see it that the man decided to do what the Spirit decided should be done.
"for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose." Phil 2:13
Motivation and capacity are BOTH given of God in a spiritual work.
"Paul never corrected Peter's doctrine. He just pointed out his failure to practice what he preached. That’s why he called it hypocrisy. Pays to actually read the scripture being given doesn't it?"
5:31 Anon - it is a similar issue as with Apollos in Acts 18-19.
To subject one that is under grace back under the law is a doctrinal issue.
Read the book of Hebrews very carefully - the law contrasted with grace is thematic to that book. Written especially for the new Hebrew Christians - outlining the jewish faith and how Christ encompasses and fulfills the law freeing them (and us) from it.
Okay, I've finally broken down and created an ID so I won't be posting anonymously anymore.
On this post, Anonymous posts 6:31 PM, 4:37 PM, 4:14 PM, 3:50 PM, 3:18 PM, and 9:59 AM are all mine.
I appriciate your answers, especially Terry's. I am not doing this to try and break "yinz" faith, I am looking for answers. I had a Catholic direct me to http://www.ihsv.com/, which is a Catholic site that states that ALL people not of the Roman Catholic faith are doomed to an eternity in hell.
Back to the issue at hand. If the Pope had meant it that way, one would think he would have been a bit more clear on something as monumental as the salvation of those outside the Catholic church. Could someone please clarify?
As far as submitting to the Roman Pontiff based on the Council of Nicea and believing which books are scripture and which are apocryphal, I do not believe that the books taken out of the Old Testament during the Reformation are scripture.
Speaking of the Canon, I have read that the book of Revelation was initially excluded from the Bible as Apocryphal, but was later added because of its popularity. A revision of the Canon would be a Papal contradiction.
Okay, I've finally broken down and created an ID so I won't be posting anonymously anymore.
On this post, Anonymous posts 6:31 PM, 4:37 PM, 4:14 PM, 3:50 PM, 3:18 PM, and 9:59 AM are all mine.
I appriciate your answers, especially Terry's. I am not doing this to try and break "yinz" faith, I am looking for answers. I had a Catholic direct me to http://www.ihsv.com/, which is a Catholic site that states that ALL people not of the Roman Catholic faith are doomed to an eternity in hell.
Back to the issue at hand. If the Pope had meant it that way, one would think he would have been a bit more clear on something as monumental as the salvation of those outside the Catholic church. Could someone please clarify?
As far as submitting to the Roman Pontiff based on the Council of Nicea and believing which books are scripture and which are apocryphal, I do not believe that the books taken out of the Old Testament during the Reformation are scripture.
Speaking of the Canon, I have read that the book of Revelation was initially excluded from the Bible as Apocryphal, but was later added because of its popularity. A revision of the Canon would be a Papal contradiction.
"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?"
"[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever...For all these have fallen from the truth"
Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
Two words, Catholic Consistency.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
"Scripture is clear on WHO can forgive sin - it must be one who is sinless themselves. I have yet to find myself or anyone else that fits that bill - save Christ alone."
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:19
That "whatever" includes sins.
The tense of the verb Jesus used in Matthew 16:19, didomi, indicates it is in the future. The question is was it in this life or the next?
As far as binding and loosing, I've been studying that one since it is the one verse I've seen quoted most often here. It is a bit tricky to translate from the original Greek. One other translation is "whatever thou mayest bind upon the earth, shall be, having been bound in the heavens, and whatever thou mayest loose upon the earth, shall be, having been loosed in the heavens." That indicates that things must be bound or loosed in heaven FIRST, so a man can do what God wants, rather than putting God subject to man. Also, it doesn't indicate if it is in this life or the next, nor does it make any indication that that promise extends past Peter and the Apostles to future Popes.
As I said before, I'm not attacking, just looking for answers.
Funky Dung ...
"That 'whatever' includes sins."
Yes .. but no where does binding or loosing mean saving forgivness.
No where do we ever read that the Church (or anyone else but Christ) can FORGIVE SIN to the SAVING OF A SOUL.
Now as to binding and loosing ...
You miss the context. You need to match this verse (Matt 16: 19) with those found in Matthew 18 AND 1 Cor 5 (moral evil) AND Galatians 5 (doctrinal evil).
This is a matter of Church discipline looking at the context, not a matter of salvation. The salvation of the soul is implied in the fact that the offender was part of the Church (Body of Christ).
To bind was to put the sin on the individual and turn them loose as found in (1 Tim 1:20 & 1 Cor 5:5). The point of binding is to detroy that which is counter to God and to preserve the spirit (again another reference to our security in Christ).
And to loose, obviously, is to remove that offence by having the offender restored after demonstrable repentance and reconcilliation with the Lord.
We must take the whole context of Scripture, not just one verse here and there and make judgements and doctrines. To do that is to not 'rightly divide' (or correctly handle) the word of truth.
9:39 AM anon,
Irenaeus' writing isn't considered scripture, so pointing to his writing as any kind of proof of papal infalibility carries about as much weight as saying "My mom said so." Apologies for being so blunt.
Also, I'm not familiar with the context of that writing. From my knowledge, Irenaeus was largely battling Gnosticism. Gnosticism claims that Christ was an emessary of the "true god" and not the God of the old testament, who they believe to be evil / insane / blind. In fact, St. Augustine supposedly borrowed the concept of original sin from Gnosticism, which at its core belief says that all of creation is evil due to the evilness / madness of its creator.
As far as your use of 2 Timothy 4:3-4, I really don't think the author was talking about everyone that is outside of the Catholic church and adhere to biblical teachings, but rather more liberal teachings seen in a lot of mainstream protestant denominations today. Doctrines like there is no hell, everyone goes to heaven, God is whoever you want him to be, etc.
And as long as we are talking about Irenaeus, he interceded with Pope Victor to lift the sentence of excommunication laid by that pontiff upon the Christian communities of Asia Minor which persevered in the practice of the Quartodecimans in regard to the celebration of Easter. So Pope Victor first excommunicating them, then lifting said excommunication shows some inconsistency.
Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
9:39 - Anon.
1. The doctrine of apostolic succession...
a. Is without true scriptural basis
b. Was devised by false teachers, in an attempt to counter other
false teachers
c. Has been used by many different churches, each asserting their own
validity and authority
d. Yet has not prevented wholesale apostasy from God and His Word
2. The Lord's church mentioned in Mt 16:18...
a. Is built on the foundation of Christ and His apostles - Ep 2:19-22
b. Grows whenever people respond to the gospel as proclaimed by the
apostles - Ac 2:38-41,47
c. Is manifested wherever people continue in apostolic doctrine, not
traditions of men - Ac 2:42
d. Is preserved by the power of God and the all-sufficient, once for
all revealed, Word of God - Ac 20:32; 2 Ti 3:16-17; Ju 3
By remaining faithful to the incorruptible seed, the Word of God, and by
His grace, we will receive that "inheritance among all those who are
sanctified" (Ac 20:32)...
True, but it doesn't say as to when that will be, due to the future tense of the word. Peter tried to get Gentiles to follow Jewish tradition afterall. It also doesn't say "you and all who follow you".
But anyway...
I have a copy of Young's Concordance (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0917006291/qid=1114188868/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-4867216-6480113). You can get a used one for $8.20. Or, if you live in Pittsburgh, I can let you borrow mine for a while. ;) It has been an invaluable tool in my search for answers.
Irenaeus was born sometime between 115 and 142 AD, so I'm not so sure about being discipled by an Apostle. It looks as though he would have been born a bit too late. And as I stated before, his main concern was Gnosticism, so if that writing was refering to Gnostics, using it in the context of one believer to another is to... well... take it out of context. A Catholic taking his words as proof of something is like a Lutheran taking the words of Martin Luther as proof.
Again, I apologize for being so harsh earlier.
"A Catholic taking his words as proof of something is like a Lutheran taking the words of Martin Luther as proof."
That's an interesting point. I've known quit a few Romophobic Protestants that quote Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, as though they were authoritative and binding.
Right, but as a Catholic, that holds no meaning for you.
Rather, it would hold no Authority for you.
"That's an interesting point. I've known quit a few Romophobic Protestants that quote Wesley, Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, as though they were authoritative and binding."
Well that's too bad and shame on them. NO commentary is authoritative, despite it's help in explaining a passage or expanding our knowledge.
The only authority a child of God can appeal to is that which is Divine (or of God Himself). Infallibility is a characteristic of the Divine, not of the mortal and is not one transferred to the mortal. Despite being made in the image of God and having the Spirit in the believer, he/she is not infallible or Divine by extension. We still have a sin nature along with the regenerated spiritual life (that thirst's for God) while we await the return of the Savior.
The Apostle Paul in Romans 7 says:
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Terry,
Get yourself a concordance. It contains every word in the bible (in English) and gives the Greek / Hebrew from the original text. It also shows the other verses that the same Greek / Hebrew word is used in.
In my previous comment, I posted a URL for Young's Analytical Concordance at Amazon.com.
It is a great place to start. :)
Terry George,
I also recommend an interlinear Bible. It will give you the Hebrew/Greek equivalents in-line in the text. An electronic version adds to that by allowing you to mouse over the word and thus get the numerical reference and the definition right then and there, (I have one called Power BibleCD) and then you can search that exact original word usage in the text to see every place it is found and know with assurance it's usage and context across all of Scripture. Very handy in deed ... and all for about 20$.
I recommend the electronic on as they usually contain more than one translation and usually have translations in more than one language. I am bilingual (English/French) and have studied Spanish. To see the same passage inthe 3 languages + the interlinear really aids me in getting a godd handle on the usage!
PS: Great discussion. I trust all that is said and received is done in the spirit or truly searching for the Truth and not a polishing of an opinion.
Hey all,
Great posts! This is the kind of dicussion I think we all need. This blog has been under attack by some and it is a hassle somtimes but what I've read from all of you makes it worth it all. I hope we will all look bit further and deeper in our understanding.
I resource I use while at work if I need to look something up is:
GospleCom.net
and similarily Bible Gateway
Post a Comment