Justification

[Brother Adam]

[font="Courier"][color=red]"The Catholic Church is not a denomination - an institution whose form is defined by the will of its members - but a Church - a community whose basic structure and boundaries are defined, once and for all, by the will of Christ. For the Church is the Body of Christ, and those who are ordained to act in persona Christi, exercise headship in the Body, the Church." [/color][/font]

Edited October 23, 2004 by Brother Adam

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Oct 21 2004, 06:10 PM'] "I could not have said that better, Adam. Not only are we adopted but we are grafted in to God. When a skin graph is successful it becomes one with the area it was gratfed into. The graft no longer has an idenity of its own. It was a piece of skin, by itself and alone. Once grafted, it becomes what it was grafted on to. If skin is grafted on to a leg it becomes the leg, it is no longer on its own, it gets all the benefits that all the other skin gets and cannot be seprated from the leg, in fact it certainly can't leave the leg (that was a poor example of my point, I know) What I am trying to say is that we are FULL Children of God, once we are saved. "

One problem with this analogy.  The grafting the Bible speaks of is the grafting of trees.  They wouldn't have had a clue about skin grafting back in those days.  Now with trees, branches are grafted on to the trunk.  This is what the Bible referes to.  In this case the analogy is that the grafted branch begins to take it's nourishment from the trunk.  However, the graft does not become the same tree that the trunk.  Further grafts can be cut off.

Blessings [/quote]
Not all trees grafts are successful, insects can enter at that point and the whole thing dies.

Edited October 23, 2004 by cmotherofpirl

[thessalonian]

Brian, I plan on getting back to you on your post. I agree that Romans 11 is about Jews and Gentiles and so your overall I agree with your explanation. But I do not agree that the verse is not a warning to the individual as well. I read the whole thing over this AM and will comment later. By the way I have no problem with you using commentaries. I kinda like the Catechism myself. I guess it just bothers you because deep down you know you really don't go Sola.

Blessings

[thessalonian]

"The verse is saying that like Jews who don't believe, and are broken off, you will get the same treatment, that being, that you Gentiles will also be broken off and cast away, if you have unbelief. This way of looking at it could work for "Jews" and "Gentiles" as whole groups or as individuals among the groups. Sorry I had to dig deeper then my own brain to get me started on that answer. I really believe that is a very good way to explain those verses and it totally supports what I have been saying. ". It is also saying they are in his kindness.

Romans 11:22
Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Now according to your understanding can someone really be in God's kindness without faith?




Got another question for you. Can anyone be God's trusted friend if he does not have faith?

Blessings
Im have a bit of difficulty with your answer Brain. Are you saying that Paul is saying the whole group of gentiles he is talking to might not believe or is he speaking to individuals? Are some of the individuals who don't really believe being warned? Are the ones who do believe supposed to sluff off what he said and say "well I'm a true believer so he's not talking to me"? I just don't see how you can say that his warning is not for each individual in the congregation that the verse was spoken to and in the ones throughout history that it is read to.

[mulls]

props to everyone involved with this discussion for manners, respect, and charity. way to be good examples.


keep it up!

[Briguy]

Grant, Having read the verses in John carefully I see that my answer in Romans fits here too, at least to a basic degree. Jesus is talking very intimate with his closest friends, his 12 disciples. He is opening up to them and giving them His main ministry message, that is to LOVE ONE ANOTHER. Now, from the chapter before we see as the chapter changes to #15 Jesus extends what he is saying to all people. We start this life as a branch on the vine of Christ (in this example from Jesus), if we believe in Him we will not be cut off, if we do not believe, then he abides not in us and we are cast off and burned like a branch. One side note. In the KJV it does not say the branches is cut off and thrown into the fire, it says like a branch thrown into the fire. As I wrote that I realized I have no clue if that helps or hurts my argument or if it means anything at all – oh well. Jesus was very direct at times in who he was speaking to and very general at other times. The “you” when he says “I am the vine, you are the branches” is an audience “you”, where a lot of chapt 14, 15, etc… is meant only for the 12, who would become apostles (minus Judas, of course). Grant, in this intimate conversation, with various focuses, I do not believe we are meant to get strict doctrine statements but are supposed to get the idea of how much Jesus loves us, to the point of actually abiding in us, and how important it is for the one with whom Christ abides that we do good for His sake. The world sees the branches that remain on the vine and thus it is crucial for the kingdom that we live as we ought, by following the BIG COMMANDMENT, TO LOVE OTHERS.

Grant, I don’t know if you will accept that but I believe that is thought that Jesus was conveying to us and His beloved 12.


Thanks to Cure and Adam on the compliment on my SW record. Actually I will have been in the field for 19 years come 2/05. It certainly has been a challenge and a blessing. To me Cure is the real hero as he in the very front line of SW, and getting the process started for many people in need. BTW, I sit next to a guy who has been in SW for 36 years and he is still sane! I don’t know if I will endure that long, time will tell.

More to come,
In Christ,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

Can one who does not believe be called God's trusted friend?

Blessings

[point5]

I second mulls..props to everyone for this dialouge. I enjoy seeing charity...and hearing both sides presented logically. I hope this stays active for a while.

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, I am responding now to your thought on unity. I agree fully that the Catholic Church has great unity. Much more so then protestants. That is why, btw, I hate the use of church titles and denominations. I attend a non-denominational church called, Racine Bible Church. It is a church that just concentrates on teaching the word of God. Sunday messages are basically a dissection of scripture with lots of cross references and then practical application. Anyway, back to the point. The Catholic Church is very unified but so are the worldwide Mormons and also the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Having everyone on the same page does not mean that they are on the right page. We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible. For you it incorporates the Bible but includes tradition and Vatican leadership. Now, you said that the authority on doctrinal matters has been “passed down” from the Apostles to church leaders down through the ages. I say that the doctrinal authority has been “written down” by the Apostles for the ages. Peter, James, John etc… wrote the things they deemed important for us to always have. The Bible contains all we need to know about God and gives us the resources to actually get to know God. Knowing God, through Jesus, is all we really need to know when it comes down to it. Paul said , in more then one place, that any Gospel that is preached that is different then the one he preached is no gospel at all. That right there is the only criteria we have for teaching Jesus, that is it has to line up with what Paul said. The unity in the churches comes from teaching Paul’s Jesus, everything else, though it can cause strife and problems, does not divide. Paul and Barnabas (maybe it was Silas) split and went different ways over an issue but both were fully committed to Christ and forwarding the same gospel, even when they did not get along so well with each other. I believe it is the same today. If we preach Paul’s Christ we have unity.

Thess., On the Romans 11:22 question. Below I included the verse and others in KJV and NASB. I can only say that I stand by what I said. This is a figurative thing Jesus is saying and he is saying it to the “Jews” as a whole and the “Gentiles” as a whole because the gentiles for the first time could fully be accepted as God’s chosen, by their belief. This is saying that there is goodness for the believers and a severe wrath for unbelievers. Whether Jew or Gentile the judgement is now by faith (belief), not by obedience, as in the way of the Law. The whole world now has potential access to God in all His goodness, not just the Jews and their priests, etc…

Thess. The trusted friend question. Is this in regard to whether Judas was saved or not? Remember the quote is an OT quote that was being used to display a certain thought. I’ll answer to Judas if that is what you were getting at, but after I hear back from you.

Thanks for the great questions and posts. I am enjoying the challenge and the On-Line fellowship!

In Christ,
Brian

KJV
17] And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
[18] Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
[19] Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
[20] Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
[21] For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
[22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
[23] And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
[24] For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
[25] For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
[26] And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

NASB
17 But if some of the (28) branches were broken off, and (29) you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18 do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that (30) it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19 (31) You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you (32) stand by your faith. (33) Do not be conceited, but fear;
21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God's (34) kindness, (35) if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also (36) will be cut off.
23 And they also, (37) if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?
25 For (38) I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this (39) mystery--so that you will not be (40) wise in your own estimation--that a partial (41) hardening has happened to Israel until the (42) fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

[thessalonian]

"Thess., On the Romans 11:22 question. Below I included the verse and others in KJV and NASB. I can only say that I stand by what I said. This is a figurative thing Jesus is saying and he is saying it to the “Jews” as a whole and the “Gentiles” as a whole because the gentiles for the first time could fully be accepted as God’s chosen, by their belief. This is saying that there is goodness for the believers and a severe wrath for unbelievers. Whether Jew or Gentile the judgement is now by faith (belief), not by obedience, as in the way of the Law. The whole world now has potential access to God in all His goodness, not just the Jews and their priests, etc…"

So all of the gentiles may someday be cut off? Or maybe they already have been? If all of them are cut off then what of the ones who were true believers and saved? Did they loose there salvation? I am not following your explanation very well I guess. The gentiles in Romans 11 are apparently grafted on gentiles by faith but it seems you are saying they are grafted on but not really grafted on because they never really believed. Now the Jews formed branches by birth and the law. But he says the gentiles are grafted on by faith. Now how can anyone be cut off who has not been grafted on in the first place? Yet it says that they may be cut off. Whether you read it as the whole of the gentiles or some of them or individually it reads the same to me. Am I just confused about what you are saying? I do agree that they will be cut off by unbelief. But where are you getting in the verse that they were never grafted on in the first place. He says they were grafted on by faith. That is the only way a gentile can be grafted on.

"Thess. The trusted friend question. Is this in regard to whether Judas was saved or not? Remember the quote is an OT quote that was being used to display a certain thought. I’ll answer to Judas if that is what you were getting at, but after I hear back from you."

Shouldn't matter. Either someone who is not a true-believer can or can not be God's trusted friend. If they can be in what way can they be such that they are not saved? Sorry if I am not much help. Looking forward to your reply.

Blessings

Edited October 26, 2004 by thessalonian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

I have to say that the following is not a very good arguement.

"Paul and Barnabas (maybe it was Silas) split and went different ways over an issue but both were fully committed to Christ and forwarding the same gospel, even when they did not get along so well with each other. I believe it is the same today. If we preach Paul’s Christ we have unity."

Paul and Barnabas disagreement was not over a doctrinal matter but over whether Mark should come along with them back to where they had already preached.

Acts 15:36-37
After some days Paul said to Barnabas, "Let us return and visit the brethren in every city in which we proclaimed the word of the Lord, and see how they are."
Barnabas wanted to take John, called Mark, along with them also.
But Paul kept insisting that they should not take him along who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone with them to the work.


You will have to come up with an example in the Bible of where there was a doctrinal difference based on an interprutation of the scriptures for your theory to hold water I am afraid. Do you have one? Where does Paul say, the correct interprutation of these verses really doesn't matter? I am arguing this same point on another board and it seems the arguement is "the bible contains everything that is neccessary for our salvation, yet none of it really matters as long as you have Jesus.". You guys can't even agree on what the Gospel is. I listen to Protestant radio and one guy says that 90% of the Evangelical Christians aren't really saved because they didn't have the law preached to them first. He says that 60-80% go back to the billy graham crusades several times to get resaved because they aren't getting saved right in the first place. Yet others on that same station say, you say a sinners prayer and your in. Even if you sin big and bad your in. Now these have to be significant differences don't you agree? Some say you have to speak in tongues or you were never really saved. Just a little in house debate you say? No Brian, we need to have the fullness of the truth. All of God's holy word matters and we are accountable for proper dilligence in determining what the truth is. But in order for God to be able to hold us accountable he must have left a means of knowing where to find the fullness of the truth. I cannot see how it can be anywhere but in the Catholic Church. God made this derterination easy early on but man made it difficult with his rebellion during the reformation such that 95% of the division has it's roots in the reformation. I had one pastor tell me that the division was a part of God's plan to keep the truth from satan. Very strange.

Blessings

Edited October 26, 2004 by thessalonian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brain,

Let's get right into it.

[quote]Sunday messages are basically a dissection of scripture with lots of cross references and then practical application[/quote]

Yes, I got used to this method of Church for three years in a fundamental Church. Certianly it is not a "wrong" way to learn about God, but in the years I spent visiting and then as a member of these Churches, it never once was "deep". That is the best way I know how to describe it. The scriptures never came together harmoniously the way they do in the Church. The pastor typically decided something he wanted to talk about. Tear a few verses apart talking about the Greek and on rare occassion the culture in which the verse was taken. They then usually refer to a few other verses which they believed would help make their point. Worship was always more about feeling close to God and less about true intimacy with God. Also, anyone in the fundamentalist churches were free to believe whatever they will and come up with whole different ideas about the verses preached.

Worship in the Catholic Church has always, as it was in biblical times, been structured around the Word and the Sacraments. There are two main parts to the mass: the reading of the Word of God and the breaking of bread. Fellowship is emphasised outside of worship, as worship is time between man and God. However, there is the greeting of peace, when we greet our brothers and sisters in Christ. Between the two, I have to pick the method of worship which has been going on for 2000 years. Every Sunday a reading is choosen from the OT or Revelation, Psalms, New Testament Epistles, and then the Gospel reading. No matter what Church you are in across the world, the same readings are used. The same message is preached. And through three years almost the whole Bible is read aloud in Church. The sermon is based on bringing together these readings and focusing on an aspect such as Prayer, Salvation, Repentance, or even social issues in our lives today. I suggest "The Lamb's Supper" for an increadible look into the worship of the Bible. Completely biblical support

[quote]The Catholic Church is very unified but so are the worldwide Mormons and also the Jehovah’s Witnesses.[/quote]

Often less so than you think. I'm not as well versed in the JW faith, but have read the Book of Mormon and studied the Mormon faith in depth. I was part of a couple of debates on teh BB with Mormons. One thing I do know about both: As with Protestantism, they have very late origins in Christianity, and are sects that, unlike Protestantism are in apostasy as well as heresy. They aren't even Christian. Unity, on some fronts, but by the same idea, there is unity among Southern Baptists, no matter where in the world they are located.

[quote]We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible. For you it incorporates the Bible but includes tradition and Vatican leadership.[/quote]

This is somewhat incorrect, but I understand where you are coming from. This was something else I had to look into pretty deep. Just as you look to commentaries, we look at the Early Church Fathers. And yes, we have commentaries too. Increadibly profound ones. I suggest looking at some of them. You'll often find Catholics and Protestants agree, and where we don't, Catholics often just are looking at things from a different, many times, better, angle.

The Bible and Tradition and the Church all have unique places in Christianity. And their places are not the same in Christianity. The Church came first (more correctly, the Jewish people came first, then the Torah, the Old Testament, then the Church, then the New Testament). The Church choose the canon of the Bible. Much more was written than is in the Bible in early times. We look to these sources not necessarily as inspired, but not necessarily useless either. We hold to Traditions as the apostles held to Traditions. The Gospel was shared only by word of mouth for the first 400 years of Christianity. Lest we forget.

There is much more to talk about but I'm running out of time.

[quote]We must test what we believe as much as we can, and for me that test starts and ends with the Bible[/quote]

The Bible never says it is sufficient as a rule of faith. It tells us we are left with the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. Luther was sorely wrong on this point. He came to it after getting frustrated because of poor leaders in the Church who were refusing to reform their questionable practices. It was his "escape" to justify his attacks on the Church. His 95 thesis were based solely on a practice in the Church, not on doctrine or morals. Naturally, he later dissented in other ways. St. Therese and St. John of the Cross both fought against bad practices, but did not divorce the family of God as Luther did. Everyone would do well to read their stories, protestant and Catholic.

[quote]Gospel that is preached that is different then the one he preached is no gospel at all.[/quote]

Absolutely. Which is why it is disappointing so many Protestant Churches do. Faith alone is unteniable. Scripture never once teaches it. Faith. But never faith alone. Scripture must be approached as a whole, or it can be made to say anything as Zwingli has proved in his "symbolic communion and symbolic baptism" teachings.

God Bless!

Bro. Adam

[thessalonian]

Couple more questions Brian.

In light of the following scriptures how much error did Paul find or expect to find when he checked in on the local communities:

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, JUST as I delivered them to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

If one has a scripture but has an errant view of it, does he have the word of God?

1 Peter 2:1
Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,
like newborn babies, long for the PURE milk of the word, so that BY IT (that is the PURE milk of the word) you may grow in respect to salvation,

James 1:27
PURE and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

(where is faith alone)


How many mistaken theological conclusions did he allow for Timothy:

1 Corinthians 4:17
For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, and he will remind you of my ways which are in Christ, JUST as I teach everywhere in every church.

2 Timothy 2:15
Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

Just a little FFT.



Blessings

Thessalonian

Edited October 27, 2004 by thessalonian

[Briguy]

Hi Thess. and Adam, hope this day finds you well!!

Thess. Romans 11 - Here I thought you had it but now it seems you missed my point. The grafting in is one of position for the Gentiles. By position, the Jews, chosen AS A PEOPLE, were the natural branches on the tree. Because of the death and ressurrection of Christ, Gentiles have been grafted onto the tree, positionally. This is not meant to be so deep. We now are all God's chosen people, us Gentiles have joined Isreal in this respect. What individual people do is something altogether different. I will leave it at that because, with my poor brain power the more I try to explain something the more foggy it gets. Thess. in terms of being in His kindness, remember, it is by position here and so we have a position of Kindness as a whole.

On Paul and Barnabas - I was trying to make a point but did not make a very good one. I guess what I was eluding to was that the only clear criteria we have for judging anothers "belief system" (for lack of better words) is to judge what Gospel they are preaching. Paul tells us that if anyone preaches a Jesus, other then the one he preached (what he preached about Jesus), they are wrong. By this judgement I can declare that JW's are wrong. Paul did not say Christ was an angel, therefore that is a different Jesus, and JW's are in error. Mormons say God was a man on a different planet in the past. This defies God being the one power in the whole universe and takes Jesus from the high place that paul has put Him and so I can declare that Mormons are wrong by Paul's standard. I cannot declare that Catholics are wrong by Paul's measure and so I won't. Catholics on the other hand will declare me to be wrong about Jesus (and His true Church) even though I preach (no, I am not a preacher) but when I speak of Jesus, as I taught JV AWANA last year and share with people when I can, I bring Paul's Jesus. I guess my question would be by what Biblical criteria are you judging other chuches? So, what I am getting at is that we make things into "doctrine" that we probably shouldn't because we were never allowed biblically to do so. The divisions in the "body" today are because of manmade doctrine more then anything.

Have to go, I will address tradition later. (Biblical tradition does not
involve big hats, I will start with that) - no disrespect intended, just a little humor.

Lots of other great questions you have asked. I will try to get to them all. If you can restrain yourselves, hold off on new questions until I catch up on the current ones.

In Love and peace and Truth,
Brian

[thessalonian]

Brian,

"Paul tells us that if anyone preaches a Jesus, other then the one he preached (what he preached about Jesus), they are wrong."

I am going to start another thread on circumcision and Acts 15 and Sola Scriptura. I don't want to derail this thread with that topic. Thanks for pointing me in that direction yesterday. I would like you to have a look if you could.

Sorry about the new thread with new questions. I know your in the corner. Perhaps your response about tradition and big hats will go better there.

I now understand what you are saying about the gentiles and will think about it a bit more. Thanks for the explanation.

Blessings

Thess

Edited October 27, 2004 by thessalonian