God In An Earthly Government?

[phatcatholic]

mulls wrote:

nobody has it completely right, in my opinion

circle wrote:

Typically protestants disagree that being led by the Holy Spirit will give them perfect knowledge and truth of Scriptures. I am in this boat as well. And being led by the Spirit produces fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5) and allows one to live as we are called to live. It focuses on life, and the transformation (Gal 2:20) into our new self. Ephesians 4-6 gives a detailed breakdown of the different affects on our lives when we are led by the Spirit. Unity, holiness, love, wisdom, evangelistic living for example.

first off, i don't see how any of these responses answer my question. but then again, its early in the morning.

"nobody has it right"? that doesn't bother you? if the Holy Spirit truly leads you, then you will always have it right. i think that's our whole point. to me, it would be disheartening to know that every protestant interpretation of the Bible is incorrect in one way or another. how can you base your faith on a system in which no one has it completely right?

circle, ur right, being led by the Spirit does produce these fruits. i don't see how this accounts for this disunity concerning major points in protestantism. i think u can live a holy life and still have the wrong idea whe it comes to which bible interpretation is the correct one.

if this is incoherent, my apologies. i will do more thinking on this one, and maybe post more later.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

other thoughts.....

circle, i think i may need u to clear up the point u were trying to make in ur last post. are you saying this?: the fact that the Holy Spirit gives us different gifts--and we show the fruits of the spirit in different ways--accounts for the many different interpretations of the Bible, even though each new teaching claims guidance by the Holy Spirit. is that what u are saying?

if so, then i don't think this does, nor was it intended to, make up for disunity. Yes, God calls us all in different ways, and gives us each different gifts. but when it comes to the Truth, there can be only one. and when Jesus sent his Paraclete, did He not say that the Holy Spirit would guide you into ALL truth?

i look at urs, and mull's posts together and u seem to suggest that Jesus just goes ahead and allows people to disagree. i wish i knew how to make this more clear. i feel like i'm on the verge of a very effective point or argument, but i can't seem to spit it out.

still more later.....

[Circle_Master]

Lets see if i can summarize a response without a novel:

No, I don't agree completely with what you said. The Holy Spirit guidances doesn't lead one towards one interpretation of the bible or another, that is through our study and our work. When Paul writes about the Holy Spirits' 'illumination' of Scripture it must refer to the effect on us, and in our sanctification (being made like Christ). Why must it? Because I have seen excellent commentaries by non-Christians and our minds have been given intelligence regardless of our position in Christ.

I'm not sure if there is as much disunity as you tend to indicate. There is some 'dissention' within the denominations, but really there is more unity than anything. There are millions and millions of people involved every year in parachurch, paradenominational events. The denominations have different views of how to run a church and what theological position is true, but they don't divide the body as much as you suggest. What problems do exist are typical human nature. However, I do remember reading an article from 4 men from 4 radically different positions of Spiritual Gifts today and the complete cessationalism (no miraculous gifts) admitted he could still run a church with the other men despite their radically different approaches. That is the unity I love. And also the unity of going to a college with people from all denominations imaginable and just loving each other for our joy in Christ.

[phatcatholic]

circle,

i hope i catch you now in the mood to do some reading. i say this b/c i have found an article that clearly defines and defends the catholic conception of unity. i think that where this conversation becomes tedious is in our definition of "unity." you and i, we have different definitions of the word. here is the article that should explain our differences on this subject:

Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

i sincerely hope that you will read it. i feel that it will aid our discussion immensely.

to summarize my position, quite frankly, the unity you describe is not unity as Catholics see it. Catholicism shares a unity that is much greater, much stricter (in regards to degree of unity), more external, more tangible--a more visible unity. can you honestly say that the many denominations w/in Protestantism are one, just as the Son and the Father are one? this was the hope that Jesus had for His Church.

the unbeliever, the nonchristian must look up and see a visible Church. He must know, this is where THE Church is. yes, he could find his way into a huge "non-denominational" rally w/ hundreds or even thousands of Christians praising God and worshipping together, but that person still has that pesky issue of salvation to figure out! he wants to know "well how can i 'be saved' or go to heaven one day?" so, he starts walking around among the throngs of people asking random persons, "what do i need to do to see Jesus in heaven one day?" As i illustrated in my earlier post, he will recieve many, many different answers! this would undoubtely trouble the man, and he is likely to walk out and abandon the whole prospect of "Christianity" and "salvation."

you see, the non-christian or non-believer depends on a unity IN DOCTRINE. this unity as u describe it does him no good! b/c, as loving and friendly as the atmosphere is, at the end of the day there are many questions in his mind about which he must know THE TRUTH. Protestantism is not united in its understanding of the truth. and so, you are of little help to him.

if you don't have "one Lord, on faith, on baptism"--a stict union as real as the union between the Father and the Son--you don't really have unity at all.

ur thoughts?

thank you for being patient w/ me..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Circle_Master]

circle,

i hope i catch you now in the mood to do some reading. i say this b/c i have found an article that clearly defines and defends the catholic conception of unity. i think that where this conversation becomes tedious is in our definition of "unity." you and i, we have different definitions of the word. here is the article that should explain our differences on this subject:

Unity (As a Mark of the Church)

I skimmed it, hope that counts

to summarize my position, quite frankly, the unity you describe is not unity as Catholics see it. Catholicism shares a unity that is much greater, much stricter (in regards to degree of unity), more external, more tangible--a more visible unity. can you honestly say that the many denominations w/in Protestantism are one, just as the Son and the Father are one? this was the hope that Jesus had for His Church.

Problems with this view. Follow me with a little logic - Israel had a task of following YHVH and through this He would bless them and they would be a great nation. A great nation so that all nations would come to them longing to find YHVH and worship Him. Now, the roles change a little bit. For Israel people came to them, and joined them because of the amesome nation they were supposed to be. For the Church we are to take the Gospel to all nations. Instead of an internal organization, we are not external. So when we speak of the invisible church today, it is exactly that - we are unified in Christ, yet we are able to take the gospel to all nations. Israel could not do that, or it would not be a nation. Hope this clarifies my position a little. Thoughts?

the unbeliever, the nonchristian must look up and see a visible Church. He must know, this is where THE Church is. yes, he could find his way into a huge "non-denominational" rally w/ hundreds or even thousands of Christians praising God and worshipping together, but that person still has that pesky issue of salvation to figure out! he wants to know "well how can i 'be saved' or go to heaven one day?" so, he starts walking around among the throngs of people asking random persons, "what do i need to do to see Jesus in heaven one day?" As i illustrated in my earlier post, he will recieve many, many different answers! this would undoubtely trouble the man, and he is likely to walk out and abandon the whole prospect of "Christianity" and "salvation."

Why must a nonchristian see a visible church? Is it not enough they know about Jesus? During the first century church we have 1/3 of the known world evangelized and this is before there is even an organized church. Paul didn't even get as far as Rome until the 7th decade when the church began 40 years earlier, and it's not sure if, or when he got all the way west to spain. Without a visible church the greatest expansion of the 'church' occurred.

I'm not sure the person wandering around would really get that many answers. Many would say "believe on Jesus Christ for salvation!", many would say "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior!", but almost all would be the same idea, just in different words.

you see, the non-christian or non-believer depends on a unity IN DOCTRINE. this unity as u describe it does him no good! b/c, as loving and friendly as the atmosphere is, at the end of the day there are many questions in his mind about which he must know THE TRUTH. Protestantism is not united in its understanding of the truth. and so, you are of little help to him.

As a protestant, we would give him the gospel of John (written so that you might believe -self purposed) and lead him through the basics of the christian walk - which there is great unity on almost everywhere. I'm not sure where you have the idea that a non-believer must see unity in doctrine to see unity either. Perhaps a catholic thing you are used to hearing.

thank you for being patient w/ me..........pax christi,

phatcatholic

Thanks for being patient with me too! Good discussion is always fun to read and think about.

[phatcatholic]

sorry circle, i'm brain-dead from working on the reference section (the "morality and ethics" entry is MASSIVE!). so, i'll have to reply on another day.

pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Anna]

Why must a nonchristian see a visible church?

Jesus indicated that His Church would be visible, when He told His followers, "You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."(Matthew 5:14-16)

"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see the light." (Luke 8:16)

"And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." (John 1:5)

Is it not enough they know about Jesus? 

Consider, for a start, the way in which the biblical writers use the word "know." For them "knowledge" of persons (and particularly of the Lord) always has a bodily character to it as well as a spiritual one.

Between husband and wife, for instance, the biblical sense of "know" has an explicitly sexual connotation: "Adam knew his wife" (Gen 4:1). Likewise, for the writers of the Old Testament, to "know" Torah is more than merely verbalizing it. It involves all sorts of different acts of physical ritual designed to make the Law, not merely a part of one's mind, but a part of one's entire being, physical and spiritual...As he himself says, we are to worship God, not just verbally, but "with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and all your strength." And this is rooted in the very essence of the New Testament: for when God revealed himself to us, he too did not merely speak or hand down some verbal concepts. The Word did not become word; the Word became flesh... Thus, his last act with his disciples (and the very thing that inaugurates his Passion) is not a preachment, but a gesture. And a gesture which points not to an idea but to the physical fact of his flesh crucified for us: He took bread, broke it, gave it to his disciples and said, "Take this all of you and eat it. This is my body."...This revelation through the body--through gesture--is the way in which the Risen Christ reveals himself as well...The disciples on the Emmaus Road talked and talked with Jesus. They heard a great deal of verbal articulation of the gospel from the lips of the Son of God himself. Nor was such talk fruitless. They felt their hearts burning within them. But they only came to know him through his gesture--again in the breaking of the bread (Luke 24:30-31). It was, like all biblical knowledge, a kind of bodily encounter with Truth, not a mere mental understanding. It is thus, and not merely through memorization of his words that we know him. (excerpted from mark-shea.com)

During the first century church we have 1/3 of the known world evangelized and this is before there is even an organized church.

The Church was organized from the time Peter assumed his role as pope and the Apostles (the first bishops) took their positions of authority in the various cities.

Circle, you seem to equate "unity" with "fellowship," or the ability to get along together. Unity is much more intense than mere fellowship. Unity means being One. United. One in belief. Protestants may get along great and never have a quarrel, but no two denominations holds the same Truths to be True! That is a great sign of disunity. As phatcatholic has pointed out, we look to One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord.

As a protestant, we would give him the gospel of John (written so that you might believe -self purposed) and lead him through the basics of the christian walk - which there is great unity on almost everywhere.

Almost everywhere...until they get to chapter 6, for instance. And then, there will be a great divide. Edited January 20, 2004 by Anna

[phatcatholic]

Anna, thanks for taking over in my absense! :D along w/ what u said, i would like to add some things, and hopefully hear circle's response to both of our posts.

first, circle, you say this:

Problems with this view. Follow me with a little logic - Israel had a task of following YHVH and through this He would bless them and they would be a great nation. A great nation so that all nations would come to them longing to find YHVH and worship Him. Now, the roles change a little bit. For Israel people came to them, and joined them because of the amesome nation they were supposed to be. For the Church we are to take the Gospel to all nations. Instead of an internal organization, we are not external. So when we speak of the invisible church today, it is exactly that - we are unified in Christ, yet we are able to take the gospel to all nations. Israel could not do that, or it would not be a nation. Hope this clarifies my position a little. Thoughts?

first off, what is it about the organizational structure of the Catholic Church that u think prevents it from taking the gospel to all nations? this has been the mission of the Church from the beginning, and the Church was long at work doing this before many protestant denominations were even created.

next, you say:

Why must a nonchristian see a visible church? Is it not enough they know about Jesus? During the first century church we have 1/3 of the known world evangelized and this is before there is even an organized church. Paul didn't even get as far as Rome until the 7th decade when the church began 40 years earlier, and it's not sure if, or when he got all the way west to spain. Without a visible church the greatest expansion of the 'church' occurred.

I'm not sure the person wandering around would really get that many answers. Many would say "believe on Jesus Christ for salvation!", many would say "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior!", but almost all would be the same idea, just in different words.

i believe anna has adequately addressed your first paragraph, about "knowing" Jesus and the organizational structure of the Church from the beginning. so, i would like to comment on the "many answers" that a person walking through our proverbial revival would recieve. you seem to downplay the doctrinal discrepancies amongst protestantism here. yes, the words may be very similar: "believe in Jesus Christ" or "accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior"...........but the meaning behind these words varies quite a bit. lets just take the first one, for example:

--"believe on Jesus Christ for salvation!"

as a non-christian inquiring about this strange, christian faith, the following questions would undoubtedly arise (it is here where each denomination answers differently):

--believe what about Jesus?

--who is Jesus?

--how does my belief relate to my salvation?

--someone told me he saved us w/ his death on the cross....but how?

--how are the merits of that death applied to me?

--how do i recieve this grace?

--does it last forever?

--what is believing? what is faith?

--what is salvation?

is it necessary for me to illustrate the many ways in which christians answer these questions? hopefully you see that, upon further inspection, protestants are not united on what is the single most important topic. one of these mix of answers is the true one, the right one. the other one's aren't. but how is our friend to know? this variety of answers is definitely of no help to him. so, the inquisitive non-christian walks out of this scenario just as lost as he was when he entered. he doesn't want fifty answers. he wants THE answer! but this revival cannot give that to him.

to me, this is not effective "spreading of the Gospel to all nations."

finally, you end with:

As a protestant, we would give him the gospel of John (written so that you might believe -self purposed) and lead him through the basics of the christian walk - which there is great unity on almost everywhere. I'm not sure where you have the idea that a non-believer must see unity in doctrine to see unity either. Perhaps a catholic thing you are used to hearing.

for one, even the "christian walk" means different things to differnet christians. for example, the christians here at phatmass would describe a "christian walk" that includes Sacraments and praying the rosary. this discrepancy alone proves my point, let alone the many ways in which protestants define "the christian walk."

there must be unity --in doctrine-- b/c that is what we are called as christians to share-- the Truth of Christ for all mankind. Truth is an objective entity, no? as such, there can only be one truth. Truth IS. everything else is false. but, protestantism is not only divided on this Truth, but it also claims (or, at the least, u have claimed here) that it doesn't possess the fullness of Truth nor does it even pretend to!! if u don't have the fullness of Truth, then u basically have a little Truth w/ some falsehoods mixed in. who wants that?

i tell you, Jesus sent us a paraclete, the Holy Spirit, who will guide the Church into ALL truth. truth cannot contradict truth. but, in this revival exists a whirlwind of contradiction. and the non-christian throws his hands in the air in defeat.....

i pray for him, as i pray for you.....

pax christi,

phatcatholic

ps: i also pray for your continued patience :)

Edited January 21, 2004 by phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

circle,

darn, did u start ur unity thread to replace this one? i thought we had a nice little convo goin.....

ah well, pax christi,

phatcatholic

[Circle_Master]

sorry i'll get back if i find some time. hectic semester... ttyl

[Winchester]

Bruce,

You assume motivation in the architecture of the Vatican other than giving glory to God. Maybe that's because you're a bigoted cynical arse portal with a chip on your shoulder, maybe not. I think the former, since your listing of the traits mentioned take a definite bend toward the bad things.

The Catholic Church does more charity work than any other Church. She stands head and shoulders above all other religions as a voice for peace, for protection of ALL human life, for the sanctity of marriage and of human sexuality. You will acknowledge this, or you will prove yourself a moronic simpleton on the order of Archie Bunker, yelling from his rotting armchair in a pathetic attempt to give meaning to his sound and fury.

It's fine and good to attack the Church, but if your posts had even a pretense of respect as opposed to condescension, they would be respectable as something other than electronic toilet tissue. In attempting to prove the Church wrong to we convinced, it would behoove you to make diplomatic overtures rather than MACH1 sorties.

[Bruce S]

Bruce,

You assume motivation in the architecture of the Vatican other than giving glory to God. Maybe that's because you're a bigoted cynical arse portal with a chip on your shoulder, maybe not. I think the former, since your listing of the traits mentioned take a definite bend toward the bad things.

Not really, I beat the snot out of our money grubbers too. We have more than our share of gold pilers, only difference is I'm NOT DEFENDING ours.

It's fine and good to attack the Church, but if your posts had even a pretense of respect as opposed to condescension, they would be respectable as something other than electronic toilet tissue. In attempting to prove the Church wrong to we convinced, it would behoove you to make diplomatic overtures rather than MACH1 sorties.

:rolling: :D ;)

Edited January 22, 2004 by Bruce S

[Jake Huether]

I am just bringing up things that Protestants talk about all the time, this IS the Interdenominal Forum, why are not the issues that really concern Protestants, in FACT LEAD TO PROTESTANISM, allowed on the floor?

I continue:

No other denomination has been consumed with wealth generation, nor accumulated wealth like the Catholic Church. I take this passage, with the other statements made by Jesus to the Apostles, to mean that this is NOT supposed to be the way His church should be organized.

Doesn't this propensity to focus on earthly power, wealth, and massive accumulated piles of valuable treasure on earth, fly in the face of those prohibitions?

I've been to the Vatican twice. It was there, HONESTLY, while standing in that vast accumulate pile of glitter, and power, and pomp, that I, for the first time, really understood the Protestant reformation. And I was a mental Catholic at that time.

Mark 14

Jesus Anointed at Bethany

1 Now the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were only two days away, and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some sly way to arrest Jesus and kill him.

2 But not during the Feast, they said, or the people may riot.

3 While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

4 Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, Why this waste of perfume?

5 It could have been sold for more than a year's wages and the money given to the poor. And they rebuked her harshly.

6 Leave her alone, said Jesus. Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me.

7 The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.

8 She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial.

9 I tell you the truth, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.

[Winchester]

Not really, I beat the snot out of our money grubbers too. We have more than our share of gold pilers, only difference is I'm NOT DEFENDING ours.

And who is defending actual money grubbing? Did anyone here state accumulating wealth for its own sake was a laudable action? The answer, since you seem so averse to actually giving any, is "no." As I said, you assume motivation other than virtuous. Fine. By your response, you have confirmed well enough for me your tactic, which is to foist misleading rhetoric and never address what is put to you. Jack Chick has some excellent tracts that may teach you one or two myths you will gladly regurgitate onto the internet through your oft-pecked keyboard. Really, there is no difference. You even illustrate your posts, now.

I notice you failed to address the absolutely massive charity work done by the Church. Since that would do little to forward your agenda to demonize the Church that protected the morals you hold so dearly, I am not surprised.

You may save yourself time in emphasizing my words. I normally shun the use of bold letters; my words speak without such petty tactics, as a rule. It is procedure to add "emphasis mine" when one distorts quotes in such a manner. I did deign to use caps in the word "ALL", a nod to the virtues of type-face manipulation. I assure you that your readers can pick out the most important part of the quote you offer, although the use of ellipses (...) will allow you to excise a lesser part of the sentence and lay it on the dissection table that is the Phatmass quote box.