Becoming Catholic?

I doubt very much if I ever belong to anything other than a free church (Baptist, Mennonite, etc.). If my wife was willing, I'd gravitate toward the Mennonites, probably. If forced to join some liturgical church, it would be Eastern Orthodox, since they have no liberal, unbelieving theologians.

 

That's what you get when you put "Catholic" in the subject line!

 

Should have known this thread would produce a lot of heat.

There have been some requests here for proof that the Church is an institution here on earth. For those who wish to see, who have opened their eyes, the evidence from Scripture is quite overwhelming.

For instance, in Matthew 21: 33 - 46 (which you know I have quoted quite often), we see the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. It is a prophecy of the "changing of the guard" if you will. In it, our Lord prophesies that the kingdom of God will be taken from the Jews and given to "another nation, bringing forth fruits in due season." That nation is, of course, the Church.

Now....several things ought to stand out in this parable to those who believe in comparing OT and NT types and fulfillments. The "church" of the OT is the Jewish nation, which had to ordinances of God. They are the keepers of the vineyard, which in Matt. 21 is called "the vineyard." The vineyard is take from them because of their mismanagement, and give to others. But note that the vineyard itself is never spoken of as going through any change in its nature or substance. Very important, for if we have an earthly kingdom, with hierarchy, covenant, and priesthood on earth in the Old Covenant, then by reading this parable properly, we have every reason to believe that the Church of the New Covenant, the kingdom of God on earth, continues to be an earthly realm.

In fact, the idea of the Church as "invisible, spiritual, and made up of only 'true believers'" is an idea which never was preached until the Reformation, for rather obvious reasons.

There is also the issue of God's intention from the Garden of Eden. Why was man placed on earth? What was the intent of God for mankind? How would He accomplish this? How did the Fall affect this goal and what did God to do overcome and defeat death and the Fall?

Our God's intention was, as stated in the NT, that He might "bring many sons to glory". Adam is called "the son of God," and if you take the impact of this name, you realize that there is much there regarding the great glory which God bestowed upon Adam in calling him His son. There was a goal -- which we call in the East "theosis", or becoming godlike (like Christ). Christ, in fact, is the Last Adam, and in Him we see all that Adam the first could have been (except for the divine essence, the nature of God in Jesus) if he had not fallen. The goal, to be achieved upon earth, was god like beings in whom the glory of God was shared (but never the essence of God). Our God sought to reproduce His glory in mankind.

In order to do this, He put man on earth and began a program designed to "grow" man in faith. In Romans we see that whenever faith is exercised, we grow in righteousness, for faith and its exercise is righteousness. Adam was created a morally neutral being. He had no righteousness of his own -- he was innocent. But that is the state of a baby, and not the state of a full grown mature son of God. So God placed Adam on earth that he might grow in righteousness by exercising faith. And that he might be the father of the human race and all who would come from his loins. In other words, the goal of God was an earthly family, presided over by Adam, and a world populated by a family -- the family of God. It is very earthly.

Those who deny the Church as being earthly must prove that God has given up on this plan for an earthly family. Where mankind's sin at Babel fragmented mankind, the Cross was given to unite mankind. The goal of the Church is one family, one kingdom, one head on earth who represents the divine head in Heaven. This again represents exactly what Adam could have become and what the world could have become if sin had not derailed the Garden Family.

More proof of this is the familial terms used in Christianity. "Brother, sister, Jesus our Elder Brother, God the Father, and most of all, covenant", which is highly familial are all terms speaking to a single family on earth.

The tribal families of the Old Covenant show us how a covenant works, its rules and regulations, and its blessings for obedience and cursings for disobedience. The Church is the covenantal family on earth here which pictures the eternal covenant family in Heaven. (Heb. 8: 5). Everything God created in mankind here on earth is to point to heavenly realities which we could not understand if we saw them. The family is the living icon of the relationship of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Church is the living icon of the heavenly kingdom, especially in its hierarchial nature.

These are issues I saw as I wrestled with conversion ("oh no, ANYTHING but THAT!!").

Furthermore, as I continued to look at the issue, I saw that in order for the Church to be the "light upon a hill" to the world, it could not be invisible, for who would know where it was or with what voice it spoke. I saw that the Church was really the continuance of the Jewish religion, except that where the Jews practiced their ordinances in anticipation of the coming Messiah, the Church practices Her Sacraments in fulfillment of those promises. Thus we see Christ Himself changing the Passover to the Liturgy, celebrating Passover with His apostles and instituting a new Passover ritual in which He is both the Offerer and the Offering. We see the continuation of the mediatorial priesthood, except now the sinner does not offer a lamb to the priest and then consume it after being offered. He offers the Lamb for his sins in the Sacrament of Confession, and then consumes that True Lamb in the Eucharist.

Types and fulfillments. I simply could not escape them. They are everywhere in the Scriptures.

God did not say that He would destroy the earth. He said in Psalms that it was made to be inhabited FOREVER!! The world is the womb of heaven in Christian typology, for into it are born children who are destined for godlikeness by the grace of God. Only an earthly and seen Church can teach those babies how to enter the kingdom family, how to surrender to Christ, and how to grow in grace. Only an earthly Church can offer to them the means of grace which are the Sacraments which Christ gave to the Church.

In the Sacraments, the spiritual and the physical are united. God uses physical means to provide spritual blessings. And again, we see that this is consistent with the Garden, for it was the eating of a fruit in the Garden which brought about spiritual death. It is therefore quite in line with the redemption of the world that the eating of physical bread and wine should be the means of great blessing and the reversal of the curse which eathing in the Garden brought about.

There are NUMEROUS passages in Scripture in which those terms applied to the Church in the Old Covenant, the Jewish nation, are now applied to the Church. Why would God allow this if the Church has not taken the place of the Jewish nation here on earth as the administrators of the kingdom of God here on earth?

Ex 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Look at what St. Peter says to those in the first century Church. He uses the same language that was used to describe the covenant people in the OT. Every Jew who heard that would have made teh connection. They would have seen the earthly Church of the first century as the inheritors of the promises of Exodus 19 when they heard Peter.

I'm sorry I can't go longer on this. But the overwhelming evidence for an earthly organization to replace the first organization, a continuance in fulfillment of the OT kingdom, is the only way that such passages as Matt. 21 made any sense at all.

 

Ahh! But I do believe in both!

Sorry, had to throw that out. Just got home from work and didn't want you to think that I believe in both!

See ya, Mike!
Neal

P.S. Now you can claim glorious victory!

 

So if everything just replaces the old, what is the point? Or is there something different about the New Covenant? (Hint: Old was external, New is internal)

I know, as much fun as it would be, I will not be debating this. I already told Mike that he could claim victory.

God Bless You, Ed.
Neal

 

You do the same, Carson.

God Bless You,
Neal

 

Neal --

Fulfillments follow types. You don't do a typology in the OT and see something entirely different in the NT. When God establishes the covenant in the OT, we do not look for something different in the NT.

However, you are correct that it is a difference between internal and external, i.e., the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Sacraments and in the believers. THAT is the difference.

Why is it such a problem to you do believe that the system which began with the Jewish nation in the desert should continue unchanged in the NT? Hebrews 8:5 makes it abundantly clear that the system of worship Moses was to establish had to follow precise guidelines because it represented to the world the worship and praxis of Heaven itself!!. Since this is true, and since Heaven has not changed in what is done there, then why would Christianity look, feel, smell, and act different from Judaism other than in having the TRUE LAMB as the fulfillment of the prophetic rituals?

When John was granted a vision of Heaven some 40+ years after our Lord left the earth, he saw "a lamb as it were slain". Why? After all, the Jewish system and the Old Covenant were passed away, right? How's come then John would see this except that it is a timeless reality which was made present in time once upon a time.

The Faith still presents that timeless Lamb for both the sins of the world (mankind) as well as for each man's personal sins. And that timeless Lamb is still there in timeless Heaven, still appearing as "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world".

WHY then, would we wish to change this truth? That which Judaism presented in type as a promise of God's coming salvation, we must still present as reality in God's salvation plan.

Christianity is NOT a new religion. It is fulfilled Judaism. Therefore, if your praxis does not have a distinctly Jewish look and practice to it, excepting that Christ is presented in it as the promised fulfillment, then how is it in line with the truth?

 

And where did the Acorn come from? Only mature OAK trees produce Acorns. A trunk does not a tree make, neither can a branch exist lest there be a trunk.

Being Catholic is no big deal, and it is not something to be sought after. Being Christian is! It matters little which faction or denomination one aligns with, it is strictly who one aligns with that matters, and the Pope ain't the one!

 

.........and you will not have to answer for that statement in the Judgement
either, Yelsew.

 

Remembering that it is only an analogy, there is another, obvious answer: God can produce Acorns.

 

Remembering that it is only an analogy, there is another, obvious answer: God can produce Acorns. </font>[/QUOTE]Are you sure? The Scriptures say nothing about God creating seeds, but it does say much about Him creating trees and every "living" thing. And that each would produce its own. The acorn is that which is produced and not that which produces.

Really now, was it the chicken or the egg?

 

Are you sure? The Scriptures say nothing about God creating seeds
</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, you're right. God can't create acorns.

 

Are you sure? The Scriptures say nothing about God creating seeds
</font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, you're right. God can't create acorns. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not say God Can't I said that the record says that He didn't, opting instead for the mature living thing. Therein lies the difference.

 

What God created FIRST was ADAM and EVE, the kingdom family ON EARTH. It was His intention that they would rule and reign over the earth and over all the tribes of peoples who would come from their marital union.

Adam was destined to be king of the world as the son of God, however, he blew that when he sinned and followed Eve in her disobedience.

God did not create acorns or eggs first. He brought the entire world into being "ex nihlo" and created it so that they would bear each after their own kind. (proving dipsy evolutionist nuts wrong). In like manner, He gave to Adam and Eve the command to go forth and multiply and fill the world.

That command was given to the Church in Matthew 28: 18. Jesus, the "Last Adam" (1 Corin.15:45) and His Eve, the Blessed Virgin, are taken from the earth and in their place is left the office of the Holy Father and the Holy Catholic Church. The Church is simply the continuation of that Garden Family which began thousands of years ago at the command of God. From nothing came life...and that life was to multiply and subdue the world.

From Adam and Eve came the "acorns" of the Church, families of the earth, the tribes of Judah, the kingdom of the Jews, and the Church. The Church did not spring up "ex nihlo" as did Adam and Eve. She is the result of thousands of years of covenantal dealings with mankind by God.

And this is again why you Prots miss the boat entirely. You think the Church started at Pentecost. The Church, the "eklessia", God's kingdom family, goes all the way back to Eden, for in Eden we see God's called and chosen family, and the command to go forth and subdue the earth.

And after this is all over, when chronological time exists no more in timeless eternity, the covenantal family of God will still remain, except that after the Judgment, the tares will have been weeded out and the bad fish will no longer fill the kingdom net.

 

I am surprised that you claim the Protestants do not agree that God has been dealing with man from the first two that He had direct hand in creating. I know of no protestant that thinks God started a church only 2000 years ago.

What did start 2000 years ago is the Body of Christ that is not based upon man's ability to perform the law but upon the faith of the individual human.

 

Yelsew --

When I was first a Fundamentalist, then a Calvinist, I remember distinctly being taught that the Church started on the day of Pentecost. The idea, as presented in sermon, was that there was simply NO CONNECTION between the OT and the NT, that the Church was something radically different and unrealated to the OT. Some even went as far as to say that the Sermon on the Mount was OT and therefore did not apply to us in the "church age".

Yeeeeeeeesh.

 

Since sermons are man's work, it is not surprizing that you would accept them as scripture. If you had been like the Bereaens searching the scriptures, comparing what was spoken with what was written, you may not have been disappointed in what you heard.

Over the years I have heard a lot of sermons that would make me run from the church, but for my trust in the Holy Scriptures, I know the truth and am not intimidated by the words of man.

I have often "called" a pastor on what he said from the pulpit only to find out that what was said is not what was meant. I would trust that you can, and that you do the same with your priests, bishops, cardinals, and pope. But of course, the common man cannot approach the pope directly, there are too many filters one must pass through to get there.