Hard Question for Catholics

[Zenas]

Let them disagree. Billy Graham is a famous evangelist with a shallow theology and shallow message. What evidence does he bring (besides his own opinion) that there are so-called saints in heaven peering out from heaven and watching our every step.

What evidence do you bring (besides your own opinion) that they don't? You're looking at a text of scripture that could be taken either way, or both ways, and you have a right to your opinion. But that's what it is--your opinion, nothing more. So don't be so quick to criticize those who disagree with you, especially one who has led untold millions of people to Christ and another whose seminary has graduated tens of thousands of ministers of the gospel under his watch.

I don't go by men's opinion, but by the Word of God.

No, you go be what you think the Word of God says.

 

[Marcia]

Two very prominent Baptists--Albert Mohler and Billy Graham--would disagree with you on this. Both of them have stated on the record that the cloud of witnesses can see us.

And I think they are wrong. There is nothing in that passage or context that indicates this. The cloud of witnesses is referring back to the people who showed faith; they witnesses for us of faith.

 

[DHK]

What evidence do you bring (besides your own opinion) that they don't? You're looking at a text of scripture that could be taken either way, or both ways, and you have a right to your opinion. But that's what it is--your opinion, nothing more. So don't be so quick to criticize those who disagree with you, especially one who has led untold millions of people to Christ and another whose seminary has graduated tens of thousands of ministers of the gospel under his watch.
No, you go be what you think the Word of God says.

What I see so many people on this board doing is making arguments from silence. That is conjecture. It is untenable and not sound hermeneutics. Your evidence is as solid as saying that Peter is in heaven writing a book on the usefulness of Baptistboard; or that John is playing on a new computer; etc. Can you prove any of these? No. You can't prove anything from silence. But you can read into the Scriptures anything you want. You can make entire books of what you want to put into the Scriptures. That is what the RCC has already done. All their doctrines about limbo, the assumption of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, the rosary, the mass, etc. are all inventions of a man. Books have been written about them. Then these man-made doctrines are somehow inserted into the Bible even though everyone of them are based on silence. Infant baptism is based on silence. There are no infants being baptized in the Bible. There are no infants exercising their faith, exercising repentance, calling on the name of the Lord, etc. The RCC would have one think otherwise--all in the name of "argumentation from silence."

I will take what you say more seriously when you give me evidence from the Word of God. There is no evidence in the Bible that those in heaven can communicate with those on earth or vice versa.

 

[Zenas]

What I see so many people on this board doing is making arguments from silence. That is conjecture. It is untenable and not sound hermeneutics.

Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us . . . ." A witness is someone who sees something and can tell others what he sees. I'm not arguing from silence here but only on the plain language of scripture. I realize you don't like it because it doesn't fit your theology so you use linguistic sleight of hand to try to make it mean something else.

I will take what you say more seriously when you give me evidence from the Word of God. There is no evidence in the Bible that those in heaven can communicate with those on earth or vice versa.

No, you only believe what you want to believe based on your interpretation of scripture. Incidentally, I didn't say those in heaven can communicate with those on earth and vice versa. Go back and read my post. Wow! it looks like you are making arguments from my silence! For shame!

 

[DHK]

Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us . . . ." A witness is someone who sees something and can tell others what he sees. I'm not arguing from silence here but only on the plain language of scripture. I realize you don't like it because it doesn't fit your theology so you use linguistic sleight of hand to try to make it mean something else. No, you only believe what you want to believe based on your interpretation of scripture. Incidentally, I didn't say those in heaven can communicate with those on earth and vice versa. Go back and read my post. Wow! it looks like you are making arguments from my silence! For shame!

A witness does not need to be a present witness or a living witness.
One of the greatest attested historical facts of all time is the resurrection, attested by over 500 witnesses--all of whom are dead. But Christ is alive. That doesn't mean the witnesses are invalid. We use this argument all the time. Paul used it.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
--Those that were dead were still witnesses.
My parents were witnesses to my birth though both may be dead now.
The witnesses are historical.
The witnesses are in the Word of God, testifying on behalf of God for our sake urging us on to run the race that is set before us.
That is the context.

Now look again at the verse:
Hebrews 12:1 Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,

Whenever you see wherefore look before to see why for the therefore is there for.
So go back to chapter 11. Look before.
Hebrews 11:39-40 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

All of these--men and women of faith, martyrs for the faith, living Godly lives, died and received not the promise. Without us (those in the time of Christ) they would not have been made complete. They needed the sacrifice of Christ for the promises that they had never seen, now, to be fully realized.

Therefore, now, realizing all that these OT saints had gone through,
"let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,"
--They are historical witnesses put there in that chapter to challenge us to run the race that is set before us. There is nothing in the context that tells us that they are up in heaven looking down. Nothing.

 

[Matt Black]

It is a sine qua non however of a witness that he or she must be capable of testifying to what s/he has seen ie: must be capable of communication.

Care to revisit Heb 12:1 in the light of that fact?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS, I have thought about this question for a couple of days and I can't improve on Doubting Thomas' response to you in Post #6. You say the sacraments did nothing for you. Maybe not, but I can tell you that grace is not something you feel flowing into your system. It may not even result in changed behavior, altough it often does. Finally let me say that I am an advocate of the sacraments, not because of what I have observed. I am an advocate of the sacraments because they are based on scripture. Some, such as matrimony, are somewhat obscure. Most, however, are as plain as the nose on your face and I believe the Bible is true.

Couple of things reading over this thread again. 1) I said the sacraments were not observable as being effective in my experience. ( and in many others who were raised in a sacramental faith).

Note Nicodemus discourse with Jesus in John chapter 3

1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him." 3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"

4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

9"How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.

10"You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

breaking it down a bit. Note Nicodemus first attraction to Jesus Christ mentioned in this gospel.

For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."

In otherwords Nicodemus is saying "I know God is with your because of the miraculous signs I see." Jesus is showing who he is by the things he does. Ie "So that you know that the son of man has the power to forgive I say pick up your matt and walk". This is an effective testimony. Note

5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit

the passage most commonly used in support of sacramental baptism. A better translation would say born from above. How ever we see no one can become a member of the kingdom of God save that they are born "water" and the "spirit". Most catholics would allude to baptismal water. So if this view is correct then baptism should be effective in changing a person so that they (like Jesus) show their regeneration by the things they do. Follow closely this next passage

we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony

Jesus indicates that the veritas of his words are exemplified by what they know and have SEEN. So accordingly, If baptismal regeneration was effective in bringing one into the kingdom and causing the spirit to fill that person; then that infant would show signs of faith as they mature. Yet experientially this was not true for me and many other catholics. Why? Is it because its ineffectual and not to be understood this way?
Now you can compare with baptist who make a proclimation of faith and are baptized and still live like the devil. but the comparison is dead. Because in reformed theology just because some one makes a proclimation does not mean its true and baptism is symbolic of dying to ourselves and being raised again in Christ. whereas the catholic view is that a spritual occurance occured during baptism. Membership into the kingdom of God and a spiritual rebirth. Baptist would say of the sinner who was baptised there was no faith thus no spiritual rebirth. Catholics cannot say that. So why the was the sacrament ineffectual? Yet a submission in prayer to follow Christ was effectual?
My argument rest on the effectiveness of the sacrament. As a baptist I've seen men come to believe and given up alchoholism, adultery, and all other forms of evil. Being raised Catholic I've seen men participate in the sacraments and remain in their alchoholism, adulterous lifestyle, etc... So belief seems, by observation alone, to be the Catalyst to righteousness rather than reception of sacrament.

 

[DHK]

It is a sine qua non however of a witness that he or she must be capable of testifying to what s/he has seen ie: must be capable of communication.

Care to revisit Heb 12:1 in the light of that fact?

No, I don't mind at all.
I was in a car accident 20 years ago. It had witness then.
But those witnesses are not here now.
The witnesses are historical in nature. They have witnessed living a life of faith and living out the promises of God, all of this without receiving the promise. That is their witness. Read 11:39,40.

Chapter 11 starts out this way:
Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen. 2
2 For therein the elders had witness borne to them. (ASV)
Hebrews 11:2 For in the power of this the elders have obtained testimony. (Darby)
Hebrews 11:2 For by this, the elders obtained testimony. (WEB)
Hebrews 11:2 for in this were the elders testified of; (Young's)

The names of these great men of faith to follow were the witnesses. But what did they witness. They were witnesses to their own life of faith; to God working in their own lives. By the end of the chapter, "they received not the promise." In chapter 12 it says nothing about these witnesses being alive today, just as Paul states that not all of the 500 witnesses of the resurrection were alive at the time of his writing. They were not all alive then and none are alive now. But they were witnesses of his resurrection.

 

[Marcia]

Hebrews 12:1 says, "Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us . . . ." A witness is someone who sees something and can tell others what he sees. I'm not arguing from silence here but only on the plain language of scripture.

The witnesses are the men whose faith is discussed in Heb. 11. Heb. 12:1 begins with "therefore."
Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,

As they say, we should always ask what is "therefore" there for? It refers back to Heb. 11 and those with faith that allowed them to do those things. Because of what they endured through their faith, then we should "lay aside every encumbrance" and "run with endurance the race set before us," etc. because of those witnesses - the men and women of faith. There were no chapters in the Bible originally. Forget the chapters. This is one continuous passage here.

 

[Trotter]

perikeimai - per-ik'-i-mahee - to lie all around, that is, enclose, encircle, hamper (literally or physically): - be bound (compassed with, hang about.
[Strong's]

Seeing we also are encompassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses - The apostle represents those to whom he had referred in the previous chapter, as looking on to witness the efforts which Christians make, and the manner in which they live. There is allusion here, doubtless, to the ancient games. A great multitude of spectators usually occupied the circular seats in the amphitheater, from which they could easily behold the combatants; see the notes on 1Co_9:24-27. In like manner, the apostle represents Christians as encompassed with the multitude of worthies to whom he had referred in the previous chapter. It cannot be fairly inferred from this that he means to say that all those ancient worthies were actually looking at the conduct of Christians, and saw their conflicts. It is a figurative representation, such as is common, and means that we ought to act as if they were in sight, and cheered us on. How far the spirits of the just who are departed from this world are permitted to behold what is done on earth - if at all - is not revealed in the Scriptures. The phrase, “a cloud of witnesses,” means many witnesses, or a number so great that they seem to be a cloud. The comparison of a multitude of persons to a cloud is common in the classic writers.
[Barnes]

We also are compassed (καὶ ἡμεῖς)
According to this the sense would be, those described in ch. 11 were compassed with a cloud of witnesses, and we also are so compassed. Wrong. The we also should be construed with let us run. “Therefore let us also (as they did) run our appointed race with patience.”
[Vincent's Word Studies]

 

[Matt Black]

TS, your OP is really asking about 'fruit', isn't it? Well, if we're swapping anecdotes, then I would say that there are good'uns and bad'uns in every denomination: in my various denominational wanderings over my 40 years (Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal, charismatic and Baptist) I've known paedophile priests, Penty worship leaders (and one or two other Penties) who've 'come out' as homosexuals, committed adultery multiple times, or been alcoholics or drug addicts after many years of otherwise faithful service to the Lord, a charismatic pastor who left his wife for another woman and a Baptist youth leader who did the same plus another member of my Baptist church who had sex with an underage girl at the same time as the minister's wife was 'playing away from home'. (The evangelical groups cited above, indeed, seem to have a higher rate of divorce than the Catholics.) It's not really for us to judge whether or not these individuals are saved (I happen to believe in the main that they are, albeit deeply flawed) and in the same way they shouldn't act as templates for judgement of the denominations concerned.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

TS, your OP is really asking about 'fruit', isn't it? Well, if we're swapping anecdotes, then I would say that there are good'uns and bad'uns in every denomination: in my various denominational wanderings over my 40 years (Catholic, Anglican, Pentecostal, charismatic and Baptist) I've known paedophile priests, Penty worship leaders (and one or two other Penties) who've 'come out' as homosexuals, committed adultery multiple times, or been alcoholics or drug addicts after many years of otherwise faithful service to the Lord, a charismatic pastor who left his wife for another woman and a Baptist youth leader who did the same plus another member of my Baptist church who had sex with an underage girl at the same time as the minister's wife was 'playing away from home'. (The evangelical groups cited above, indeed, seem to have a higher rate of divorce than the Catholics.) It's not really for us to judge whether or not these individuals are saved (I happen to believe in the main that they are, albeit deeply flawed) and in the same way they shouldn't act as templates for judgement of the denominations concerned.

I want to get beyond the idea of fruit and speak about effectiveness. Fruit is an observable fact. I'm thinking beyond well theres good Catholics and good baptist as well as bad Catholics and bad baptist and discovers what it is that makes one "good". At this point most people will claim platitudes but what I want to do is explore the effectiveness of Catholic Doctrine with the effectiveness of baptist doctrine which is observable by fruit. Effectiveness is the issue. For instance in science a person comes up with a hypothesis about how something works. Now, by controled experement, if I can reproduce the event with regularity the hypothesis becomes a theory and the more I'm able to reproduce the event consistantly over time it becomes a law. Thus the hypothesis is effective in that it can reproduce the event with regular consistancy over time. So now lets take this view and apply it to dogma. Sacraments are said to infuse grace on the practitioner. If that is the case then fruit (observable effectiveness) should be seen. If it is not then either the view is not effective and inaccurate or something wasn't included in the recipe. That is my jist.

 

[Matt Black]

But 'saving faith' is supposed to produce effective results too...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

But 'saving faith' is supposed to produce effective results too...

And does it not? I know from my personal experience that in fact it does! It was observable. I was once this way (really bad) and now I'm this way (less bad) :tongue3:

And not its easy to say if there is no change that a "saving faith" has not occured. Yet this is not the case of the sacraments. because the sacraments are said to be

efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."

 

[Matt Black]

No it (a 'saving faith') doesn't always produce those results; think of the examples I gave above. People can be walking with God and living upright lives for years and then <blam!> they stumble and fall; or they can be constantly stumbling, falling, picking themselves up, falling again etc

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No it (a 'saving faith') doesn't always produce those results; think of the examples I gave above. People can be walking with God and living upright lives for years and then <blam!> they stumble and fall; or they can be constantly stumbling, falling, picking themselves up, falling again etc

Matt, I'm supprised at you! How long have you been on this board? Just because someone falls and gets back up and falls again is not an indicator of whether they have saving faith or not. In fact if they get up again it shows that they are otherwise there would be no getting back up. Now if a person gives up their faith we can say they never had it to begin with.

Now in the Case of the Sacraments I'm talking about people who don't even live righteously. They don't get that far. haven't you seen the Godfather? Its like that.

 

[Matt Black]

That's a very Calvinist construct on the term 'saving faith'.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

That's a very Calvinist construct on the term 'saving faith'.

Which seems to be the predominate view on this board.

 

[lori4dogs]

And does it not? I know from my personal experience that in fact it does! It was observable. I was once this way (really bad) and now I'm this way (less bad) :tongue3:

And not its easy to say if there is no change that a "saving faith" has not occured. Yet this is not the case of the sacraments. because the sacraments are said to be

I was thinking about this. I wondered if maybe your "Sinner's Prayer" was a release of some built up need to repent and you saw a big change in your life.
My spouse had the same experience only it came by way of the sacrament of reconciliation that the change occurred.

 

[Marcia]

Which seems to be the predominate view on this board.

It seems to be but it's not. I think they are actually under 50% of the BB; they are just outspoken on it. I did a poll several months back and there were more that voted as being non-Calvinist than Calvinist.