Statues

[Zenas]

Most of which he was addressing was the law, for the context reveals that it was the Judaizers that were trying to force the law and circumcision upon these believers as requirements for salvation.
However, Paul was speaking about the ceremonial law, not necessarily the moral law which includes nine of the Ten Commandments. Making images is one of those Ten Commandments. Those commands have not been done away with.
Again Jesus said: God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth (not via images). Thus images are forbidden.

Whether Paul was speaking about ceremonial law or moral law is really an inference on your part, which I agree that a reasonable person could make. However, if we consider the teachings of Christ, which parts of the law still bind us comes into sharper focus:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Worshiping idols would certainly violate the "first and great commandment." However, erecting images of Jesus and the various saints would not violate that commandment, especially when these images are not worshiped.

The presence of images has nothing to do with worshiping in spirit and truth--unless you worship the images. I doubt if anyone in North America does that. I understand some of the Latin Americans worship images of Our Lady of Guadelupe and of course that is wrong.

 

[DHK]

Whether Paul was speaking about ceremonial law or moral law is really an inference on your part, which I agree that a reasonable person could make. However, if we consider the teachings of Christ, which parts of the law still bind us comes into sharper focus: Worshiping idols would certainly violate the "first and great commandment." However, erecting images of Jesus and the various saints would not violate that commandment, especially when these images are not worshiped.

Making an image of Christ is making an image of God, unless of course, if you deny the deity of Christ. Christ is God. Have you ever seen Him, know what he looks like? Are you sure the picture you have is an actual and genuine portrayal? Did Christ himself sign it?
We have no right or authority to erect any images of God, and that includes His Son. It violates the Ten Commandments very very clearly.

The presence of images has nothing to do with worshiping in spirit and truth--unless you worship the images. I doubt if anyone in North America does that. I understand some of the Latin Americans worship images of Our Lady of Guadelupe and of course that is wrong.

Then do you have a problem putting images of Buddha, Ganesh (elephant god), Baal, Vishnu, Ram, and such other gods, all on a shelf in a living room for all to see?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for the thanks.

As for JarJo saying the Catholic Church is the True Church, he is wrong, because true believers are the church.
If you say the Catholic Church is the True Church, then how else can one take it?

that the Catholic church contains the true body of believers.

 

[The Biblicist]

that the Catholic church contains the true body of believers.

To say it "contains" the true body of believers is to claim that outside that CONTAINER is no true body of believers and thus all outside are lost.

What it actually contains is the Great Harlot from which true believers within it are called upon to "come out of her my people."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To say it "contains" the true body of believers is to claim that outside that CONTAINER is no true body of believers and thus all outside are lost.

What it actually contains is the Great Harlot from which true believers within it are called upon to "come out of her my people."

Then obviously you don't understand the word Catholic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Then obviously you don't understand the word Catholic.

Oh I do! It is a term NEVER found in the New Testament. (except inserted by later editors of the "general" epistles)

It is a term used in the apostolic fathers simply to contrast the Jewish church with the Christian church as the Jewish church excluded all but Jews while the Christian church was "catholic" inclusive of all nations, genders and classes of people and was a label for each congregation.

It is a term perverted by apostate Ante, Nicene, Post Nicene to claim all apostate churches united with apostate Rome and thus the "Roman" Catholic church.

It is a term invented and applied by Augustine to wrongly define the "seed" and its domain in the parable of the sower (Mt. 13) to be the "church" when in fact Jesus was talking about the "kingdom" in the "field" which is the world rather than the church.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You speak ignorantly. I made absolutely NO PERSONAL ATTACKS upon anyone! If you believe I did then it is your responsibility to provide the evidence or be quiet.

I provided interpretative principles and then applied it to Rome. Rome violates Exodus 20:4-5 BECAUSE Rome has no authority from God to conceive, design or make any kind of MANDATORY article/image for worship of God or to be used in God's House. Only God has that right. Only God has that pattern. Only God determines the application of such things. Exodus 20:4-5 prohibits man conceived, man designed and therefore man made articles/images to be used either in God's house or for worship or objects receiving worship.

In fact, it is you that has responded with Ad Hominen attacks - no substance, nothing but inferences that attack my person.

Apparently, you cannot read for if you could, you would have seen that my comments were directed at DHK. (For those who can read, see post #118) So now you have totally wasted everyone's time. Look -- if you cannot even follow the thread why should anyone take you seriously.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

Apparently, you cannot read for if you could, you would have seen that my comments were directed at DHK. (For those who can read, see post #118) So now you have totally wasted everyone's time. Look -- if you cannot even follow the thread why should anyone take you seriously.

WM

I can read very well thank you! DHK was representing the same position I am. If you can't deal with the substance of the arguments (just as DHK said) then why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh I do! It is a term NEVER found in the New Testament. (except inserted by later editors of the "general" epistles)

Neither is the term Trinity, supralapsarian. But you believe in both.

It is a term used in the apostolic fathers simply to contrast the Jewish church with the Christian church as the Jewish church excluded all but Jews while the Christian church was "catholic" inclusive of all nations, genders and classes of people and was a label for each congregation.

Here you are entirely wrong. Catholic Means Universal. As far as the Early church Fathers use we can say

used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense.

However where the church is conserned we can say

to the Church at large

as we can see in Ignatius writings

"Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

There is no exclusion here but inclusive of all believer jew or gentile.

 

[WestminsterMan]

snip... It [Catholic] is a term invented and applied by Augustine to wrongly define the "seed" and its domain in the parable of the sower (Mt. 13) to be the "church" when in fact Jesus was talking about the "kingdom" in the "field" which is the world rather than the church.

In his "Letter to the Smyrnaeans" Ignatius of Antioch used the word "Catholic" to describe the Church.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

This dates to around A.D. 107. He wrote this while being taken to Rome for execution. If you examine the dates here, you'll see that Ignatius was much earlier than Augustine. Thus your above statement is simply wrong. Hmmm...

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

I can read very well thank you! DHK was representing the same position I am. If you can't deal with the substance of the arguments (just as DHK said) then why should anyone take you seriously?

Really? Hmmm...

You speak ignorantly. I made absolutely NO PERSONAL ATTACKS upon anyone! ?

Nor did I say that you did. Man...there are more straw men here than at a Wizard of Oz convention. Just refer back to the post. I dont have time for this pap.

WM

 

[The Biblicist]

In his "Letter to the Smyrnaeans" Ignatius of Antioch used the word "Catholic" to describe the Church.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

This dates to around A.D. 107. He wrote this while being taken to Rome for execution. If you examine the dates here, you'll see that Ignatius was much earlier than Augustine. Thus your above statement is simply wrong. Hmmm...

WM

Yes, here we have the rise of the apostate doctrine of and elite ordained class over the church. However, each congregation was called the "catholic" church by them as well. That is why I call these writings the record of apostasy.

 

[The Biblicist]

Neither is the term Trinity, supralapsarian. But you believe in both.


Here you are entirely wrong. Catholic Means Universal. As far as the Early church Fathers use we can say However where the church is conserned we can say as we can see in Ignatius writings There is no exclusion here but inclusive of all believer jew or gentile.

You certainly are correct according to Catholic scholars and those who follow Catholic Scholars but you are certainly incorrect in regard to non-catholic scholars and those who do not follow Catholic scholars.

Augustine is the formulator of the doctrine of the Catholic Church and he formulated it on the basis of eisgesis in regard to the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. He was rebuked by the Donatists correctly as teaching "two churches."

The use of "catholic" or "universal" by early Christians was indeed in reaction to what started in Acts 15 and the insistance that genitles must become Jews in keeping with the historical principle of Judaistic proselytism and with the rise of Christian Gnosticism which also restricted Christianity to a certain class of people.

The use of "catholic" or "universal" by early Christians described each and every congregation in this sense as well as the generic/institutional church.

In later debates between apostate Christianity with apostolic Christianity the term was used to designate the authentic from the apostate as both sides claimed to be the true apostolic "catholic" church which by that very usage denied all the congregations of the opposing party to be identified as "catholic".

Thanks any way but I will stick to the more ancient and conservative usage of the term.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Yes, here we have the rise of the apostate doctrine of and elite ordained class over the church. However, each congregation was called the "catholic" church by them as well. That is why I call these writings the record of apostasy.

And that's why I call your position - your OPINION.

WM

 

[JarJo]

JarJo said the Catholic Church was the True Church.

The True Church is the body of Christ which is made up of all believers, including Baptists and Catholics, IMO. I did not say what you accuse me of saying.

It bothers me that your posts seem to accuse me of acting in bad faith and doing things I know are wrong. I accept that you formed your opinions in good faith, so why wouldn't you extend the same respect to me? What motivation could someone possibly have to go against their own conscience on an important matter like this? It's almost impossible to have a polite conversation if we don't give each other respect.

 

[Moriah]

The True Church is the body of Christ which is made up of all believers, including Baptists and Catholics, IMO. I did not say what you accuse me of saying.

It bothers me that your posts seem to accuse me of acting in bad faith and doing things I know are wrong. I accept that you formed your opinions in good faith, so why wouldn't you extend the same respect to me? What motivation could someone possibly have to go against their own conscience on an important matter like this? It's almost impossible to have a polite conversation if we don't give each other respect.

JarJo,
Stop acting like the innocent victim.
In addition, you have been shown scriptures that plainly tell you NOT to make images, NOT to bow down to them, YET THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COMMANDS THE BOWING TO THESE STATUES AND ALL “HOLY IMAGES.”

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You certainly are correct according to Catholic scholars and those who follow Catholic Scholars but you are certainly incorrect in regard to non-catholic scholars and those who do not follow Catholic scholars.

Thats like saying you are certainly correct with academic historians from universities all over the world and not correct with scientologist. I am correct period.

Augustine is the formulator of the doctrine of the Catholic Church and he formulated it on the basis of eisgesis in regard to the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. He was rebuked by the Donatists correctly as teaching "two churches."

I hate to break it to you but Catholic Doctrine was formulated before Augustine. No doubt he contributed a depth to it but he certainly didn't formulate it. Or create it. Donatist were legalist (not baptist), and they were sacramentalist, and they were liturgist. And they wouldn't permit people the option of repenting after certain sin to be joined to their community. Donatist were worse than you.

 

[Moriah]

As a Catholic, I do own any number of "holy" pictures, statues etc. Prominent is the crucifix in my hall. They are there to remind me of what is important, ie God.

The historical aspect I think has to do with the iconclasts of the past. It is NOT the teaching of the RCC to idolise plaster and paint. They are not necessary but are a comfort for those who want reminders of what is important in life.....

IT IS THE TEACHING OF THE RCC TO IDOLIZE STATUES AND ALL "HOLY IMAGES." I am glad to come here to tell you about the truth of your Catholic religion.

Please read the following about what the Catholic Church teaches.


The following paragraph is part of an article that explains further the acts Catholics perform.

In both East and West the reverence we pay to images has crystallized into formal ritual. In the Latin Rite the priest is commanded to bow to the cross in the sacristy before he leaves it to say Mass ("Ritus servandus" in the Missal, II, 1); he bows again profoundly "to the altar or the image of the crucifix placed upon it" when he begins Mass (ibid., II, 2); he begins incensing the altar by incensing the crucifix on it (IV, 4), and bows to it every time he passes it (ibid.); he also incenses any relics or images of saints that may be on the altar (ibid.). In the same way many such commands throughout our rubrics show that always a reverence is to be paid to the cross or images of saints whenever we approach them. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

 

[Moriah]

Worshiping idols would certainly violate the "first and great commandment." However, erecting images of Jesus and the various saints would not violate that commandment, especially when these images are not worshiped.

The presence of images has nothing to do with worshiping in spirit and truth--unless you worship the images. I doubt if anyone in North America does that. I understand some of the Latin Americans worship images of Our Lady of Guadelupe and of course that is wrong.

You do not know your own religion.

The following paragraph is part of an article that explains further the acts Catholics perform.

In both East and West the reverence we pay to images has crystallized into formal ritual. In the Latin Rite the priest is commanded to bow to the cross in the sacristy before he leaves it to say Mass ("Ritus servandus" in the Missal, II, 1); he bows again profoundly "to the altar or the image of the crucifix placed upon it" when he begins Mass (ibid., II, 2); he begins incensing the altar by incensing the crucifix on it (IV, 4), and bows to it every time he passes it (ibid.); he also incenses any relics or images of saints that may be on the altar (ibid.). In the same way many such commands throughout our rubrics show that always a reverence is to be paid to the cross or images of saints whenever we approach them. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm

 

[The Biblicist]

Thats like saying you are certainly correct with academic historians from universities all over the world and not correct with scientologist. I am correct period.

The fact is that Protestant Scholars and Protestant Universities do not agree with your Catholic Scholars. Indeed, the Presbyertian Westminister Confession of Faith when dealing with the doctrine of the church states the very thing I do concerning the term "Catholic."

I hate to break it to you but Catholic Doctrine was formulated before Augustine. No doubt he contributed a depth to it but he certainly didn't formulate it. Or create it. Donatist were legalist (not baptist), and they were sacramentalist, and they were liturgist. And they wouldn't permit people the option of repenting after certain sin to be joined to their community. Donatist were worse than you.

I hate to break it to you but I simply do not believe Augustine's revisionists history of the Donatist debate and I take it as a compliment to be identified with the Donatists just as Rome accused the Reformation Anabaptists of being Donatists. Just the common ordinary smear tactics of Rome. I accept the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene writings as the record of apostasy and so with any record of apostasy you must be careful in how you interpret apostates and their writings when they make war against the true apostolic catholic churches.

So, we are mutually opposed to each other's view of these records.