The Church as the Kingdom of God

[Singer]

Since we know that God's end in creating us was communion with
him (this is the essence of the Church: man's communion with God and
thus with one another), we can say that the Church is the purpose for
his creation.



God's communion with his creatures is the essence of creation..........
not the essence of the Catholic Church.

His creation consists of nonrobotic servants who have accepted
the terms of His offering. (Whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never
die) St.John 11:26 The mode of beliving may be criticized, but the end
result is a "church" of people who are the object of God's grace.

God did not offer salvation to a title of a denomination or to a visible organization.
He offered it to "whosoever" who can be and IS the object of his love. He
was not in love with a named gathering of people...He is in love with all of
creation.

Claiming favoritism of God's grace is what I experienced in the 2x2 (Cult .?).
They were very good at applying scriptures to fit the purpose of setting
themselves aside as the recipients of God's exclusive grace. Such an
action creates a disregard for the faith of others....a saving faith.

Try to connect the word (church) in the bible with known denominations.

It doesn't fit.

 

[Carson Weber]

God's communion with his creatures is the essence of creation... not the essence of the Catholic Church.

I would say that the purpose for creation is our communion with God, and this reality is what we call "the Church". The Church in its incomplete pilgrim state on Earth is "the Catholic Church".

God did not offer salvation to a title of a denomination or to a visible organization. He offered it to "whosoever" who can be and IS the object of his love.

If you're familiar with salvation history, you would see that God has been forming a visible people through successive covenants beginning with Adam and Eve - Noah - Abraham - Moses - David - culminating in Jesus Christ.

Try to connect the word (church) in the bible with known denominations.

The Catholic Church isn't a denomination. It's the one Church that has existed since the time of Christ; that is, all believers in union with the successor of St. Peter who was given charge to tend the Flock of Christ (cf. John 21).

The question you're addressing isn't whether the Church is the purpose of creation or whether it exists. The question is what "is" the Church. Perhaps you should start another thread for this topic. This subject of this thread is how the Church is the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom. Of course, this analysis points us to the "Catholic" Church in the end because she alone is guided by Christ through his Prime Minister - as the Davidic King's vizier handled affairs when the Son of David was away on affairs.

When we read the New Testament, we must have a familiarity with the Old, and my thesis rests upon the congruity of the Old with the New. In my estimation, it's thoroughly Biblical - which is why I think it's relevant for you, a Bible Christian.

[ April 25, 2003, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Singer]

Acts 2:47

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord
added to the church daily such as should be saved.


Added to the Catholic Church daily...........? Hardly.

The Catholic Church had not been established in the heart of Ignatius yet.

 

[Carson Weber]

Singer, why is it so difficult for you to recognize that the one Church under the teaching office of Christ (those bishops in union with Peter's See) is called "Catholic"? Is it personal prejudice?

I've already shown what the historical record indicates: "As regards ‘Catholic’ ... in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations ... What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 190–1)

Granted, I can understand that you disagree with the Fathers - but I cannot understand why? Is not a body visible? Should the church not be the "Soul of Christ" according to your ecclesial vision?

 

[Don]

but taking those statements and turning around, accusing me of being full of evil pride and arrogance is - well - taking it a little bit too far, in my estimation.

Hey, you posted the words; I just took 'em as you presented them: You're proud of the work you've done, and you want people to see the work you're proud of. If you were simply inviting comments and criticisms, you wouldn't have posted those words.

 

[Carson Weber]

Don, yes I'm proud of my work, but it's a healthy pride. It's a proper sense of accomplishment that I hold, not a disordered love of self. And, I am openly inviting comments and criticisms - so, why don't you do so? Why attack me instead of addressing the paper? Instead of issuing forth a personal accusation, why don't you contribute to the quality of the thread? Put on the mind of Christ, love your neighbor, and act like a Christian, brother. This board is useless to both you and I with this sort of bantering. Let us build up in love, not puff up in knowledge.

 

[Singer]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Singer, why is it so difficult for you to recognize that the one Church under the teaching office of Christ (those bishops in union with Peter's See) is called "Catholic"? Is it personal prejudice?

I've already shown what the historical record indicates: "As regards ‘Catholic’ ... in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations ... What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church." (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines 190–1)

Granted, I can understand that you disagree with the Fathers - but I cannot understand why? Is not a body visible? Should the church not be the "Soul of Christ" according to your ecclesial vision?

Carson,
Except for the fact that I grew up in a ''church'' that has a large following
and who are so very exclusive (one true churchism).....I could quite possibly
fall for another church that makes like claims. Their extreme members are
bullheaded in their claims that only they originated from the teachings of Jesus.
There are many intelligent and upright members in their following. They are
right too. They are right in honoring God the creator of the universe and in
looking to Jesus for their salvation by grace through faith....which they do.

They are wrong in smug misconception that they are the ONLY heavenbound
believers in the world....with all others being deceived in their translation of the
bible and their method of worship. They would consider members of other
churches as worldly wolves in sheep's clothing who are walking the broad path
to destruction. They lay claim to carrying on the work and message of Jesus
in the correct form of home worship and sending their workers out in pairs.
That is biblical too...have to admit.

Carson, I'm saddened by the like claims of the Catholic Church in making them
selves into something that they are not. The message of the bible, the Good
News, the Gospel .....is not the creation of a visible method of worship.

John 6:38 quotes Jesus as saying He came down to do the Father's will.
verses 39 and 49....Jesus says the will of the Father is that everyone that
seeth the son and believes on him, may have everlasting life.

That is the Gospel, Carson. THAT is the Good News that deserves repeating.
That message can be spread without ever mentioning the name of a church....
let alone usurping ANY church to be some superior and mandatory form of a
worldly visible entity.

Verse 51 of John Chapter 6.....
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven..if any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever..."

Follow that with verse 35....
"I am the bread of life; he that cometh to me shall never hunger and
he that believeth on me shall never thirst."

That recipe works outside of Catholicism as well as inside. I fear that too
much time is spent promoting a visible church with the LIVING BREAD
being ignored.

That makes me sad....for those involved in it and for their listeners.

 

[Carson Weber]

Singer, Have you read the entirety of my paper yet?

I can understand where you're coming from. But.. there's a big difference between whatever religious group you were a part of and the Catholic Church - the Catholic Church has a history that goes all the way back to the apostles and she is headed by the bishops who are successors to the apostles united around Christ's Prime Minister, the successor of St. Peter.

I have tens of quotations like the following examples - if you would like more, please ask:
___

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)

"The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997 says)

The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock," (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)
___

Remember, Jesus didn't write a book. He gathered twelve men around him and commissioned them to make disciples of every nation, baptizing them (valid sacramental life), and teaching them all that he commanded them (infallible truth). In essence, we have the Magisterium (which translates to "teaching authority"), led by Jesus Christ - the invisible head of the Church - to administer supernatural life through the sacraments and infallible truth through her teaching.

The faith of Christianity isn't what we decide for it to be, and it isn't numerous. It's one - and it's a communal faith - it has been revealed once (cf. Jude 3), and it is unchanging with an integrity that cannot be broken. We can't be saved apart from becoming a part of the Mystical Body of Christ (of which non-Catholic Christians share an imperfect communion with); this doesn't mean that only Catholics are going to heaven - it means that Christ wills all men to be formal members of his Church (while non-formal members are still substantial members, albeit imperfectly). I believe the same as Catholic Dad, Brother Ed, and Grant. We have the same faith because it is the faith.. not what each of us decides for it to be at our whimsical interpretation of the Biblical text. We have a guide that Jesus Christ has appointed historically to which has been entrusted the paratheke (i.e., deposit of truth - cf. 1 Tim 6:20).

We can't get to Christ except through the Apostles - his emissaries (e.g. the Bible is Apostolic). And, faith in God (fides qua) necessarily entails accepting and acknowledging everything he has revealed for us to know and do (fides quae). A personal adherence to God that also rejects what he has revealed is like saying "I love you" to your wife, while closing your ears to what she has to say.

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.

[ April 26, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Logan]

Originally posted by Don:
Hey, you posted the words; I just took 'em as you presented them: You're proud of the work you've done, and you want people to see the work you're proud of. If you were simply inviting comments and criticisms, you wouldn't have posted those words. [/QB]

Don:

I think you have Carson all wrong. He was not trying to be prideful or arrogant. You have to keep in mind that he is an Aggie (Texas A&M). He cant help it . Seriously, lighten up. There was nothing wrong with the way he presented it.

 

[Singer]

Carson,

See.....you responded with emphasis on how important the CAtholic
Church is.

That doesn't matter to me....doesn't affect my salvation.
There is salvation outside of the CAtholic Church too....and for the
same reason that there is salvation inside of that church.

The simple fact that some of it's members fulfill the works of God.
Some of them obviously don't fulfill that either....as in any church.

What are the works of God...?

St. John 6:28
"What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Vs..29: "Jesus answered and said unto them "This is the work of God,
that ye believe on him whom he hasth sent."


You should be able to lose your church and still have salvation, Carson.
I have. The apostles did not have a church and many people that
Jesus associated with were saved. If you were a prisoner of war and
thrown into a cell without a bible, a church or the eucharist, mass or
confession............you can remain saved.

I've been under shellfire and heard the prayers of my fellow soldiers.
No one was trying to determine whether they were Catholic, Protestant,
Jew or Mormon...........and GOD DIDN"T CARE !!!!!

 

[CatholicConvert]

Singer --

The issue of what exactly comprises the Kingdom of God was the beginning of my eventual journey into the Catholic Faith and the Church which is headed by the Holy Father in Rome.

Perhaps if we look at this from a different perspective:

When God created Adam and Eve, He did not necessarily create them with the intention of the Fall. The Fall was a result of free will, and was anticipated by the all knowing One, but it was not a direct intention of God. Rather, the intention of God was to establish His kingdom on earth and to set a son (Adam - Luke 3: 38) and daughter (Eve) over that kingdom. Adam and Eve were created to rule over the Creation (Gen. 1: 26) and have dominion over every living thing. This would have included any children born to them, for they were to be the king and queen over Earth, ruling in the authority of God given to them as His children.

Now suppose that the Fall had never happened? What would the result be. It would be a family of billions of beings, all the children of Adam and Eve, our first parents and still king and queen over earth. It would be an "eklessia" (a gathering) of everyone ever having been born, under the rulership of a king and queen, for the governance of God is KINGDOM -- not, contrary to popular religious belief, a democracy.

But.....as we know, the Fall did happen and sin entered the world. The rulership of Adam and Eve was lost and they became subject to death.

Redemption is God's action in grace to REDEEM THAT WHICH HAS BEEN LOST and to set things in proper order again. Therefore, if the ultimate intention of God is a human family, living in peace on earth and ruled over by a king and queen on earth, then this is what Christ came to restore.

THAT, my friend, is the Church. This is what Carson was saying to you. It is the family of God, under headship in a familial structure. The Holy Father is the covenantal head over the Church on earth, and the Church is the Mother of us all. Ancient liturgical texts call the Church "the womb of Heaven", for in Her are we, as believers, brought to maturity and birthed into everlasting life.

If you come to understand the covenantal structure of God's dealings with mankind, you will see the necessity of the Church for salvation. One cannot be part of a family if one insists upon staying out of that family. God has used the language of family to describe membership in His Kingdom. He has referred to Himself as "Father". If He has done this, then based on the earthly typology which God established in Adam and Eve, to His Fatherhood, there must be a Mother.

As He restored Adam in Christ (1 Corin. 15:45), He must also restore Eve, which He has done in the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are the new Adam and Eve of the New Covenant, human beings who are over all of humanity. But being spiritual beings now, exalted to glory as all believers will be some day, there needs to be on earth a type of the real (which, according to Peter Kreeft, is what all the things on earth are -- types of the reality). Thus the Holy Father and the Church are the typology of the redeemed Adam and Eve who are in Heaven now ruling over all mankind.

Your refusal to even be in a structured environment smacks of rebellion. God establishes authorities, and if you read your Bible (which I believe you do) you should know that rebellion is considered to be as the sin of witchcraft. (Meaning gravely evil) God has restored Adam and Eve. He has placed the Church as the nurturing Mother and type of the New Eve here on earth. To refuse Her is to refuse the earthly authority which God has ordained us to be in subjection to.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Bro. Curtis]

With all due respect, Ed, that sounds like intimidation of the highest order, and it is most unscriptual. Can you point out to me, in God's word, where he refuses salvation to those who don't join a church ?

I won't be around to read your answer right away. I'm taking advantage of the early season, and hitting the beach in Maine for a week.

And I am still in prayer for the family matters you described to me.

And I missed ya over the lenten season.

 

[Carson Weber]

See.....you responded with emphasis on how important the Catholic Church is.

If the visible Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, then it is incredibly important, and I'm properly recognizing it for what it is worth. This falls in the area of justice, and it is proper to the virtue of justice to give what is due.

You should be able to lose your church and still have salvation, Carson.

So, in other words, you're saying that I can reject Christ's teaching and still call Christ my brother? I can leave the familia Dei and still be saved, which intrinsically requires that I am part of such a household?

I have. The apostles did not have a church and many people that Jesus associated with were saved.

Dear brother, the Apostles sure did have a Church! They were the authoritative teachers (the Magisterium) of that assembly - that ecclesia, and on the day of Pentecost, 3,000 were added to their number.

If you were a prisoner of war and thrown into a cell without a bible, a church or the eucharist, mass or confession............you can remain saved.

I agree emphatically.

I've been under shellfire and heard the prayers of my fellow soldiers. No one was trying to determine whether they were Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Mormon, and GOD DIDN"T CARE!

But certainly God does care. Else, he wouldn't have sent his only begotten Son in order to (1) show us his love, (2) die for our sins, (3) be our model for holiness, and (3) allow us to partake in the divine nature. Else, Jesus' teaching is useless and his command to teach all nations everything that he has commanded his Apostles is fluff.

 

[CatholicConvert]

*sigh*

Brother Curtis --

You know, I am really quite fond of you, above all the other angry X Catholics on this board and elsewhere, but it sounds like once again you read my post, and rather than think about the concepts I posted regarding the familial nature of God and how His redemptive program restores that which was lost in Eden, you simply saw the idea that refusing to join the Church (not "a" church, "THE" Church) places one's soul in jeopardy and responded with what you said about "intimidation".

Sheeeeesh!!

Look, man, I have been recently diagnosed with Hepatitis C. My doctor told me point blank, "Drink alcohol and you will definately die early."

Is that intimidation or is that cold, hard FACTS?

If you walk off the roof of a 40 story building, unless you are Superman and can levitate, you are going to DIE!! Cold, hard facts.

In fact, the whole universe works on certain facts, truths, and principles that act in certain ways and have certain results if those principles are violated. Cold, hard facts.

Fact: God has described Himself as a Trinity in Scripture. The Trinity is the first family of love, the love between the Father and the Word producing or bringing forth the Spirit. All co - equal. All God.

Fact: Life -- the state of being alive -- for Adam and Eve was the state of being intimately UNITED to God in family. This familial relationship is called the covenantal relationship. It has specific principles and earmarks found throughout the Bible.

Fact: Death is the state of being outside UNION WITH God.

Fact: The Church is called "The Body of Christ," Who is God. Therefore, to be united to the Church is to be united to Christ God, which is to be united to and to have LIFE. To continue faithful in that relationship is life eternal.

I cannot change the facts and I am sorry if that looks like intimidation. The good news is that God is love and in His marvelous grace, He does everything He can (such as giving us the Church, the Sacraments, and the Bible) to guide us into a relationship with Him.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS It's nice to be back. Have a wonderful time in Maine. I bet it will be real nice. Do you fish, by any chance?

 

[Singer]

The issue of what exactly comprises the Kingdom of God was the beginning of my eventual journey into the Catholic Faith and the Church which is headed by the Holy Father in Rome.

We need to research the Kingdom of God further and reveal how the Kingdom of God is referred to in the bible.... not just according to the RCC theory.

For instance:

Luke 22:18
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine,
until the kingdom of God shall come.

Jesus was not referring to the Catholic Church here;
A commentary suggests:

Jesus has not yet celebrated a Passover in heaven; He is waiting
for all His people to be gathered to Him, then there will be a great
supper - the marriage supper of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9) - this is
the fulfillment in the kingdom of God Jesus is longing for .

That is a future event yet to happen...when believers will be joined as the
Bride of Christ. If the Catholic Church is the bride, the body of Christ
and the present kingdom, then there would be no sense in praying:

Matthew 6:10
" Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as [it is] in heaven."


Let's not assume that Protestants are unwittingly praying for the advancement
of the Catholic Church with that prayer.

Therefore, if the ultimate intention of God is a human family, living in peace on earth and ruled over by a king and queen on earth, then this is what Christ came to restore.

No, Christ didn't come to restore anything...He came to save that which was lost.
And by that he didn't mean to save the Catholic Church out of oblivion.

The Holy Father is the covenantal head over the Church on earth, and the Church is the Mother of us all.

I'm told the pope confesses his sins to another priest on a weekly manner.
That is not my idea of a Holy Father.....and I don't need a spiritual mother.
Jesus said.."No man shall come unto the Father but by ME"


Your refusal to even be in a structured environment smacks of rebellion. God establishes authorities, and if you read your Bible (which I believe you do) you should know that rebellion is considered to be as the sin of witchcraft. (Meaning gravely evil)

I was reminded of that same thing in my childhood, but the emphasis was on the 2x2Way. I learned to reject those claims and it has stuck.

God has restored Adam and Eve. He has placed the Church as the nurturing Mother and type of the New Eve here on earth. To refuse Her is to refuse the earthly authority which God has ordained us to be in subjection to.

God's new covenant was not to restore Adam and Eve...what would that gain..? He'd already sent a savior to be our intermediary. The sacrifice that Jesus made is one that will wash away all sin and rejection if we will only believe. I could not hope to add upon that truth.
You quote what has been taught to you from the straits of Catholicism....not the bible.

Salvation is offered to individual souls.....not to groups organized under a presumed name.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith.

Ok...one more time...we all interpret the teachings; whether they be the bible, the church or the pope's infallible decrees.

In all honesty, I cannot understand how you cannot see this obvious truth.

Let me give yet another example of this (this time less abstract):

2+2=4. I know this because my elementary school teacher told me this.

1+1=2. I know this because my elementary school teacher told me this.

Now, 1+1+1+1=4. I know this because I interpreted (ie, used common sense in this case or applied rules that I have discerned through previous teachings) this, I was not taught this.

So, we have three mathematical thruths, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and 1+1+1+1=4, but only two of which I was actually taught explicitly.

Would you say that it is illogical for me to base my conlcusion of 1+1+1+1=4 on my interpretation of the two previous teachings? No, of course not.

What we have is a need for discernement.

Discernment Dis*cern"ment, n. Cf. F. discernement.
1. The act of discerning.

2. The power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another; power of viewing differences in objects, and their relations and tendencies; penetrative and discriminate mental vision; acuteness; sagacity; insight; as, the errors of youth often proceed from the want of discernment.

God gave us the faculty for discernment for just these reasons. Please, please think this through before you post a reply.

Basically, your entire above "conclusion" is nothing more than a way for you to try and justify the catholic teaching authority. Now, with it being easily shown that your conclusion is nothing more than several illogical statements strung together to form an invalid conclusion it is also shown that the fundamental, supposed exhaustive teaching authority of the catholic church is a myth.

Now, it is plainfully (and by now, painfully) obvious that all christians need to interpret the teachings of whatever authority is "charged" over them. I am not sure what your hangup with this is, but I don't really want to have to explain this again....


In Christ,
jason

 

[Carson Weber]

Jason,

I would really like to bring this thread back to its intended purpose, which is the commentary and critique of the paper I wrote.

we all interpret the teachings; whether they be the bible, the church or the pope's infallible decrees.

Of course we do. However, the Magisterium is living and active; it can clarify what it says, and it can adapt its teaching to culture and time specific situations, unlike Scripture. This is why it must continually reappropriate Scripture in every age.

with it being easily shown that your conclusion is nothing more than several illogical statements strung together to form an invalid conclusion

You say so Jason, but you haven't demonstrated what you assert.

Read the paper and critique it. That is the purpose of this thread.

all christians need to interpret the teachings of whatever authority is "charged" over them

Of course they do. Are you advocating an infinite regress of interpretation, wherein we can never come to knowledge of the truth?

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
I would really like to bring this thread back to its intended purpose, which is the commentary and critique of the paper I wrote.

That is fine, and I may be able to accomodate you. Though, if you continue to spout falsities, I will have to continue to correct.

Of course we do. However, the Magisterium is living and active; it can clarify what it says, and it can adapt its teaching to culture and time specific situations, unlike Scripture. This is why it must continually reappropriate Scripture in every age.

That is fine, but you fail to see the ramifications of your statement. No humanly authority had the power or resources to expand upon every truth needed for every age. No matter the timeframe, believers will need to interpret based upon custom circumstances.

You say so Jason, but you haven't demonstrated what you assert.

On the contrary, in this thread and others I have proven through examples and logical conclusions how this works. Please reread all the threads. If you wish to continue this in private, you can email me. I doubt you will, but I am open to the opportunity.

Of course they do. Are you advocating an infinite regress of interpretation, wherein we can never come to knowledge of the truth?

Have you even read the posts? At all?

Come on, at least give it a shot.

BTW. You realize that your admission that individual Christians interpret the teaching authority shows you do agree that individual interpretation is needed....so what is the problem?

In Christ,
jason

 

[Carson Weber]

if you continue to spout falsities, I will have to continue to correct.

You know, I just love to spout those falsities when I get the chance (I just wait for the opportunity and then pounce with falsehood - woohoo!).. and thank the good Lord that we have you to play policeman. What would we do without you? Give me a break o' high and mighty correctional officer! But, just this once, let me spout the falsities.. pleeeese?

You realize that your admission that individual Christians interpret the teaching authority shows you do agree that individual interpretation is needed....so what is the problem?

The problem is that in matters that pertain to essential truths of the faith (i.e., dogmas), we cannot be left to our personal interpretation.

Take, for example, the natures of Christ. David, an Arian, will convincingly (and the Arians are very convincing as well as Scripturally based) demonstrate - through his personal interpretation - that there was a time when the Son of God was not. The Sabellians will tell you that the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God's relation to man, not in objective reality. The Nestorians will tell you that Mary only bore Christ's human nature in her womb, fracturing Christ into two separate persons. The Monophysites claim that Christ's nature is a fusion of the human and divine nature, thus his one nature is a conglomerate of the two.

The Magisterium says:

"Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us" (Christological Definition of Chalcedon in 451 A.D.), thus eliminating the various mis-interpretations.

That is the role of the Magisterium, and it is necessary for the integrity of the deposit of faith, the paratheke spoken of by Paul in 1 Tim 6:20, which is guarded by the bishops and expounded by the teaching office when called upon.

 

[jasonW*]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:
You know, I just love to spout those falsities when I get the chance (I just wait for the opportunity and then pounce with falsehood - woohoo!).. and thank the good Lord that we have you to play policeman. What would we do without you? Give me a break o' high and mighty correctional officer! But, just this once, let me spout the falsities.. pleeeese?

Hey, if you want to continue to use invalid logic, I will continue to correct you. Especially when you use those illogical conclusions to espouse a position contrary valid logical conclusions. Truth cannot contradict (something to think about).

But you know, I can make a special case and let you go about your merry way and stop correcting you (hey, if I stop doing that, imagine all the free time I would have!).

The problem is that in matters that pertain to essential truths of the faith (i.e., dogmas), we cannot be left to our personal interpretation.

Ah! You see, you just stumbled upon the true differences between us. The issue of authority. Interpretation is an issue you cannot argue against, and you stopped doing so.

Authority, however, is another issue....

For another time
In Christ,
jason