Perhaps it is me, but did I notice a bit more irenic tone to your post this time? I shall endeavor to respond in kind. I do hope we can keep future correspondence "above the belt" so to speak.
Ray-You might be a tad bias here. If Luther would have gone back into the RCC you would never have penned the above words; he would only have been a zealous churchman.
I would hope that I would be able to distinguish true piety from fraudulent zeal. Sometimes they are a bit hard to distinguish between.
The fact is in his medieval spiritual darkness he could not find his way out of the maze. The Word of God brought about his spiritual awakening and quickening of the Spirit.
Please stop and think about what you are saying. If this truly was the case with the Church, why were thousands of others able to find peace and rest within Her? I must still maintain that the problem was with Luther's psyche and not the teachings or Sacraments of the Church.
The thief on the Cross was never baptized and Jesus promised him paradise; and yet he made it to Heaven.
I am VERY disappointed with this statement, seeing that you are a seminary trained person. Surely you must know that the thief on the Cross was still under the OLD COVENANT. The New Covenant had not yet begun. Therefore, he was already circumcized and in the Old Covenant. The only thing he needed was repentance, which he exhibited while dying next to Christ. Baptism did not come in until the New Covenant began, which would be after the resurrection of Christ.
Some Baptists and also you believe that Romans chapter six is speaking of water baptism, when in fact, the Apostle Paul is communicating the fact of a Spirit baptism when a person receives Christ as personal Savior. I'll cut you a $1,000. check in your name if you can show me one drop of water in all of Romans chapter six!
This is where we rely upon the testimony of the Early Fathers, those who were leaders in the Church in the first century and onward. The testimony they give shows that the baptism here here is indeed water, for they understood and practiced the Catholic/Orthodox understanding which the Church held in unison until the sixteenth century and the Reformation. As for the check, you know that I cannot prove from the Bible alone that there is water there. One must sometimes use other sources to prove doctrines, such as "what did the original believers understand this to mean?"
Acts 2:21 makes your theory that water baptism saves an error.
Not at all. Not if you understand the principles of "cutting covenant" with God and how one enters the covenantal family, as well as what it means to be in that family. Mankind is lost in Adam. Being part of him and partakers of his sin, we need "saved" from that condition. We need a new covenantal head over us. Baptism is the door by which we walk out of the room of condemnation and into the great banquet hall of God's gracious adoption as sons and daughters.
Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to
us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ.
I realize that this is what you have been taught, but the Bible shows us something entirely different:
Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Sounds to me like the Church has tremendous authority over men's lives.
And of course, there is the giving of authority by Christ to the apostles. Why do you insist upon overlooking those verses?
But more than that, your mindset is very much a product of Western democratic thinking in which men tend to think very "me" centered and tend to reject any and all authority over their lives. God does not have a democracy. He has a kingdom, and it is ruled like a kingdom, with hierarchy, with rules, and with structure.
And Jesus gave HIS AUTHORITY to the men whom He personally discipled and trained to bear it:
Ray-I agree with you 100% on this point.
I am considerably puzzled by this statement. We see in Acts 2 that the office of the apostle is passed on, having belonged to Judas, it is now given to Barnabas. If you agree that authority was given to the apostles as leaders of the Church, why would you deny the Church authority today? Does not the Church still need leaders? Do not the sheep still need authorative shepherds?
Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
I mean Christ cleanses and forgives the sins and only then can the priest/minister declare their sins forgiven.
That's not what Jesus said. You know, the Lord was precise with His words. If he meant to say what you intimate here, He would have said, "When a man repents, then you may declare his sins forgiven to assure him."
But He didn't. He said that these men had the power to bind or loose sins. This is another case of working the Word of God so that it teaches something that does not contradict preconcieved notions. I know. Used to do it all the time myself.
The Apostle Paul and Peter speak of themselves as apostles and servants, not some kind of a robed, masterful, distributive person who hands out grace and the promise of eternal life because of super charged bread and wine. Grace only comes from Christ alone.
Christ is the cause of all grace. But He can and does use many instruments by which that grace is distributed to men. You are confusing the causitive and creative Agent of grace with the instrument His uses to dispense it.
As for the apostles, you again are mistaken. St. Paul knew his authority:
1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.
19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.
20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.
21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? ?
Sounds like St. Paul KNEW that he and not the Corinthians, had charge over the Church!! This is a disciplinary matter and notice how Paul deals with it. He is almost
challenging the miscreants in Corinth to a showdown of power!!
Most Christians in various denominations understand that other brethren know Jesus and love Him. Where did you get your idea from as noted above?p
From reading their publications, of course.
No disrespect to you, but when I have gone to the RCC I felt like I was visiting with a dead God.
Well, that is one reason I did not join the RCC. I like my worship a bit more worshipful than the current Novus Ordo liturgy. Of course, each individual has his own personal relationship to Christ through faith and the Sacraments, and I am not privy to another man's piety. Don't judge all men in a Mass by the quality of the Mass itself.
I found no joy or happy celebration.
You REALLY should come to a Byzantine Paschal Liturgy. It is REMARKABLE!!!
As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or the wine that was emphasized in the first church.
Neither were they denigrated as the Protestant assemblies do, making the "supper" almost an afterthought to the preaching.
Again I agree with you. The Christians did celebrate the Holy Communion, possibly every time they met, but who was the object of their worship and veneration? Their center of focus was on Christ and not deceased saints, angels, or even the mother of our Lord.
Again, you paint a picture which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Catholic Faith. It seems that we are not allowed to mention at all or ever our brothers and sisters, the saints, or the Blessed Virgin. Not even one time or it is taking away from Christ.
Our Byzantine Liturgy runs for an hour (or slightly longer). During that time, numerous prayers are offered to the Lord for others, civil authorities, the sick, government officials, Church officers, etc. The Creeds are recited. A reading is given from the proper epistle for that day and a reading of the Gospel also.
There are two prayers of adoration to the Mother of God. Two. In an hour's service. Well, I guess for you that is two too many, right?
You know, the glory of the creator is not in himself, but in what he creates. I do stained glass windows as a hobby. No one glorifies me for that until they see what I have created. Then I recieve the glory as people make statements like this:
"How beautiful" "Wonderful work" "I love the colors you chose" and so forth.
And in the same way, the Blessed Mother is the apex of God's creative and redemptive work, for through Him and the Blood of the Cross, She was brought into being, pure and sinless, just as Eve was pure and sinless. The difference being, of course, that Eve did not need the Cross work of Christ to be created. After the Fall, the Blessed Virgin did.
To properly glorify Her, as God's magnificent creation, is to glorify Him. Once you get that concept, you will understand why we offer Her our praise.
Cordially in Christ through the Blessed Theotokos,
Brother Ed
