|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 1, 2006 15:26:54 GMT -5
The great Christian author Oswald Chambers had some very good things to say about sanctification.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 2, 2006 11:58:03 GMT -5
Oh, I wasn't even thinking about forms, I just wanted to get the point across that there is one.
Now that we've got that far down my train of thought, lets keep going.
We all agree that there is a sanctification process, and I think we could also agree that it isn't over when we die. We're still sinners when we die (most of us anyway). Thus, purgatory, so nothing unclean will enter heaven.
Oh, and here's another nice quote by C.S. Lewis.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 2, 2006 17:33:49 GMT -5
I disagree that we are still dirty when we accept Christ. I go with Oswald Chambers rather than C.S. Lewis. "Sanctification does not mean that the Lord gives us the ability to produce by a slow, steady process a holiness like His; it is His holiness in us." It is a continuous process in that we draw ever closer to God and are more filled with His spirit than before.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 2, 2006 17:54:46 GMT -5
I found an interesting verse in Luke, namely Luke 11:27-28. Read it, for it says a couple of things about Mary and Christians.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 3, 2006 13:52:33 GMT -5
OK, so now we're back to "sin does nothing to us at all," which doesn't make much sense to me, since the New Testament spends a lot of time telling us how to live our lives. We're still sinners at death. We're still sinning at death. and... Well, I hate to do this to you, but here's an article I found. www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9301fea3.aspNow, weather you agree with this or not, that still brings up the point that there are a lot of different ways to translate the bible, but I'm going to go with the one that withstood the test of time (namly 2000 years). |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 3, 2006 17:58:49 GMT -5
What I think Jesus is saying here in this passage is that mothering God is not so worthy of blessedness than being a follower of God. Of course, Mary was a faithful servant of the Lord so we can't say she wasn't blessed, but then again God will bless all who follow him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aslan the Great Lion on Jan 4, 2006 8:19:56 GMT -5
If you are saying that Mary is something special, well she is because she had Jesus, but other than that I think that she was a regular woman IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 4, 2006 14:54:45 GMT -5
What I think Jesus is saying here in this passage is that mothering God is not so worthy of blessedness than being a follower of God. Of course, Mary was a faithful servant of the Lord so we can't say she wasn't blessed, but then again God will bless all who follow him. Its possible... This is where the pope, and other figures of authority come in. You have to have authority, or everything slips into chaos. Thats why there are now thousands upon thousands of little denominations, and 4 out of 12 people think I'm gonna burn.  Since the early church people have understood that you have to have authority, to rule on difficult scriptural passages, and say that someone is in heaven and make them saints. Christ gave the fathers of the church authority (Peter mainly is who I'm talking about), and that power has passed down through popes. The goal is to have the Holy Spirit guiding them, which he is (I've got some good stories). |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 4, 2006 18:38:41 GMT -5
Its possible... This is where the pope, and other figures of authority come in. You have to have authority, or everything slips into chaos. Thats why there are now thousands upon thousands of little denominations, and 4 out of 12 people think I'm gonna burn. Since the early church people have understood that you have to have authority, to rule on difficult scriptural passages, and say that someone is in heaven and make them saints. Christ gave the fathers of the church authority (Peter mainly is who I'm talking about), and that power has passed down through popes. The goal is to have the Holy Spirit guiding them, which he is (I've got some good stories). I've also got some good stories of when, by the "absolute authority" of the Catholic church's leaders, some different factions protesting some teachings in the Catholic church were burned at the stake along with their writings, and all dissent was suppressed with threats and excommunication. A good example of God's guidance... |
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 4, 2006 18:56:51 GMT -5
I am not denying that leadership in the church is bad. Of course it is good. But debate is good, as well, and the Holy Spirit guides everyone who receives Him, not just the Pope. Saying that is dangerous because it relies on the assumption that the particular person must be right. They are not always right, even though most of the time they might be. But if we hand the authority to decide on doctrine to one person, then we are not so reliant on our own study of scripture, nor heeding other people's conclusions about scripture, and it can come to pass that questioning the leader's doctrines amounts to heresy. Like what happened in some periods of the Catholic Church.
Now here is something I very much disagree with. Only God knows someone's heart, and only He knows whose names are written in the book of Life. It is not up to us to decide who has gone to heaven or not. Also, with regard to saints, what do you think that accomplishes? All God's children in Heaven need nothing more. Their only wish is for God's glory. What more would they need? What good would it do? Catholics seem to think that we need to make some people saints, "officially". They then share the burden of people's prayers with God... And we cannot tell who all the saints are (If there is such a thing as "special" people in the eyes of God). What, then, is the point of "officially" making people saints if those others do not receive this posthumous honour but are just as deserving?
Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 5, 2006 0:55:49 GMT -5
I am not denying that leadership in the church is bad. Of course it is good. But debate is good, as well, and the Holy Spirit guides everyone who receives Him, not just the Pope. Saying that is dangerous because it relies on the assumption that the particular person must be right. They are not always right, even though most of the time they might be. But if we hand the authority to decide on doctrine to one person, then we are not so reliant on our own study of scripture, nor heeding other people's conclusions about scripture, and it can come to pass that questioning the leader's doctrines amounts to heresy. Like what happened in some periods of the Catholic Church. Alright, here's an example. Bob is a good Christian (this sounds familiar), relies on the bible for guidance, goes to a good church, does good things, all that jazz. Joe is a good Christian too. Bob baptized his kids, Joe didn't. Who's right? The thing is, all the Catholic teachings about scripture came about the time the scripture was written. Also, while there have been bad popes bad cardinals and all that, a heretical doctrine has never been passed. Thats where the Holy Spirit comes in. Once (that comes to mind) a pope (I don't know any names I'm afraid) tried to get a heretical doctrine passed. It might have happened too, except he dropped dead pretty soon after. Same answer. Christ gave authority to Peter and the apostles. The reason the Church has the authority to say someone is in heaven is because it is guided by the Holy Spirit, as promised in scripture. |
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Jan 5, 2006 15:27:12 GMT -5
..... I would call paying money to get to Heaven quite heretical, which mind you was part of the Catholic doctarine for quite the while, but that's my opinion.
Also, the Catholic "system of power" isn't entirely Biblical. Didn't Christ say to be like brothers and sisters to one another? So how is having some ppl in more power over the teachings than others treating all Christians like "brothers and sisters"?
Furthermore, what about the killings of priests or ppl who opposed he Church (ie: William Tyndale, the destruction of Bohemia b/c of their refusal to give up a "rogue" priest)? That doesn't seem very doctorial, killing those who disagree with you.
This is just clarification, every1 has their own personal opinions. This makes us all unique and objective. What I've just said is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 5, 2006 15:55:37 GMT -5
That was never Catholic Doctrine. Sorry. That was a bunch of evil people twisting meanings.
However, I would agree with everyone that the Church was kinda messed up when Martin Luther came around. Luther had a lot of good points (by the way, we have fixed ourselves up now).
Well, using your logic, I don't think we should have presidents. They have too much power. We don't have any say in it.
The thing is, you don't have any say in it. You don't get to decide what the Bible says. Thats why there's a Pope. The same things being taught today in the Church are the same things that were taught 2000 years ago. All the church does is look at how they interpreted it 2000 years ago, and use that.
The thing about Catholicism is, its the only branch of Christianity that doesn't involve some guy walking down the street who suddenly says, "I've got it! We've been wrong for x00 years! This is actually the truth..." I have trouble believing the Holy Spirit just left the Church in the dark for 1500 years.
Like I said, the church was messed up. But in its defense, Protestants were doing the same thing. When a new king or queen showed up, the ball swung to Protestants killing Catholics, and vise-versa.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 5, 2006 19:28:34 GMT -5
I suppose you derive your assumption that Peter (e.g. the Pope) is the rock upon which Jesus' Church is based from Matthew 16? 'Cause I disagree with the Catholic interpretation, and that could have some relevance to this debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 5, 2006 19:35:03 GMT -5
I have a question about the Peter issue that I keep on seeing you say, heartofgold. You say that Peter was the first Pope or head of the Catholic Church. What evidence do you have for this, seeing that Peter was a Hebrew in Judea and the Catholic Church is generally associated with Rome and/or Constantinople?
I have very little knowledge of early-church age doings, so I may sound ignorant, but I've always wondered why Catholics maintain that Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 5, 2006 20:44:08 GMT -5
I have a question about the Peter issue that I keep on seeing you say, heartofgold. You say that Peter was the first Pope or head of the Catholic Church. What evidence do you have for this, seeing that Peter was a Hebrew in Judea and the Catholic Church is generally associated with Rome and/or Constantinople? I have very little knowledge of early-church age doings, so I may sound ignorant, but I've always wondered why Catholics maintain that Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church. Mainly because of that bible verse. There are only so many ways you can interpret it. Also, he did preach that sermon on Pentecost priests everywhere have been trying to find, and, in general, seems to be in authority. |
|
|
|
Post by Armany on Jan 6, 2006 15:58:03 GMT -5
I don't really see how that confirms him as the first head of the Catholic specifically, but thanks for answering.
May the debate live on! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 6, 2006 16:01:05 GMT -5
He's not. But since everyone else got rid of him, all thats left is the Catholic Church.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Jan 6, 2006 16:17:53 GMT -5
That was never Catholic Doctrine. Sorry. That was a bunch of evil people twisting meanings. However, I would agree with everyone that the Church was kinda messed up when Martin Luther came around. Luther had a lot of good points (by the way, we have fixed ourselves up now). Well, using your logic, I don't think we should have presidents. They have too much power. We don't have any say in it. The thing is, you don't have any say in it. You don't get to decide what the Bible says. Thats why there's a Pope. The same things being taught today in the Church are the same things that were taught 2000 years ago. All the church does is look at how they interpreted it 2000 years ago, and use that. The thing about Catholicism is, its the only branch of Christianity that doesn't involve some guy walking down the street who suddenly says, "I've got it! We've been wrong for x00 years! This is actually the truth..." I have trouble believing the Holy Spirit just left the Church in the dark for 1500 years. Like I said, the church was messed up. But in its defense, Protestants were doing the same thing. When a new king or queen showed up, the ball swung to Protestants killing Catholics, and vise-versa. ... do some history. Secondly, not everyone was left in the dark. Priests, like Luther, etc. were not in the dark. Also, how does the pope work into the information u have just presented? It doesn't. Furthermore, every heard of the saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"? That is a possible reason why we (imperfect human beings) should treat everyone as equalls, otherwise we get leaders like Hitler, Stalin, etc. Also, a democracy is not perfect, only a government ruled directly by God would be perfect (although that won't come to Earth till the end). True, but if I do recall, the Catholic Church seems to have had the longer history of killings than the Protestants. Such as the inquisition, many of the Crusades, and probably many more. Yes, the Protestants probably weren't the perfect ppl either, but there has been often times a bad history between the Catholic Church and other ideas. Still, there are reasons for everything, just some make more sense to somepeople than they do to others. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 6, 2006 16:34:49 GMT -5
Wait. We've actually got to, "yep, thats right. Right after God promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church, he didn't." FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS!!!!! I have a lot of trouble believing God just abandoned the Church for 1500 years, then sent Luther.
Um, what about the pope? I didn't know we were talking about him. We were talking about the Church. The only way the pope fits into this is he was the head of the church.
The Catholic "government" is being ruled directly by God. He's at work through figures of authority. God wasn't working through Hitler and Stalin. And God's government isn't a democracy, I can tell you that much.
Its because they've been around longer. People started having religious wars and killing people right before the Church broke up. Then, when it broke up, Protestants started killing people, they just didn't have as much time to do it (though they were all catholics beforehand, if you can look at it that way).
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 6, 2006 21:59:25 GMT -5
Mainly because of that bible verse. There are only so many ways you can interpret it. It's either saying that Peter is the rock, or God himself (e.g. Peter's revelation that Jesus Christ is the son of God). I agree with the second. |
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 7, 2006 0:00:49 GMT -5
"you are Peter (meaning rock), and on this rock I will build my church"
It just seems like there aren't very many ways to look at it. Any other interpretation just ends up looking like a desperate attempt to foil the Catholic Church.
|
|
|
|
Post by falklands on Jan 7, 2006 10:40:45 GMT -5
You are taking it out of context. Why did you not include the preceding passages?
That is the context. The subject of the passage: Who is Jesus? Simon Peter has the revelation that Jesus is the "Messiah, the Son of the Living God." And Jesus is saying "flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
So many times in the Bible the Lord is referred to as a rock.
Deuteronomy 32:4: "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
De 32:18: "Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee. "
De 32:31: "For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges."
1 Samuel 2:2 "There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God."
2 Samuel 22:2: "And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer"
2 Samuel 22:32: "For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God?"
2 Samuel 22:47: "The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation. "
Psalm 18:2: "The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer"
Psalm 18:31: "For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?"
Psalm 28:1: "Unto thee will I cry, O LORD my rock"
Psalm 31:3: "For thou art my rock and my fortress"
Psalm 62:6: "He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved."
I have no more time right now, but I shall get back to you later.
|
|
|
|
Post by heartofgold on Jan 7, 2006 11:17:23 GMT -5
Even in context I can't see any reason to interpret it any different. It just seems odd to me that Jesus would name him Peter, meaning rock, then refer to a completely different rock. If Peter didn't mean rock, than there would be a lot of ways to look at it. But as it is, "you are the rock, and upon this rock I will build my church," just doesn't seem to be too complicated. Even in context.
|
|
Teckor
Full Member
.........what am I supposed to write? Something inspiring?
Posts: 154
|
Post by Teckor on Jan 9, 2006 16:19:14 GMT -5
Wait. We've actually got to, "yep, thats right. Right after God promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church, he didn't." FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS!!!!! I have a lot of trouble believing God just abandoned the Church for 1500 years, then sent Luther. Um, what about the pope? I didn't know we were talking about him. We were talking about the Church. The only way the pope fits into this is he was the head of the church. The Catholic "government" is being ruled directly by God. He's at work through figures of authority. God wasn't working through Hitler and Stalin. And God's government isn't a democracy, I can tell you that much. Its because they've been around longer. People started having religious wars and killing people right before the Church broke up. Then, when it broke up, Protestants started killing people, they just didn't have as much time to do it (though they were all catholics beforehand, if you can look at it that way). ... History, read some more. There were many other priests (besides Luther) that went against what the Church had said. Many (if not all) got killed or were forced to recind what they had said. The truth was still there, the Holy Ghost still led, just the Catholic Church probably wasn't being led by it. Yes, you were just talking about the pope and how it fits in. (which it personally doesn't) Also, didn't I just say that the perfect government was one ruled directly by God? And also, let me get this straight... so, God tells the Pope (instead of US, the PEOPLE) what to tell us, who then passes the memo down the ranks... seems kinda unlikely. I find it hard to believe that God would say "Go kill all those that do not believe, even the Jews whom I treasure." Which mind you happened in the Inquisition. (By the by, brief history. Jews in Spain flee to Britain. Shortly afterwards, Spain launches armadda against Britain. Unforeseeable weather and other problems. Arrmadda scattered and mostly destroyed. Britains much smaller navy then takes the rest out piece meal) Furthermore, God doesn't abandon, he may let us work and reap our "just deserts" but he is always there to pick us up. Take a look at the history of the Jews, or how about Paul, or John the Baptist, and probably many others. You will find something very interesting, that God is there during the tough times, just we can't see him at first glance. .......... About the Peter part. What if he's simply saying that he is correct or true, or even that he is solid or of firm belief? Note: you said Peter means rock, not "the rock". .......... Also, you said earlier that 4 ppl in this forum believed that all Catholics were going to Hell. I personally believe that there is a fine line. A line not easily crossed but nonetheless a fine line between a Catholic and a Christian. So, whether or not your actually a Catholic I do not know. But I believe that you are one or the other. |
|
Since the early church people have understood that you have to have authority, to rule on difficult scriptural passages, and say that someone is in heaven and make them saints. Christ gave the fathers of the church authority (Peter mainly is who I'm talking about), and that power has passed down through popes. The goal is to have the Holy Spirit guiding them, which he is (I've got some good stories).
