Pocket Lent
I've always been interested in Lent. Growing up, I was friends with the kid who lived across the street and whose family was Roman Catholic. Every year around this time, he would talk about his family not doing certain things or how he was only allowed to eat certain foods (something about fish and Fridays...). Being a good little Baptist(ish) boy, I never understood it and thought, "Well, if my church doesn't do it, it must be wrong". Over the years, however, after emerging from an "If it's Catholic, it's bad" mind set, and especially in more recent years, I've come to understand a lot more about Ashes and Lent, and see some great value in the practice and the intent.
Lent is the 40 day period before Easter during which the participant prepares himself for the Holy week. It is considered to be symbolic of the multiple events that occurred over periods of 40 days, and sometimes years, in the Scriptures: i.e. Noah on the ark, Moses on Sinai, the Hebrews in the wilderness (40 yrs, that one), Elijah going to Mt. Horeb, the 40 day opportunity given to Ninevah to repent, Christ's fasting in preparation for His temptation in the wilderness. The basic idea behind it is to give up distractions in order to focus on God and our standing with Him, and prepare to commemorate and celebrate the events of Christ's betrayal, trial, death, and resurrection.
Ok, so, two things: First, and this is more of a vent than anything, I think it's a shame that the larger part of modern Evangelicalism has written-off Lent (and most other strictly non-Evangelical observances) as, basically, a "Yae! Being Catholic is the Greatest!" festival. We miss so much reverence and piety (the good kind) that is there for all Christians to glean from; to put up one's nose at it simply because it's different from what our church does is just heart breaking. This is a different topic altogether, but there is a vast, and I think intentional, misunderstanding of Catholicism on the part of a lot of Evangelicals that has been detrimental to the effectiveness and unity of the universal Church for an unfortunate number of years. We can learn a lot from our Catholic brothers.
Second, and more to the point of Ashes and Lent, if the basic idea behind the two holy days is to remove hindrances in our relationship with God, why only do it for 40 days? And why only Catholics? (I find it ironic that a doctrine accused of a works based salvation has a corner on the market of repentance, meanwhile the free grace crowd is schismed over their insistence on exercising what they think are their liberties.) See, I think we should all observe Lent, but not just for 40 days. Doesn't the desire to repent and be rid of the distractions of the flesh only come from the Spirit in us by the grace of God? Shouldn't we all be seeking to remove those things that cloud our vision and redirect our eyes away from the one who gives us fullness of life? Honestly, I want every day of my life to be marked by the ashes of Ash Wednesday and the hunger pangs of Lent as I hunt down and struggle to remove those things that hinder my relationship with God. I don't simply want to cast aside distractions for 40 days, but I want to put to death those things that try to convince me that the fullness of life is in a thick wallet and a full belly. Because of God's grace given to me, I want to live a Lenten life in which I kill distraction daily, in which I die to the flesh daily, in which I am conformed to the image of Christ daily; all in preparation for the celebration of the Holy Day of Christ's return when we will celebrate His resurrection, ascension, and Kingship daily...for all eternity.
Happy Lent
posted by Ian @ 9:43 AM
45 comments
45 Comments:
Ian
I appreciate your desire to live a Lenten life and see great value in that - but the line about Catholic brothers - I am not quite certain what you mean by that. COuld you expound?
Jasonst
You know, I thought I'd get some "hmmmm..." 's on that one. As I mentioned in the post, I think there is a lot that we Evangelicals misunderstand, and therefore miss altogether, about Catholicism. All I meant by that comment is that being Catholic doesn't disqualify someone from being saved. Consider brother to be the qualifier in "Catholic brother", not Catholic. I firmly believe that there are Catholics that are Christians. I am not bold enough to say that all Catholics are saved. But, honestly, I'm not naive enough to say that all Evangelicals are either, so....
Ian
Point taken, however, do you believe that a Catholic can become a brother, and still remain a Catholic? To put it plainly and simply, I have a hard time believing that a truly converted believer - when confronted with the truth of Catholicism - can remain a "Catholic" brother. Seems to cut to the heart of the Reformation, no?
How much can we blame someone for their ignorance? (sorry to jump in on the conversation)
What if someone just hears growing up... "Have the faith of a child and commit yourself to God"
What if they don't go any deeper? what does that make them?
heck... I'm asking out of genuine curiosity myself. I can't help but wonder these things.
When we look at the official doctrines of the Catholic Church, one must conclude that a Catholic can not be a Christian.
The following are official and irreformable doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church:
* Papal Proclamations, as well as Church Councils, are infallible, and equal to Scripture
* Salvation by Works
* Baptismal Regeneration ("Salvation by Baptism")
* Substitution of "Penance" for "Repentance"
* We must confess to a priest
* We must be cleansed in Purgatory
* The Church can lessen Purgatory through indulgences
* Indulgences are possible because of Christ, Mary, and other saints
* The Pope is Christ's representative on earth and is infallible in proclamations
* The bread and wine of communion are literally and miraculously Christ's body and blood
* Christ's sacrifice is repeated literally in every Mass over and over again
* Mary was sinless
* Mary's body was brought to heaven
* Mary intermediates to Christ on behalf of man
* The Church encourages the worship of idols and dead saints
* Church tradition is equal to the Bible
* The Church has added an additional 7 books to the Bible called the "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical" books
* The Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, and is infallible
* Condemns to hell anyone who disagrees with baptismal regeneration, salvation by works, the Pope, etc.
You might say, "But I'm a Catholic and I don't believe those things!"
Well, if you don't believe those things, then you're not really a Catholic. You just happen to attend a Catholic Church. You are not unlike a person who claims to be a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), but loves to eat steak. You can claim to be a member of PETA, but your actions show otherwise.
In the same way, if someone claims to be a Catholic, but is actually and legitimately saved (rejects the doctrines listed above), he is not really a Catholic. He is a Christian who happens to attend a Catholic Church.
And if you reject those doctrines, you should stop attending the Catholic Church.
Please see the Biblical answer to each of these in the essay The Gospel of Rome which you can download for free at: http://www.sohmer.net/media/Gospel_of_Rome.pdf.
I hope that's helpful and a blessing!
Ian, please be careful of your admiration of the Roman Catholic Church. No establishment has martyred more Christians than the Roman Catholic Church. There is good reason to be wary.
Janet,
Don't be sorry for jumping in; The conversation is always open to anyone. I'm glad to have you aboard. I believe that maybe a Christian is more liable for his ignorance than we might care to think. Ignorance is one of the things that God has saved us out of. Now, this doesn't mean that we know everything about Him upon the moment of salvation, but rather that we are made able to begin the process of knowing Him; Ignorance is not a characteristic of the Christian. "As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance, but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior; because it is written, 'YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY.' " 1 Peter 1:14-17. This actually ties in nicely with the "faith of a child". I believe that term/concept is a little misunderstood. See, the thing with kids (and I can attest to this personally; I have four of them), is not so much their willingness to believe, but their insatiable curiosity; their undying persistence in asking questions. A child never seems to be satisfied with the initial answer you give them and always wants to know more. This is how I believe we are to believe: always insatiable in longing to know more, and always persistent in asking the questions. This doesn't allow the believer to remain ignorant as they were before their salvation, but forces him to grow. While the only requirement the Scriptures lay upon man for salvation is faith in Christ the King, the evidences of salvation they speak of are inevitable (Mark 4:20; Luke 8:15; John 15:1-17; Rom 7:4). A believer will, and therefore must produce fruit; he cannot remain in his ignorance. This whole thing not only speaks to the individual Christian, but the Church as a whole. Each believer has the duty and privilege to facilitate the growth of other believers. Each believer is responsible for the growth of the Christian Community, the building of the Kingdom. I hope that you see this as a good, glorious, and hopeful thing and not an act of condemnation.
Jay,
While this nicely sets up a reply to your question, I have to get to class. I'll post a response later today.
Ian
OK. First, I just want to make it clear that I am not setting out to defend Catholicism or legitimate its doctrine. My initial comments in my post were meant to be more reflective of such things demonstrated by the Catholic church as the reverence and seriousness with which they approach God, the unashamed and public involvement in issues of social justice and the conviction and determination with which those issues are approached. I was not, and am not, as I said, trying to defend Catholic doctrine or theology. On that note, I also want to say up front that I am not really interested in getting into a debate over points of Catholic doctrine. To Mark's point, if I were convinced of Roman Catholic doctrine then I would be a Roman Catholic; but I'm not. In fact, as most of you know, I am reformed in my doctrine and theology. Which leads me to...
Jay,
Does it cut to the heart of the Reformation? Simply, no. In fact, I would contend that it continues the true mission of the Reformation: Unity. See, when the Reformation started, Luther wasn't trying to start a revolution, revolt, or anything called the Protestant Church; he was calling his fellow Catholics to discussion and hopeful resolution of issues which he saw as products of corruption within the Church; his main goal was restoration of the Catholic church. That is my hope as well. I want to see a day where the Catholic church "reforms" from it's wayward doctrine. What the Reformers recognized was that, though desperately fallen, the Catholic church was not hopeless or anti-Christian by an means. And their hope for the Catholic church rested in that which it proclaimed as its base beliefs:
"The Tri-une nature and full theistic attributes of God; assent to God as the sovereign creator and sustainer of the world; acceptance of Christ's incarnation as the God-man, including trust in His virgin birth, attesting miracles, atoning death on the cross, bodily resurrection from the grave, ascension into Heaven, future return in glory, and work of judgment and resurrection of mankind; affirmation of the Holy Spirit's personality, deity, and involvement in redemption; the acknowledgment of sin, the necessity of grace, and the need of salvation; and confidence in God's preservation and guidance of the Christian church." (see end of post for where I got this quote)
All these points are reflected in the ecumenical creeds that were developed by Catholic councils before the Reformation, and are recited still today by both Catholic and Reformed churches. I'm sure that you, as a member of a non-denom. church, uphold these points as well.
Now, let me restate that I am not trying to justify Catholic doctrine; Mark's list reveals inexcusable errors. However, I think we need to be careful about identifying some unfortunate practices of or beliefs within the Catholic church as official doctrines, and also recognize that Vatican II made some progress in correcting some...some...of the more heinous of these doctrines. Also important to note, is the recent progress within the practice and thinking of Catholicism as demonstrated by such movements as the Charismatic Catholics. With this in mind, and remembering those doctrines affirmed in the ecumenical creeds, I think we need to concede that Catholicism is not anti-Christian by any means, but rather guilty of going astray from a true foundation over a period of around 2000 yrs. And as such, it is not in need of destruction, but reformation. Also, those creedal affirmations fully convince me that it is possible for a Christian to be Catholic. We must honestly consider the various doctrines that exist in Evangelical Protestantism and question what makes those strayings from a true foundation any different or less grievous than those that the Catholic Church is guilty of.
Mark,
Thank you for your diligent studies, not just in regards to this topic, but in your overall concern for the purity of Christianity. I share that concern and I have made use of your material, on the JW's specifically, in the past. Also, I want to assure you that I neither hold any great admiration for the actions of, nor am I in danger of converting to, the Roman Catholic church. The history of the RC church, particularly in the middle ages, is gruesome at best. However, what I am aiming toward, what my hope is focused on, is that such a history is never repeated. With hope of seeing the Catholic church return to the thinking of such men as Augustine and Athenasius, such men as those that defended those basic beliefs that were later recorded in the ecumenical creeds, I look forward to the day when the Church is again unified, and the protest of the Protestants, against this temporary aberration of the Church, can come to an end. I long for the day when all believers can use the term "catholic" correctly, and I hope for the privilege of being part of the process of getting us there.
Sola Gratia
Sola Fide
Sola Scriptura
Solus Christus
Soli Deo Gloria
Semper Reformanda
Ian
I borrowed that quote from the first of an excellent, four part article by Kenneth R. Samples entitled “What Think Ye of Rome?” The first part appeared on pages 34 - 42 of the 1993 Winter edition of Christian Research Journal.
Ian,
To make an allusion to an extra-Biblical source, it seems to me that you see the RCC as more like Anakin, rather than Palpatine.
Anakin still had good in him. Luke (not the gospel writer) believed he sensed the "conflict" and that he could "bring him back" to the good side.
Nobody believed that about Palpatine. Palpatine was certainly lost without hope.
Silly analogy aside, I believe it is naive to think that the Roman Catholic Church can be redeemed.
The problem is that they have stated that their papal decrees and councils are inerrant. Given that, they are stuck with all the doctrines that I listed in my previous comment. It is not the case that Vatican II changed anything. Vatican II reaffirmed purgatory, indulgences, and did nothing to change any of their heretical doctrines.
Lorraine Boettner got it right as to why the RCC is Palpatine, and not Anakin. Boettner wrote, "An infallible church simply cannot repent" (Boettner, Lorraine, "Roman Catholicism", preface to the 5th edition). They have set themselves up as infallible. So they can not say, "Whoops, we were wrong about Mary."
Please do not be naive about this. Rome claims to have changed, but they have only changed in the language they use in the Mass and which direction the priest faces. They still teach as dogma (which means 'must be believed') the damning doctrines of justification by works, baptismal regeneration, Mariology, the Pope, et cetera. These dogmas aggrieve the Holy God of the Bible.
Yes, the Roman Cahtolic Church may be Trinitarian, but that hardly matters. We can agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses on the sinfulness of man, and the doctrine of Creation, but that doesn't make them our brothers. In the same way, the RCC's Trinitarian doctrines can not make up for the many abominable teachings they have "infallibly" stated.
Paul made it clear: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:8).
Mark,
Again, I don't want to argue about doctrines; we agree that they are flawed at best. Neither do I wish to debate about the in's and out's of councils (Vatican I vs. Vatican II etc.) and what was and wasn't overturned, resolved, etc. To do so would not be beneficial in this discussion.
I do, however, wish to challenge you, or anyone for that matter, that says that anybody is beyond redemption. The plain and simple fact is, as evidenced by the creeds I referenced, is that the Catholic church, though their voice be broken, still calls out to the same gracious, saving, Tri-une God that you and I do. Unlike the JW's (the Arians of our day), who deny the very nature of God by denying His Tri-une nature, and the Mormons (a modern Gnostic sect) who say that the God of the Bible is neither the only nor the greatest God, we share a common ground with the Catholic church who proclaims that the God of the Holy Scriptures is the One, True, Redeeming, Saving God. Heck, we share the same history up to 1517 and the Reformation. The sin of a man or organization has no bearing on his ability to repent. The doctrine of Papal infallibility is no different than our individual pride or various other sins. How many of us thought we were invincible and inerrant before God humbled us? It is the extended grace of God, and that alone (Sola Gratia) that allows man to repent. No man, no matter how strong his guile, can declare any person or institution to be beyond repentance and redemption. That is the business and working of God alone; the same God that the Catholic church claims in their creeds; the same God that enabled me, in spite of my own inability to repent and reform, to cry out to Him for my salvation, and to whom I still cry out in my times of brokenness.
I understand that there are Protestants that have very strong feelings toward the Catholic church, and I don't mean to belittle their feelings, experiences, etc. However, I do wish to warn them that those feelings must not lead them to action or belief that forgets God's regenerating and saving power, and devalues the benefit to man in calling out to Him. If their feelings do indeed lead them to such action and belief, they are committing the very acts of control and power, and are guilty of many of the doctrinal errors that Luther, Calvin, Owen and others left the Catholic church over in their Protestant Reformation.
Brother, we need to fight for the reformation of the Catholic church, not push them further astray or assist them in wallowing in their error. And not just the Catholic church, but all denominations that claim the name of our Tri-une God and Savior. If we truly believe what we are saying when we pray, "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven," then we will desire and work for unity in the church this side of glory no matter how insurmountable the odds seem to be. The things, though they be few, that the Catholic and Protestant churches have in common are far more powerful than those things that separate them; and it is those things in which I place my hope.
In Fervent Expectation of the Fullness of the Kingdom of God,
Ian
Hey Ian,
Interesting discussion [and now I'm jumping in:)]! In the evangelical church, “saying the prayer” is just as damning as infant baptism with regard to justification. This is not surprising since we know from Matthew 7 that only very few of the professing “Church” will be saved. 'Lord, Lord did we not'…I have recently come to see how few, few really is.
That being said, I know a brother who did “say the prayer” and was truly supernaturally converted and is bearing fruit in keeping with repentance (a continual process). This happened because God can work through the errors of man. However, on the other hand my wife Allison said the prayer, discovered and agreed with the unbiblical and damning nature of this “easy believism”, and then after a year of dead orthodoxy the Lord saved her! So I agree with Ian that we are more ignorant then we think. After all the heart is deceitful above all things and who can understand it? The mystery of godliness is truly a mysterious and supernatural thing from beginning to end.
But now don't get me wrong. The importance if orthodoxy cannot be overstated. The Lord used this orthodoxy in the conversion of Allison. Wrong doctrine will give you a false view of reality, and people act upon what they believe. A false view of reality is always hurtful in some way. Any deviation from what is taught in Scripture will be hurtful. Once again, this is something I have discovered recently in light of the traditional reformed Augustine view of Romans 7. However, I love much of the reformed tradition, and Romans 7 is a whole other can of worms.
So orthodoxy is vitally important, but the real question is: are you a new creation? Has God done that supernatural work in your heart? Did He take out your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh whereby he causes you supernaturally to obey his commandants and observe His ordinances? Have your desires been changed where you now for the first time have the ability to do the good that you know you should do? Moreover, do you delight in bearing fruit for salvation? Those are the questions that we should ask our possibly saved Catholic (big “C”) friends.
So now with that being said, here is my question. How long can a true regenerate Christian live in ignorance? Can he/she live in ignorance of the doctrines of grace but flourish and grow in other areas of the Christian life? Can a truly converted Catholic stay in ignorance of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church his/her whole life? Growth in Christ is essential as a new creation. Good trees only produce good fruit. This fruit will be 100 fold, 60 fold, and sometimes 30 fold. So can that Catholic be in that 30 fold or 2 fold so to speak? These are questions that I have been thinking of lately, and questions that I do not know how to answer or if we can even answer them in our finite state. Any help, from anyone, would be much appreciated!
Paul
Paul,
Hey, how are you guys? Hope all is well.
I think we need to be careful to make a distinction between being ignorant and being misinformed, or even being in error. If we were to make the two equal, we would all have to confess to ignorance until the day we are with the Lord; nobody, Catholic, Protestant, or otherwise, has it all right, and therefore we are all misinformed and in error in one way (at least one way) or another. However, we press forward in those doctrines which we believe most accurately attend to the teachings of the Scriptures. Are we ignorant because we carry on in our misinformation? No, because, hopefully, we are humble enough to admit that we don't have it all right, boast only in Christ for our salvation, and never cease our pursuit of knowing God more fully. But, our pursuit must start at the beginning of the right track, and that is the enabling of the Holy Spirit to call out to the One, True, Tri-une God of the Scriptures for salvation. Catholicism does this. Now, I am not saying that all Catholics are saved, nor am I saying that the bulk of their doctrines can lead them to what I believe is a more proper knowledge of God. However, I do beleive that some doctrines of the Catholic church can enable a Catholic believer to know God better and love Him more. I see evidence of this in the fruit that the Catholic church and its members have produced: leadership in the Anti-abortion movement, and matters of social justice and debt relief, for example, all for the glory of God. Looks like some good fruit to me.
Now, the Catholic church runs into a huge problem when it doesn't address the problems (other than its faulty doctrines) within itself. For example the failure to reprimand the predominant Central and South American practices of Catholic pantheism, panentheism and animism as evidenced in various forms of mysticism and worship of such idols as the virgin of Guadeloupe. The Catholic church, through its doctrine or otherwise, does not condone or encourage this form of Catholicism. However, by not addressing it and calling for repentance from it, they appear to be doing just that. Also, the persistent problem with child molestation and the desire to cover it up rather than put an end to it does them no favors. But, again, as I see it, this is not behavior produced or encouraged by the doctrines of the church. Are not all churches and denominations, because they are comprised of humans, susceptible to such issues? This is bad fruit.
So, both the Catholic and Protestant churches are capable of producing, and do indeed produce, both good and bad fruit. How is this possible? It is possible because both the Catholic and Protestant churches contain true believers and false believers; always have, always will (until glory, that is). Can a Catholic Christian remain Catholic? Just as much as a Protestant Christian can stay Protestant. Both parties contain error which prohibit them from knowing God perfectly. But, both are also built upon the rock of who the Tri-une God is and what He has done, and that is where our hope of salvation lies.
I would say that ignorance is abandoned at salvation. However, I would also say that misinformation and even incorrect practice can continue. Look at the Corinthians: they abused the Lord's supper, added to the teachings of the Apostles, whom they practically deified, and allowed such sin as incestuous adultery to continue and go un-addressed in their church. These errors bear a striking resemblance to those in the Catholic church. Nonetheless, Paul called them brothers and labored for their correction because they trusted in Christ for salvation.
Now, after all that, it may sound strange for me to say that I am not equating Catholicism to Protestantism. I am a firmly convinced Protestant and hold dearly the theology of the reformers and the prevalence of covenant in redemptive history. Which is why I say that while I believe a Catholic Christian can stay Catholic, I don't think he should. This is why I believe Protestants must see their pursuit of the Kingdom, which includes the duty to facilitate the reforming of not only the Catholic believer, but the Catholic church, as of the utmost importance
Ian
Ian
It seemed that the way you phrased your original paragraph, you were being too inclusive. I don't disagree with anything you have stated, I just wanted to be sure that you were not equating all those who practice lent with the term "brothers", that's all. I know of MANY who practice lent that do it as a Pharisee, and without regard for its original purpose. Those who I have in mind I would not necessarily consider brothers.
J
Hey Ian,
Things are going great here. We are off to Phoenix this summer to finish my schooling. If you know of any good churches down there, please let me know. How is school going for you? What do you desire to do after you are done?
That is interesting that you separate ignorance and misinformation. I'll have to think about that one. Just doing a quick word search it does seem that ignorance seems to be in the context of the lost.
Would you say that when Paul is addressing the Corinthians he is addressing the “visible” church? However, at the same time Paul knows that there are tares sowed in the “visible” church, and that the true church is the living organic “invisible” church? I think that is what you are saying using reformed terminology.
When I say that a good tree can only produce good fruit, I say that in the context of the “invisible” church, the true Church. So I guess in that sense, the Catholic and Protestant churches need to be demolished in light of Gal. 2:20, rather then reformed since a new creation needs to be produced within the “visible” church whereby the visible church is made up of more and more “invisible” members. I hope that makes sense. So when you say reformation is needed I suspect that you mean that the RCC needs to be reformed in doctrine by the Holy Spirit on a corporate level, but transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit on an individual level whereby a new creation happens.
Then this gets into the question of what unity means in Scripture. Can we ever have unity within the “visible” church? What fellowship does light have with darkness? Is the call for unity in the context of the “invisible” church, a call for being united with Christ, because apart from Him we can do nothing? This is my understanding of unity, but I may be wrong. Once again, you may also be saying this.
Then lastly, would you say that the common denominator for faith is a belief in a Trinitarian God by the power of the Holy Spirit? I agree that Catholicism does this. However, I would say that the common denominator is that by the power of the Holy Spirit you see the sinfulness of your sin in light of the holiness of God regardless of whether you understand the Trinitarian nature of God. I agree the nature of God is very important, but in the conversion process I don't think it plays a role. What is important is that you see how you deserve hell by the power of the Holy Spirit and you cry out for mercy. You desire to follow after God not because you are trying to strike some deal with God to stay out of hell, but you see in the light of His holiness that was shed into your heart that God deserves all the worship that is due. It is an attitude of worshiping God even if He sends you to hell in the end, so to speak, since you are compelled supernaturally to given Him all the glory, honor, and service that is due. So for me that is the common denominator, how Christ said that He desires mercy and not sacrifice. I suspect this is also what you are saying, but maybe we are talking on different levels here (i.e. the “visible vs. the “invisible” church).
Paul
Ian,
God can save anybody - that's for sure! Nobody is beyond hope.
I guess I don't think that "reformation" is the right word when describing what the Roman Cahtolic Church needs. Would you say the religion of Islam needs reforming? No, it's another religion. It doesn't need reforming - it needs demolishing and rebuilding.
Technically I do not see myself as a "Protestant." I'm a Biblical Christian, and there were Biblical Christians who stood apart from Rome BEFORE Luther/Calvin/etc. all the way back to the Apostles. In fact, the RCC started in the 4th Century under Constantine.
So I see the RCC as another religion, not as a wayward denomination that needs to be brought back.
The RCC does not need reformation any more than the Hindu religion needs reformation. It's needs repentance.
But if Rome repented of her doctrines listed above, then Rome wouldn't be Roman Catholic anymore. That's why I likened the RCC to Palpatine and not Anakin. If the RCC made the changes necessary to be orthodox, it would cease being the RCC. Reformation implies (at least to me) coming back from error into a right relationship as before. I believe from history that the RCC never was in a right relationship to begin with. It started in error in the 4th Century. It is not the first church. It is just a really old false church. The true church existed before the RCC and has existed alongside it throughout church history.
I am thankful for Luther and Calvin and the like, but they did not discover anything. They merely brought to the mainstream what was a greater minority all along.
Paul,
Thanks for your questions! You're making me think.
Ok. First, I think Paul's instruction, be it to the Corinthians or any other body of believers, was directed primarily at the "invisible church", true believers that have been enabled by the Holy Spirit to believe and obey inspired instruction. However, I don't think it's possible to address the invisible church without addressing the visible church, and vice versa. As the visible church is comprised of both believers and non-believers, you can't help but address both when communicating with either.
That being said, I agree with you about good fruit in context of the invisible church. But, if only the invisible church can produce good fruit, and if the Catholic church is producing good fruit (and it is!), then we have evidence that there are members of the invisible church in the Catholic church. Now, when I say "reformed", I'm using it as a verb, not an adjective to describe a particular theology/doctrine. And I say that the Catholic church needs to be reformed because there are members of the invisible church in the Catholic church, and because the Catholic church believes in the One, True, Tri-une God of the Bible. They need to be "re-shaped", so to speak, to their state prior to the introduction of their faulty doctrines; to more rightly attend to the God of the Bible which they proclaim. This is what Luther was trying to do when he posted his 95 theses; as I stated before, he wasn't out to start a new church.
Can we ever have unity within the visible church? No. And Yes. I say "no" because the visible church is comprised of both believers and non-believers. However, I do believe that the believers should strive toward unity in the visible church out of obedience to God. This is partly why I say "yes". The other reason I say "yes" is because one day, when He returns to consummate His Kingdom, Christ will separate the wheat from the tares and the visible church will be comprised only of believers. Christ doesn't destroy the visible church; He "reforms" it to its intended form. It is in hope, belief, and expectation of this day, of the Kingdom, that the invisible church is to strive for unity in the visible church.
As to your last question, I think we're saying the same thing. You are right in saying that it is important to see our sin and how we are deserving of punishment, and that we must cry out for mercy. Yet we can not do any of that without a Tri-une God. It is the Holy Spirit that shows us our sin and enables us to cry out for salvation. That salvation is deliverance from the wrath and judgment of God and is offered to us only through Christ, the incarnate form of God, and who sends the comforter, the Holy Spirit, who convicts us (all, by the way, according to the sovereign plan of God).If we were to remove any part of the Trinity in the process of salvation, it wouldn't work. Did that make sense? Do you see how we're really saying the same thing? Now, while I don't think it's necessary, and I would never insist upon someone to understand the doctrine of the Tri-unity in order to be saved, the fact that the Catholic church realizes and upholds that salvation is only from the Tri-une God tells me that they are not in need of destruction, but reformation.
Ian
Jay,
Yah, sorry if my original wording was a little ambiguous. I'll be honest and say that I wasn't naive about the the way some would react when I wrote it; I was hoping to get some thought flowing. Looking back, maybe I could have worded it differently to be thought provoking without being as inclusive as it sounded.
Also, sorry for not responding earlier; I'm working on campus today and am commenting as I find time. I've been trying to get to everyone as soon as possible!
Ian
Ian,
This discussion is good. :)
I wonder if you think the International Church of Christ (or Boston Church of Christ, or whatever name they're going by these days) needs reformation, or repentance?
Afterall, they are orthodox on the Trinity. Despite their orthodoxy regarding the Trinity, most Bible-believing Christians rightfully classify the ICOC as a cult.
What about you? Would you consider them a cult that needs to repent of bad doctrine, or a church with some invisible church members and therefore in need to reformation?
Mark,
I just printed off your article about the ICoC and want to read it before making any comments. While I'm reading, however, perhaps you could define what you see as grounds for calling someone a true Chrsitian, and what distinguishes a cult from a valid church. What about me being a Reformed Presbyterian? You and I have differences in doctrine and theology; how does that affect our unity in Christ?
Glad you are finding the conversation profitable. I am too.
Ian
Ian,
A cult is a group that claims to be Christian, but isn't.
This begs the question... "What makes a group not Christian?"
Denial of an essential of the faith.
* Who is God?
* Who is Jesus?
* Who is the Holy Spirit?
* What is the Word of God?
* What is the gospel?
* What is the state of man?
The RCC gets the first three right, (and maybe the 4th - but I'd argue against that), but they have the wrong gospel.
Interestingly, the ICOC is less of a cult than the RCC because the ICOC is correct on the Word of God, where the RCC adds church tradition equal to scripture and adds books to the canon.
So if the ICOC is a cult, then the RCC must be as well.
I disagree with some teachings of Reformed Presbyterians, but not on these essentials, so I see no reason why we cannot have unity.
Mark
Mark,
Let me ask the question a different way. My question was more along the lines of what does makes a group Christian? While I agree with your categories of the essentials of the faith, I'm interested in how you would qualify those categories.
Ian
Hey guys,
I've just skimmed the comments and not sure that I am adding anything here, but I was considering getting ashes one year when I was under someone teaching who I later determined had an emerging church bent. Then I attended Mark's class and learned how the RCC is a cult and lulling people into thinking they are saved and leading millions if not billions to hell. After learning all the doctrinal differences I decided I hate the RCC (NOT Catholics themselves), but the system and want nothing to do with them... not ashes.. not candles everywhere... etc. You're sounding very "emerging" lately, and they are even less doctrinally sound than the RCC (although they are not monolithic by any means) and are just as much of a cult as the RCC. I've been listening to some sermons on it and reading DA Carson's book- it's the newest way Satan is deceiving - some pieces of truth while distorting the gospel. Souls are at stake here, I'd rather be considered "square" and "uncompromising" while illuminating the scriptures to my coworkers who have been lulled by the RCC.
On a lighter note, when I was in college the first time lent came around I walked up to a few people telling them they had some dirt on their foreheads! :)
OK. Sorry it has taken me so long to respond. I've been at somewhat of a loss of what to say; the last comment kind of shocked me.
Let me start out by simply restating my position. I believe there are true Christians within the Catholic church and that we should seek unity with them. That's all I've been saying.
Now, just to calm the worries of those that might have them, I am not a member of a Satanic cult as was suggested by previous comments. Neither am I "emerging" (And, for the record, I wouldn't call the emerging movement a cult). I went back a reread both my original post and the entire conversation that followed. I see nothing in either that would lead anyone to think I am connected with the emerging church movement. The only thing that I can be accused of from what I said is loving my neighbor and believing God's promise of the unity of believers in His Kingdom. I make no apologies for this.
Our redemption in Christ is to be marked by love for God and love for neighbor (Matt 5:43-48; 19:16-19; 22:35-40; Mark 12:28-33; Luke 10:25-27); it can not lead us to hate or condemn anyone, neither should the teachings of what we believe lead us to such action. Yes, we are to abhor that which is evil (Romans 12:9), but it is the perfect, infallible Word of God that names those things for us. We cannot name them because we are guilty of them ourselves. It is not ours to accuse, but to seek reconciliation.
Finally, Consider 1 Corinthians 5:9-13:
I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people--not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.” (emphasis added)
What business is it of our to judge those outside the church? If we judge anyone, not just the Catholic church, we may only do so under the belief that they are part of the church and, therefore, may only do so with the desire for reformation, reconciliation, unity. If we do not believe they are part of the Church, then we have no place in judging them, never mind declaring them guilty. Anyone outside the Church stands guilty regardless of what we say or think, and are declared as much by God alone because they break His law, not because they disagree with us. Should we go around pointing fingers at all we believe are in error, we will inevitably wind up in a place where we accuse others, including the brethren, of things that we ourselves are guilty of simply because they don't agree with us. Christ alone can rightly divide man (Luke 12:51-53), and He alone commands His angels to separate the wheat from the tares (Matt 13:24-43), because He alone can judge (John 5:19-30). Our task as His disciples is to love our neighbor, love our enemies and pray for those that persecute us (Matt 5:43-48). We are not the arbiters of salvation and Christianity. Neither our church (note the small "c"), our denomination, nor our theology hold the keys of life and death; that is the privilege of Christ alone.
His Kingdom Come, His will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven.
Ian
Hey Ian,
Sorry to take so long to get back. It was my finals week last week and I have been thinking much on this subject. This discussion is a blessing to me as I have been pondering these and many other questions pertaining to this discussion in the last year. Specifically, it is the question of how to relate to and view the rest of professing Christianity, that is, relating to the “visible” church. Ian, you brought this out beautifully in the context of 1 Corinthians 5:9-13. I don’t want to compromise on the truth, but I also don’t want to be a clanging cymbal. I want to judge others in the correct meaning of that word as it is found in Scripture. That is a hard line to walk.
I think it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of Paul’s epistles was to combat all the heresy that was springing up in the early visible church. Some heresy was of a lesser degree, but many times it was a heresy of eternal significance as we saw in Galatia (Gal. 2:21). Paul addressed these Galatian people as brothers. What does he mean by calling them brothers? What does unity in Scripture mean? How does this relate to light not having fellowship with darkness? What is the visible church? Are all professing Christians part of the visible church? What about the Mormons or other cults? What about the RCC? If the RCC is part of the visible church, what about the Mormons? Why is there a difference? What is that criteria for that difference? How did we come about forming these criteria for a difference? These are hard and humbling questions to seek after. Questions, or maybe I should say wisdom that needs to be sought after like silver and hidden treasure.
Frankly, in my more recent thinking I have raised more questions then answers, and thus need to think and pray about this more. I thought I would drop you a line to tell you that I haven’t forgot about you:) Feel free to answer any of these questions as you feel lead. However, don’t feel like you need to because this is a huge and complex subject, and I know that I threw a ton of questions out there. I just listed them so you would hopefully understand where I am coming from in my thinking.
Lastly, now to your analogy regarding the common denominator for unity, or in other words, the common denominator for labeling a group of professing Christians part of the visible church. I agree that the planning, carrying out, and applying of the gospel must come through our Triune God. I agree that the RCC teaches this concept of the methodology of the gospel. However, that gospel is a different gospel being preached. Whereby Christ’s saving grace is necessary but not sufficient. I know you understand this. My question is: what is the common denominator for the basis of Christian unity? I’m not sure that the Trinity is that common denominator. It seems to me the common denominator is that grace is both necessary and sufficient. But I may be wrong.
May the Holy Spirit help us all on this,
Paul
Oh yeah, and I forgot this point as I don't know how clear I have made it:
"Let me start out by simply restating my position. I believe there are true Christians within the Catholic church and that we should seek unity with them. That's all I've been saying."
I agree:)
Here is an interesting perspective on this topic by a former Catholic Priest. I just listened to his awesome testimony this morning. The title is “Testimony by Richard Bennett (a former Catholic Priest)” under the audio sermon link at:
http://www.gccsatx.com/
The sermon by Paul Washer is also excellent.
Paul,
Again, great questions. I want to get around to offering possible answers, but it may take a little bit. I think there is a very important question that underlies the ones you asked: What is the gospel? So, while I'm thinking on the questions you asked me, let me ask you "what is the gospel?" I think that once we address this question, the answers to the others may come more easily.
Ian
You know, I need to rephrase something.
I said, "I want to get around to offering possible answers..."
What I should have said was, "I want to get around to offering some thoughts on those questions."
I'm not going to pretend that I've got the answers, but I've been tossing around many of the same questions for awhile myself and do have some thoughts/things to consider along the same lines.
Ian
Amy,
Thank you so, so much for your comment. You made my day.
Ian
Hey Ian,
I would love to hear your answers to those questions. I would define the gospel as good news. This good news is the person of Jesus Christ Himself. The gospel call is a call to repent and believe on Christ who is the good news (Mark 1:15).
This good news is the news that He came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:17), since only doers of the law will be justified (Romans 2:13). Through His fulfillment of the law, His righteousness, which was derived from being completely obedient to the point of death on the cross (Philippians 2:8), is imputed (Philippians 3:9) to all those who call upon His name for mercy (Matthew 9:13) and therefore are justified before God (Romans 5:18-19). This happens by believing through faith (Romans 3:22-23, 4:4-6) upon the finished work (John 19:30) of the cross for your sins past (2 Timothy 1:9), present (Philippians 2:12), and future (1 Thessalonians 5:9). We who were once enemies of God (Romans 5:9), due to not upholding the whole law (James 2:10), are saved from the wrath of God through the grace of God (Ephesians 2:1-9) by Christ Jesus taking upon our curse and bearing the wrath of God for our sins in our place (Galatians 3:10-14). Our sins have been nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13-14), and it is no longer we who live, but it is Christ who lives in us (Galatians 2:20), as we are now new creations in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:17, Ezekiel 36). One day we will be raised up with Him, just as we have been crucified with Him (Romans 6:4-11, Ephesians 2:6). This day will certainly come to pass since He has promised to complete the good work that He started (Philippians 1:6), as this salvation is for the sake of His Holy name which we had once profaned and no longer now do to the glory of God (Ezekiel 36: 22-32). In short, the end result is the believer is found in Christ (Ephesians 1-5).
Thus, the gospel begins and ends in Christ. It is a gospel where grace is necessary AND sufficient. Any gospel that is not found totally in Christ is another gospel because apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5). These are not trivial things, but issues of spiritual life and death in most cases because people act upon what they believe and hear. Doctrine is of the utmost importance because as the apostle Paul says, it can sometimes nullify the grace of God (Galatians 2:21). In other less serious cases, it will still be hurtful since any lie from Satan, no matter how subtle or small, will have adverse consequences in one way, shape, or form whether we realize it or not. It can be said that most of the New Testament Epistles were written to correct misunderstandings and errors. That is why we ourselves are considering these things, as we are still in the same position.
That being said, do we need to agree with 100% of the doctrine of certain church to a member? No, but we do need to be aware of the differences and how subtle these differences can enter in to our walk with the Lord in very practical ways. The end result of theology should always be practical and real no matter how small or large the issue. Otherwise, it is just dead orthodoxy that is purely theoretical. If you have a wrong view of doctrine, you have a wrong view of reality. Reality is always practical. The Apostle Paul understood this.
Once again, I honestly do believe there are truly saved Christian Catholics out there just like there are some truly saved Protestant Christians. However, in both traditions those who truly know the Lord are very few as we find in Matthew 7 as cultural Christianity affects every visible church no matter how pure the doctrine. However, the purer the doctrine the less you will find this cultural Christianity.
In Christ’s Love,
Paul
Amy said: "The things I love about being Catholic were more than enough to make up for my problems with doctrine. And I came to find out that 95% of Catholics I know, including clergy, share most of the same doctrinal qualms, yet likewise feel that the positive aspects of the faith make technical concerns irrelevant."
Huh? The list that Mark made in post #5 should frighten us all to death. I would be interested to know how beauty and tradition could possibly outweigh the problems on that list. Amy, if you are so inclined, please explain.
I'd love to explain! But I'm going to sidestep your use of idiomatic hyperbole because I don't think I fully comprehend your meaning, or at least I cannot empathize as it's not in my nature to be afraid of things I don't understand.
I consider my faith to be a personal matter, and I'm not going to get into which items on that list I do or do not believe in or agree with, nor am I going to go line by line in an attempt to elucidate what I think may be misconceptions.
What I'm about to say requires a suspension of disbelief; please bear in mind that I am not trying to mount an argument in support of my beliefs, just indulging a request for an explanation.
I think the underlying factor that defines and unites Catholics is the belief in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Were I not raised to believe this, I would probably find the concept bizarre at best, but because I've been long familiarized with the idea (in a good way) I can recognize it as an amazing act of faith. Actually, it's a benchmark in my definition of faith.
I don't need to tell you that faith is a belief in something that cannot be proven; but in this case it is a belief that defies reason. In the experience of Eucharist, logic must be shelved, as must sensory input (e.g., the taste and texture of styrofoam). Those of us who are capable of, and choose to engage in, this act of faith band together into parish communities, and, where not inhibited by geographic isolation, there is a degree of choice in which community we join...it's not nearly as uniform or cultish as one might suspect.
So, there's my explanation. I don't expect nor desire anyone to try to understand where I'm coming from, and I hope no one feels the need to attempt to argue against any of the "points" I've brought up that can't be treated dialectically. I'm not trying to browbeat my personal viewpoints into anyone's closed mind. Actually, my first comment stemmed from an opposite desire: we're all posting to the blog of someone with an open and inquisitive mind, and in my experience the best thing for open, inquisitive minds is a differing opinion, even if only as a means by which to measure one's disagreement.
I'm not much for quoting scripture, but in the words of The Specials, "If you don't like it you don't have to dance."
Paul,
Here's another question to think about: How much of what you wrote in your last comment would you present while delivering the gospel? How much would you expect the person to whom you were speaking to assent to, or how much would you say that they would have to agree with/believe in order to be saved? (Okay, so that was two questions... :)
Ian
Hey Ian,
Yeah, I expanded on the gospel for the purpose of discussing fellowship on a corporate level. I wouldn’t present the gospel necessarily as I just did to a lost person, but I might depending on their understanding of Scripture. Since most professing Christians don’t read their Bibles, I would keep in short and simple. There is beauty in the unsearchable depth of the gospel, but there is also that same beauty in its simplicity to those who have ears to hear.
On an individual level, all believers through the Holy Spirit understand the concept of faith alone. They understand the enormity of their sin when the light of the knowledge of the glory of God that was shed into their hearts (2 Cor. 4:6). They repented and keep on repenting of their sin as they put their trust only in Jesus Christ for their salvation. In their hearts, all true believers understand what grace and mercy is by the Holy Spirit. They understand that mercy is not getting something that you desire, and that grace is getting something that you don’t deserve. They understand how they deserve hell for their sins, and they understand how they don’t deserve heaven for anything that they have done. They may sometimes not be able to verbalize that very clearly, but they understand it in their heart of hearts the truth of the gospel living in them. They can say with Paul that they count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus their Lord, and they hunger and thirst to know Him as new creations (Phil. 3:8-10). Jesus Christ is their treasure in life. So on an individual level, I would cherish any fellowship with a Catholic who was taught supernaturally by the Holy Spirit concerning these things.
I present the gospel in different ways in different situations. It just depends on how the Holy Spirit leads. However, often I will ask them: “If you died today and you stood before the judgment seat of Christ and God asked you why He should let you in, how would you answer Him?” Sometimes the person will say that he/she has no idea how to answer that question. However, usually the person will answer: “I read the Bible, I go to church, I was baptized, I signed the card, I said the prayer, I am a good person, etc.” On the other hand, once in a great while they will answer: “because Jesus Christ died for my sins.” To those who don’t mention anything about Christ, I usually give my personal answer to that same question: “because I lived a perfect life”. After saying that, I then pause and ask them what my answer means to them. From there I jump into Ephesians 2:8-9 and then mention Romans 3:23, 6:23, James 2:10, Jeremiah 17:9, Isaiah 64:6 as well as other verses depending on the situation. Thus, I try to illustrate the point that they deserve the wrath of God for their sins, that they can do nothing to earn or contribute to their salvation, that their salvation is based on the perfect merit of another, and that they need to repent and believe on Christ whereby they become supernaturally a new creation. I emphasize the brevity of life and I plead with them to cry out for mercy until God answers them. I then pray that the Holy Spirit opens their eyes and teaches them what this means in their own life. So, I am not looking for them to agree with a certain list of doctrines (but doctrine is vitally important). What I am praying for is for that person to repent and believe on Christ alone for their salvation whereby they are transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why one of my favorite verses to share with a lost person is Ezekiel 36:22-32 because I think this is one of the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture concerning conversion. So in conclusion I emphasize the importance of truth, the sinfulness of sin, the need to repent and believe, and the nature of true conversion, and the glory and joy that is found only in Him.
Paul
Howdy Folks,
First, Paul, let me offer a hearty "Amen!" to the theology of your last post. Good stuff.
Second, I just wanted to let everyone know that I'm still here; just been a little busy.
Third, I haven't forgotten about Paul's original questions a few comments back, and I do want to discuss along those lines.
Fourth, and finally, I want to share something my dad said. By way of introduction, I need to say how God's got great timing and really doesn't need to let us in on how, when, or where He's working. When Paul asked his questions back on 12Mar07, Michelle and I had a great discussion about them and the gospel (She and I have been having a running conversation about this discussion since it started. In fact, she and I have been talking about the gospel for quite some time know. We talk a lot. I love it. Anyways...), referencing specific Scriptures, concepts, evangelical tendancies in witnessing, etc. The very next day, I get an email from my dad that replayed that exact conversation almost verbatim. It was pretty cool, and very reassuring ;). So, I wanted to share that email and offer it for everyone's consideration. Here it is (with his permission, of course):
Ian,
One of the problems in defining the gospel is that many Evangelicals define the gospel as being the Protestant doctrine of Justification by Faith. It is a very important doctrine, one that I would "die" for, but it is not the Gospel. If it was, then there was a period in Church history during which no one believed the Gospel. This would be the time from the close of the canon of Scripture to the Protestant Reformation. No one before the Reformation articulated the doctrine of Justification the way that Protestants do today; that includes the Anabaptists. Though some good things can be learned from studying the Anabaptists, they did not teach justification by faith alone; they were as legalistic as anyone and many weren’t Trinitarian either.
Justification is what happens when someone believes the Gospel. We don’t believe in justification in order to be justified (saved), we believe in Jesus. Isn’t that what Romans 10:9-12 says?
“Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him.”
Verse 10 tells us that we are justified by believing. There are millions of Catholics who “confess Jesus is Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead.” They are justified whether or not they understand the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith or not. They also believe 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 and 1 John 4:2. Believe it or not, the Roman Catholic Church does teach that Scripture is the Word of God.
Some Evangelical Christians require a doctrinal consistency for Catholics that they don’t require of other Evangelicals or even themselves. I personally see many problems with fundamentalism and dispensationalism, yet I don’t say that fundamentalists and dispensationalists aren’t Christians. As a Reformed Christian, I think that there is confusion in distinguishing the differences between the doctrines of justification and sanctification in Catholic teaching, but I think this exists within different branches of Evangelicalism as well. I can disagree without appointing myself the judge of the hearts of all those who confess that Jesus is Lord!
Am I saying that the Reformation was unnecessary? Not at all, but I do think that Evangelicals aren’t clear on what the Reformation was all about (that’s a whole other topic).
Dad
My thoughts exactely....literally
Ian
Ian (and company),
I was listening to Way of the master Radio recently and heard a clip that made me think of this blog thread.
I think Todd Friel, the host, is spot on here.
So for your consideration, please listen to this short mp3 clip (3 mins, 8 sec's), which you can get at:
http://www.sohmer.net/media/WOTM_ashes.mp3.
Hi Ian,
I wasn't sure how else to get in touch with you so I'm doing it here! There's a show coming up at Geneva that you need to go to--it's David Bazan (better known for his old band Pedro the Lion). I don't know if you already listen to him but I think you and Michelle would like him. It's on April 24th, hopefully there's good advertising on your campus.
I hope you're doing well! Say hi to Michelle for me.
Kelsey
David Bazan - Tue 04/24 - Beaver Falls PA - Geneva College
Ian -
Concerning your original post:
"We miss so much reverence and piety (the good kind) that is there for all Christians to glean from..."
Why limit yourself to a particular time of year or a certain number of days or a particular type of action? Reverence towards God is something we should always be displaying. That's Biblical. [For the most part, I can't say I've seen much Scripture in the post or in these comments.]
The issue is "WHY am I doing it?" Worship must be from the heart, with the right attitude and focused upon the right Person. What's your motive?
Are you performing "deeds of reverence" to earn favor with God or because it makes YOU "feel" reverent... or are you being reverent because it's a natural response to an accurate understanding of God as He has revealed Himself?
"...let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire."
Hebrews 12:28-9
Deb,
While I truly want to fully understand and glean from your contribution to the discussion, I have to admit that I'm a little confused by your comment.
Your reaction to that quote of mine was actually the main point of my original post:
"...if the basic idea behind the two holy days is to remove hindrances in our relationship with God, why only do it for 40 days?... Doesn't the desire to repent and be rid of the distractions of the flesh only come from the Spirit in us by the grace of God?... Because of God's grace given to me, I want to live a Lenten life in which I kill distraction daily, in which I die to the flesh daily, in which I am conformed to the image of Christ daily;" (last paragraph of the original post)
I trust that if you go back and re-read the post and the ensuing conversation you'll better understand what I've been saying, as well as see the Scriptures that I and others have used throughout.
Also, thank you for the Hebrews quote. I am indeed grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken (Heb 12:28), and desire to offer God acceptable worship as one in Christ with the fellow citizens of that kingdom (Eph 2:11ff).
Ian
Paul,
OK. I know it's been a while, but I would like to return to the questions you posed way back on 12Mar07.
First, thank you for restating the importance of the context of 1 Corinthians: "...to combat all the heresy that was springing up in the early visible church." Corinth was a happening place, a major stop-over for sea travel. The church there was constantly surrounded by all sorts of worldliness and pagan practice. Also, the membership of the church had some internal pride issues which stemmed from their Greek culture and philosophies. Paul received report of some faulty teaching and practice that was seeping in, and wrote to remind them of the gospel he preached to them in order to nip heresy in the bud. And, as he wrote, he addressed them as brothers.
What does he mean calling them brothers? Well, consider the opening phrases of the letter (1:2-3; emphasis added): "To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be the saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." I think from the very start Paul identifies the foundation and meaning of his "brotherhood" with those in Corinth, those who have dispute with him and to whom he repeatedly defends his apostolic authority throughout the letter, and even those commiting such error as profaning the Lord's Table (11:17ff) and denying the resurrection of believers (chpt 15). Even amongst these "heresies" Paul is able to call the Corinthians "brothers" because his relation to them is not based on their action, ignorance, disagreement, etc, but rather on their mutual identity in Christ and their mutual sonship of God. Paul makes clear here that Christian unity and brotherhood is not in our doctrine or theology, but in our mystic union with Christ (Eph 2:11ff, 3:6) through which we are made sons of God. This is why the gospel is not, "confess the 5 points of Calvin," or, "believe Luther's 95 thesis," or, "you must believe we are in this age," or "you must interpret Scripture according to this or that model." This is why the gospel is simply, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved," (Rom 10:9). This is why the gospel is simply, "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" (John 17:3).
Having said this, are all professing Christians part of the visible Church? I would offer that, yes, they are. If they profess Christ, the Son of God, crucified and risen, then we are to consider them brothers. Only God knows for sure who, individually, are truly His children, it is nor for us to go around separating wheat from tares. I'm not saying it is not ours to correct and edify, surely Paul makes it clear we are to do so in 1 Cor 5, etc., but that is to be done out of love and hope, not condemnation.
How does this play into the RCC, Mormons, JW's, etc? Well, the RCC does profess Jesus Christ as Son of God, crucified for sinners, and raised on the 3rd day. They do so defending their claims with the Scriptures. Mormons, JW's, etc, while much of what they say sounds like this, deny the Scriptures on the teachings of Jesus being the Son of God, God being the one true God, and use extra-biblical texts to define who their gods are. For this reason, I do not, because I can not, call them brothers. Again, to be clear, I am not saying that all Catholics are saved and should be called brothers or be united to. I am simply saying, as I said before, "I believe there are true Christians within the Catholic church and that we should seek unity with them."
I know I kind of skipped over some of your questions, but I've got to get to class. I hope the thoughts I did offer are helpful, and lead to further discussion.
Thanks again for the questions, and I am sorry about how long it's taken me to get to them.
Ian
Hey Ian,
Thanks for getting back…don’t worry because I’m also up to my ears with studying:) I have some questions for you when you get the time. I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. I’m not sure I totally understand what you are saying with the following:
“Paul makes clear here that Christian unity and brotherhood is not in our doctrine or theology, but in our mystic union with Christ (Eph 2:11ff, 3:6) through which we are made sons of God.”
“Having said this, are all professing Christians part of the visible Church? I would offer that, yes, they are. If they profess Christ, the Son of God, crucified and risen, then we are to consider them brothers.”
Wouldn’t that be considered doctrine?
“Only God knows for sure who, individually, are truly His children, it is nor for us to go around separating wheat from tares.”
What do you mean by separating?
“I'm not saying it is not ours to correct and edify, surely Paul makes it clear we are to do so in 1 Cor 5, etc., but that is to be done out of love and hope, not condemnation.”
What do you mean by using condemnation?
Hope you had a blessed Easter!
Paul
All
Not sure if we accomplished much here, but I think the overarching theme that we all (Catholics included) need to remember is that we need to constantly apply 2 Cor 13:5 and "Examine ourselves as to whether we are in the faith." James 2 also reminds us that works must accompany this faith, or it is a dead faith.
J
Jay,
Thank you for the encouragement from the Scriptures. We must never neglect our own accountability to God in obeying His word.
And, you know, I think we may have accomplished more than you think. At least people got to thinking, right? Also, I, for one, am always very thankful for and blessed by the discourse.
Paul,
I do quickly want to address the, yet again, great questions you responded with.
First, the point behind my statement about our unity lying in our mystic union with Christ was that it is nothing but Christ in us by which we are made brothers with other believers. I see the tendency within the church, and I am conscious of my own guilt in this matter, to shun others because they don't agree with our theology or specific points of doctrine. I believe it is gross error to despise the fellowship of someone, never mind suggest that they might not truly be saved, because they have a different view of election, for example, while they confess Christ of the Scriptures as Lord and believe God raised Him from the dead (I say Christ of the Scriptures because that is where Christ is defined. As I mentioned before, religions like Mormonism and the JW's go to extra-biblical texts to define their Christ, and deny those things that the canonized texts say about Him. The Christ they proclaim is not the Jesus Christ of the Bible, and therefore is not Jesus Christ at all. We can have no unity with them unless God causes them to repent).
Is this doctrine? I think I would use the word "precept"; the difference being that doctrine is a belief or set of beliefs upheld by the church (paraphrase of Webster's definition), while a precept is that general rule which regulates the belief (another para. of Webster). The clear statement of Scripture that "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved," (Rom 10:9), stands on its own. It is the/a general rule by which our doctrine of fellowship should be regulated.
What do I mean by separating... well, the language I used was directly from the parable in Matt 13:24-30. In explaining the parable in vs 36-43, Christ makes clear that it is not our job, but rather that of His angel reapers whom He sends to separate the wheat (true believers) from the tares (nonbelievers) that grow in the same field. Notice that in the parable, the servants specifically ask their Master if he wants them to go and pull up the tares; and when they ask this, the Master clearly says "no" for the explicit reason that they might root up some of the good wheat with them. Separating is not our job, but rather it is reserved for Christ and His heavenly host at the time of judgement. When we go out with the motive to separate those who we think are not really saved from the Kingdom, to distinguish the visible church from the invisible church, not only are we rebelling against our Master's directive, but we run the risk of damaging the true believers. Our is not to go around preaching condemnation, but rather hope. I'm not saying we shouldn't call men to repentance, but the message of John the Baptist and Christ Himself was not "Repent, for hell awaits you," it was, "Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!" Christ's call to repentance was centered on repenting to the hope and joy of His Kingdom, rather than from the fear of damnation. The world stands condemned whether we tell them or not. The words of the gospel need to reveal something new to the world, indeed the newness and hope of life in Christ. Likewise, our words of edification and correction should call our brethren to remember the gospel and the life in Christ that they have. Look at Paul's reprimand of the Corinthians who were denying the resurrection believers, and therefore Christ Himself (1 Cor 15). Notice how he starts: "Now, I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand," (1 Cor 15:1), and that the reproof is a fraction of the chapter (vs 1-19 of 58 vs). Verse 20 starts with "But Christ is raised from the dead," and from there to the end of the chapter, Paul speaks of the glory of the resurrection, the joy of the Kingdom, and the defeat of death. Hope and life, even in correction.
I am really thankful for our discussion, Paul, as I am for the fabulous questions you presented. I pray that our dialogue has been at least a fraction of a blessing to you as it has been to me.
Later Brothers,
Ian
Hey Ian,
I have never thought of Mark 1:15 in that manner, but that makes sense with my personal experience and with Scripture. I have had my reservations about the method of emphasizing the law in evangelism in light of Romans 1 and 2. This discussion has been such a blessing to me!
Take care my brother,
Paul
Okay, so some more questions came to mind:)
With that view of condemnation how do you take Matthew 3:7; 12:34, 23:33,37?
With that view of separating the wheat and the tares how do you view Matthew 18:15-17, and Matthew 7:6, 15-20? Is there a difference between separating and identifying since the servants could tell the difference between wheat and tares, and subsequently were told not to separate them? How does this relate to church discipline?
The latter question(s) is a question that I have been thinking about since the conversion of Allison since I thought she was saved, but it turned out that she never knew the Lord until 6 months ago. Praise the Lord I have a new wife now! He is so good!
Paul
@Mark, in re: comment from 3/1/07:
As an educated individual, I'm sure that you have an appreciation for right reason and an understanding of the Truth. With that in mind, I was dismayed to see you give a list of items, some of which are patently false, and others which are sorely misled by anti-Catholic propaganda. While I am no appologist, I can only point out some obvious flaws in your list and offer directions for further research. I would encourage you to use sources 'straight from the horse's mouth', and eschew agenda-driven sources of anti-Catholic propaganda. The "Catholic Encyclopedia" is a good place start (newadvent.org). Your (partial) list:
----------
"* Papal Proclamations, as well as Church Councils, are infallible, and equal to Scripture"
-- So? Obviously you are leaning on the the logically inconsistent principle of 'sola scriptura'. I'll leave it to you to figure out why I say it is logically inconsistent. Hint: Where in the bible is 'sola scriptura' established? It isn't.
"* Salvation by Works"
-- FALSE. This is an utterly misinformed anti-Catholic LIE that results from Protestant oversimpliication of terms. Catholics believe that Salvation comes only thru Christ. The confusion is in the Protestant collapsing of the notions of temporal punishment for sin and its eternal punishment.
"* Baptismal Regeneration ("Salvation by Baptism")"
-- The parenthetical portion is misleading (see above). This statement reflects a lack of understanding of the effect of baptism as a sacrament. Catholic Encyclopedia will offer more detail than I can recount.
"* Substitution of "Penance" for "Repentance""
-- FALSE. This comment suffers from and either/or mentality. Both/And is the Catholic position (e.g. BOTH penance AND repentance).
"* We must confess to a priest"
-- Again, so? The priest acts as the agent of Christ to dispense the grace of Christ via the sacrament of reconcilliation. The Protestant denial of (most) sacraments is behind the insinuation in this comment.
"* We must be cleansed in Purgatory"
-- So? And the word "must" is perhaps too strong.
"* The Church can lessen Purgatory through indulgences"
-- So? Do you even know what the purpose of Purgatory is? Hint: it has to do with the temporal punishment of sin. CathEn is all over this one.
"* Indulgences are possible because of Christ, Mary, and other saints"
-- Again, educate yourself in re: the nature of temporal punishment, indulgences, and, specifically, *merit*. Catholic Encyclopedia again.
"* The Pope is Christ's representative on earth and is infallible in proclamations"
-- This follows from the notion of apostolic succession, with Peter as the "Rock" upon which Jesus built/builds His Church. And not every word that escapes from the pope's lips is said to be infalliable. Plus: Do you understand what infaliblity means? Hint: Pope cannot make heritical statements (e.g. Jesus only appeared to be human).
"* The bread and wine of communion are literally and miraculously Christ's body and blood"
-- Key Term: Transubstantiantion (look it up). So you are saying that God is not capable of performing miracles? (Sorry, low blow.)
"* Christ's sacrifice is repeated literally in every Mass over and over again"
-- "Re-presented" is a more accurate term that "repeated". A nuanced understanding that will not come thru in anti-Catholic propaganda.
"* Mary was sinless"
"* Mary's body was brought to heaven"
-- Look up: Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary
"* Mary intermediates to Christ on behalf of man"
-- "Offers prayers of intercession" or simply "interceedes" is more accurate than "intermediates", as Catholics believe the Christ is the One Mediator. Again, this is partially the result of the Protestant oversimplification of types of prayer. I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church has more info on the types of prayer (Google it).
"* The Church encourages the worship of idols and dead saints"
-- HAHAHA ROFLMAO! >FALSE!< Wow, what rock in hell did this one come out from underneath? First, "Venerate" is the appropriate word, not "worship", although older uses of the word 'worship' in the English language had a meaning similiar to how we use 'venerate' today. Secondly, idols? Come on now, play fair. Maybe you are thinking of the term 'icon' and suffer from an iconoclastic tendancy. Finally, I think by "dead" you mean "in heaven". There is a difference in the rhetorical effect, depending on which term is used (*cough*propaganda*cough*).
"* Church tradition is equal to the Bible"
-- More 'sola scriptura' stuff at play here. And there is a reason why it is refered to as 'T'radition, not 't'radition.
"* The Church has added an additional 7 books to the Bible called the "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical" books"
-- BZZT. Misleading and partially FALSE. Protestants removed these 7 books from the original cannon of scripture. They are placed with the other Protestant-accepted Old Testament books (NOT in the NT), and represent the books of the "Second Cannon" of Jewish scriptures (2nd = 'deutero').
"* The Roman Catholic Church is the only true church, and is infallible"
-- This is quite a broad, sweeping treatment of the more nuanced issues contained within it. Again, the Protestant tendency of 'over-simplify and distort' is at work.
"* Condemns to hell anyone who disagrees with baptismal regeneration, salvation by works, the Pope, etc."
-- Ach, nein, nein. I can only point you in the direction of the documents from the Second Vatican Council that deal with non-Catholic Christians. Key term: Ecumenism / Ecumenical.
----------
Well, I must admit that I lied: It seems that I have functioned as an appologist. Didn't think I could do it, but your list was so horrifically off-base that it was easy and rather fun.
If you've stuck with me thus far (no peeking at the end of the post!) then you will have realized that you have a lot of homework to do. But that never hurt anybody! ;)
-- Jason
Post a Comment
<< Home