Hi, Kurgan.

wiz: There is a plain and unambiguous sense to 90-plus percent of the Bible.

Kurgan: That is your belief, but it is without basis.

Well, it's based on my own personal experience with the Bible. I consider that a basis.

What are you to say to all the people that don't share the same interpretation of the bible you do? That they are stupid and aren't reading the text correctly?

No, I would never say that.

Most disagreements I encounter relative to Scripture interpretation involve peripheral issues (at least, what I consider peripheral), not the heart of the Gospel. For example, the disagreements I've had with Conor over, say, the Eucharist. He interprets certain things literally that I take metaphorically. He has good support for a view he holds, and I give him that. I don't say he's stupid. But I have good support for my view, too.

And that is an area of the Bible that can be interpreted in at least two ways. But from my point of view, that does not render the Bible utterly ambiguous. It just means that on certain secondary issues (again, secondary from my pov, not necessarily secondary from yours or Conors), there will be diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, and I'm comfortable with that.

But the bedrock portions of Scripture, which I consider most of Scripture, I have always found to be fairly plain and simple.

I'm sure if you grab any sect or group, they read INTO the text, even if they do so only slightly.

Oh, yeah, it's done all the time. All sorts of groups (incl. Protestants and Catholics) read into the Scriptures. But I submit that it would be possible to read into and twist the New York Times or the Encyclopedia Britannica if you wanted to. But nobody wants to. Why? Because you can't base a religion on the NYT or the Encyc. Brit.! You don't gain power over people by twisting the front page of the paper, only by twisting the Scriptures. So, if David Koresh wants his followers to believe he is the Second Coming of Christ, he has to twist the Scriptures, not the New York Times; by twisting the Scriptures and portraying himself as the Second Coming, he gains enormous power.

So there are powerful motives at play for reading into the Scripture. There is little human motivation for reading out of the Scripture because that gives God and the Bible the power and authority instead of taking it unto ourselves.

Classic example of reading into the Scriptures for private motives: You've heard of the Jesus Seminar, no doubt. This is a group of some 200 liberal academicians, scholars, and theologians. They all believe in a liberal social gospel; they claim that they seek the "historical Jesus," and they begin with a premise that Jesus was not God, never performed a miracle, and didn't say many of the things that are attributed to Him in the four gospels. With that as their starting point, they then take a vote using colored marbles as to which statements of Jesus were actually said by the "historical Jesus" of their own imaginations.

According to the Jesus seminar, only one statement of Jesus in Mark was actually said by Him ("render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..."). That's it! Just one statement in the entire Gospel of Mark! They tossed the rest out. And there is no research, no scholarship, no investigation by historical or archaelogical means, no factual discussion. They simply pool their prejudices and take a vote.

Is it any surprise that the "historical Jesus" that is left after they have stripped away all the "unhistorical" passages of Scripture (according to their prejudices) looks just like themselves? Jesus is not the Messiah or the Son of God or the Savior that the New Testament presents Him to be; no, to them He is nothing but a liberal social reformer like themselves!

That's what happens whenever people read into the Scriptures whatever is in their own imaginations instead of reading out of the Scriptures what is objectively there on the page: They end up recreating God, Jesus, and the Bible in their own images.

If somebody were to take everything in the bible at face value and absolutely literally, they would be utterly confused. Why? Because if you take that route, there are definate contradictions.

Most contradictions are rather easily explained, especially in terms of a better understanding of the original language (I am not a Bible scholar and do not read Hebrew or Greek, but I have good concordances that help me with that). Are there difficult passages? Absolutely. But the idea that the entire Bible is totally up for grabs and without objective meaning is, I think, utterly wrong. It is, not to put too fine a point on it, baloney. And tainted baloney at that.

In my classes, we have covered about 80% of the entire bible, and EVERY SINGLE BOOK has at least four possible interpretations (from the viewpoints I mentioned). People take their assumptions with them as they read.

I don't doubt you, and you did a good job of cataloguing those viewpoints in your other post.

But I insist that the fact that people can and do read into the Scriptures does not mean there is NO plain sense to it, that the Scriptures are hopelessly obscure. You can't convince me of that, because I've read the Book.

I know that some churches have a doctrine tha states that Scripture is unambigious. That is,the text is clear, and that's that. If you hold this belief, I do not wish to offend you by saying I do not agree with this.

You don't offend me at all. I appreciate the chance to clarify my views, and I enjoy hearing your views. I don't think I belong to a church that has such a doctrine. At least I've never heard it expressed per se. I'm responding out of my own experience, not any organized doctrinal position that I'm aware of.

I've been involved in a number of Bible studies where people sit in a group, read a passage, and apply it to everyday life. I keep seeing that people always seem to come away with clarity and insight that they came up with, seemingly on their own, without anyone having to spoonfeed it to them via a commentary. The Bible is simply emininently readable, studyable, and understandable, at least in my own personal experience.

Is it your position, then, that the Bible can only be understood if it is authoritatively interpreted for you by church authority?

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 25, 2000).]

I would just like to say I have been reading the Bible, have found nearly everything to be completely understandable, and comply with nearly every presentation of Wiz's so far. I am unswayed by Conor's arguments, and feel his coining of Wiz's presentation as an attack is merely an expressal that he is now on the defense. And I am utterly against any claims that the Bible is uninterpretable in full by anyone other than an ordained minister of God. This is nonsense, and in and of itself still serves absolutely no purpose. What is the difference in a guy like me doing things for myself and delving into the Bible with an open mind as opposed to a man going to church and still applying these techniques to the information he receives, only this time it is from a different source? I have heard of Purgatory but have never known the belief. I can honestly say the thought never once occured to me in all my reading, and I hardly consider this a lack of my intelligence and judgement.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Theahnfahn--

I would just like to say I have been reading the Bible, have found nearly everything to be completely understandable...

So you have! And if I remember correctly, you've even been doing most of your reading in the old King James Version, which makes it all the more remarkable that you find it comprehensible.

Kurgan--

I should have said in my previous post that I no doubt have read into the Bible at times rather than reading out of it. But I always make a serious effort to find out what the Bible has to say to me rather than what I can yank out of the Bible for my own purposes. I'm sure I never fully reach a point of absolute purity of motive in that regard--I don't want to sound like I have all the answers were biblical interpretation is involved. I certainly don't!

I just think the Bible is a lot plainer and more open than a lot of people tend to think. And when people think (mistakenly, IMO) that it is difficult to read and understand, they needlessly avoid it and lose out on what the Bible has to say to them.

--wiz

If you don't mind my saying, the only thing I found dificult was how many people Adam begat http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) I understand this is of significance in verifying that these people really lived in those times and that the Bible is a historical narrative, but please people, by all means don't feel obligated to read into every minute detail and memorize it. I started out in Genesis and began to put together a family tree. I soon found out some things are a little more important http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

In an off-forum exchange with theahnfahn, he made me aware of a defect in the way I have been discussing the issue of faith. (Thanks, ahnfahn!) In an earlier post, I wrote:

Martin Luther held the Chair of Biblical Study at the Catholic University of Wittenberg. While preparing to teach the Old Testament in one of his classes, he was suddenly startled by the implications of a passage he had read many times before, Habakkuk 2:4: “The righteous will live by his faith.” The Catholic church taught that salvation was by faith plus works. But Luther discovered that in the Old Testament and in the New, salvation is by faith alone. As Paul writes in Galatians 3:11 (and reiterates in many ways, in many passages), “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." And again, in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Now, the idea that the essence of Christianity is faith alone, not faith plus works, is biblically true--but without elaboration, this truth can be terribly misleading. Theahnfahn pointed out that in his own recent study of the Bible, he had observed that obedience to the teaching of Christ was also essential to being an authentic Christian, and this seemed to be a contradiction of the "faith alone" concept I had posted about.

This is a criticism of Protestantism that Kurgan also raised in his previous posts, where he expressed that he could not accept the Reformation doctrines of sola Scriptura (belief in Scripture alone, excluding church tradition as a doctrinal authority) and sola fide (belief in faith alone for salvation). I will dispense with the Latin terminology after this, because I'm not comfortable talking like a theologian. I'm just a guy who's read the Bible, talking about what I've found there.

I think some of the objection to the "faith alone" idea comes from the way it is so often abused. I've known people, theahnfahn's known people, and everyone reading this has probably known people who claimed to be Christians on the basis of faith alone, yet they behave like rotten, scummy people. They say, "I've got faith in Jesus, I'm going to heaven, now I can live any way I want to without worrying about the consequences."

To which I respond, "Think again, pal." Just saying you "believe" something, just giving mental agreement to some facts or a creed, is not what the Bible means by "faith," and the Bible is abundantly clear on that. That's why James 2 says "faith without works is dead." That's why Paul, in Romans 6, says, "Shall we continue sinning so that God's grace may be increased? God forbid! How shall we, who are dead to sin, continue living in it?"

The idea that faith, in the form of a mental agreement to an idea, makes one a Christian is an old heresy that arose in the first century, and which Paul and James specifically wrote those passages to defend against. The heresy was called "antinomianism" from the Greek anti- (against) and nomos (law); that heresy is still with us today in many churches, but it is not true Christianity.

At the same time, the Bible does make it clear that a person can only be a Christian by faith alone, not faith plus works. How do we resolve this seeming contradiction? By understanding what the Bible clearly means by "faith." It is not a mere mental agreement with a doctrine or a creed. It is a total commitment of the self to Jesus Christ. (Kurgan, you may claim that I'm "reading into" the Scripture in order to resolve a seeming contradiction, but I can asbolutely support my position, and do so "sola Scriptura" http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif), if you'd like me to.)

If we genuinely have faith in Christ, we cannot live like an unbeliever. To do so would be a total contradiction. If we say we have faith and act as if we have no faith, then it is our actions that speak the truth, not our words. If we truly believe that Jesus is who He says He is, if we believe in the reality of the resurrection, then our lives will be changed. They can't not be changed. We cannot go on living as before. Change has to take place, or our so-called faith means nothing.

My daughter recently expressed this truth in a very simple but profound formulation: "You don't do the good works to become a Christian, you do the good works because you are a Christian." I don't think I've ever heard it put better.

I hope this is a helpful clarification.

--wiz

Okay, maybe I should rephrase this. I probably caused some confusion.

It is probably correct to say that 90% of the bible (if not 100%) is unambigious to those who study it.

In each believer, who actually takes time to study the bible, and not somebody who has never seen one, or only read a couple of pages, the text seems to make sense. That is a given. If you don't understand the bible, you probably study until you do understand it, or you ask somebody to help you explain it to you.

Now I can see what you mean.

However, when you compare HOW one person understands it (their interpretation) based against another, you have contradictory interpretations.

How do you explain that?

How do you know which person has the RIGHT interpretation? If there is no right interpretation, how can you glean any meaning from it at all? And how can you trust anything in it to be true. And if you admit that there is no right interpretation, then aren't you in fact saying that it is ambigious, vague, or simply at the whim of the reader as to what it means?

Btw, the whole thing about the canon I think was a result of the Jewish councils making a canon (the Hebrew Bible as we have it today) AFTER the Christian canon was set up.

In other words, the Jewish scholars chose the books of the Old Testament, and they didn't have the same canon as Christians (they left out some books we included). Then the Reformers basically took the Jewish canon and used it as THEIR old testament, and called the books the Catholic bible still had "apocrypha."

The question in this is, who had the authority to choose which books were to be in the Old Testament, the Christian Church, or the Jewish scribes at a later date?

Obviously, the Jewish scholars would reject the ENTIRE "New" Testament. To them there is no "Old" or "New." The Hebrew bible is the word of God, and the Christian books are just heresies.

Kurgan

Conor, I was wondering. Did you say back there somewhere that only a Roman Catholic priest or bishop could interpret the Bible correctly?

Because I can't find where you did and was wondering if I missed it. Thanks.

Kurgan

Sorry, forgot to answer a question or two. I'll get to all of them eventually.

Wiz, thanks for your explanation. That is somewhat how I resolve that problem myself.

However, when Paul talks about "faith"(by faith ALONE you are saved) and when James talks about faith (faith without works is dead) are they talking about the same thing?

Are works necessary?

Or are they using simply different kinds of "faith"?

I would simply say that what I believe is that the grace of God is all that can save you. If God wants to "save" you, he can. Simple as that.

You do not need to be "saved" unless you are a sinner, of course, and we all are, according to the bible.

However, works, that is, good works, are what you are supposed to do once you are saved, right? Any Christian would agree with you I am sure. I think what Protestants are saying is that you can't go around saying "Well I do good deeds every now and then, but I don't believe in God, and I hate my fellow man in my heart" or something to that effect. In which case, I would agree with them.

Then Catholics will say, "But you can't say "I love Jesus, he's my savior" and read the bible every day, but do nothing to help your brother in need or do any kind of good work. I would agree with that too.

The idea is as a Christian you are supposed to do BOTH. Which I would also agree with.

Yet, the fancy talk of the Protestant is "you are saved only by faith" and that of the Catholic is "faith and works."

So we really are arguing about nothing, it's just rhetoric, because if we are only saved by faith (in the sense of just agreeing in your head or saying you believe) then you're a fraud.

I guess we say "faith and works" because we're afraid people will think it's only faith, and you don't have to do anything. You could argue, well what about if you need faith and works, and you're a parapalegic (sp?) or something, or you convert and then suddenly die. What if you never knew about Christ and you were a good person anyway, but died, would you go to hell then because you didn't have "faith"?

I would simply say that the grace of God could save you in any case, because of God's great mercy.

Then you might ask, so why even bother becoming Christian? I guess the best I can do is say that this path is designed to help you come out of sin and into the light of righteousness. If it didn't work, then there would be no point, but it does, apparently, and so you should do it.

Maybe it sounds wishy-washy and such, but doctrines and philosophical arguments aside, that's the essense of it.

BUT, do you get that from reading the bible or reading INTO the bible? I get the IMPRESSION from reading the New Testament that that's how God operates. But if I take the text at face value.. I have people telling me different things. Oh, you have to believe in Jesus or you can't be saved. Oh, you can believe in Jesus, but you have to believe X, not Y, or Z. Or, oh, you are saved by your faith in Jesus, but NOT by works. Or, you are saved by faith in Jesus AND by works. So which one is it? If it's all of them, then why did the authors bother saying what they said? Why not simply say "God Loves you, and if you love him, then he'll save you, and if you love him you'll do good works as well to show you love him." Why not just say that?

The scary thing to contemplate would be that they didn't say that because they didn't MEAN that. What do you say to that? ; )

Kurgan

Arg, and one more thing.

When one such as you, Wiz, says the bible is unambigious, you mean that what.. when you read it you KNOW what it means, or what it says at face value agrees with everyone else it says? In other words, no passages appear incorrect or contradictory to any other part of the bible?

Because it is true, that one can "gloss over" differences in the larger context.

This is similar to what Zoom Rabbit (bless his little heart) was doing in an old thread, where he was saying all religions agree "on the important points." The trouble is, how do we know what those "important points" are? Aren't we faced with contradictions all over the place? Aren't we forced to delude each religious faith in favor of agreement?

I see it in a similar way when we talk about "the Bible" (which even that means different things to different people). If the point of the bible is simply "God loves you, and wants you to love your neighbor as yourself, and to love God" (as the commandment says), then we shouldn't need to worry about any contradictions. In fact, we don't even need to read the bible. We don't need to do anything, but follow that commandment right? Or is there something more?

Kurgan

I disagree with "Scripture alone" why?

Because I do not worship Scripture. (yeah yeah, you can make an argument about "the word" but the word isn't a book, it's Jesus Christ)

Scripture did not create the universe. Scripture did not die on the cross for my sins. All it is is a book (really a bunch of books) that some guys who thought they were doing God's will decided to bring together into one collection.

God, is the one. God INSPIRED Scripture, and God INSPIRES us, so then we, as teachers, are not below scripture, we ARE scripture. But ONLY because of God, not because of what we have done.

So when you interpret the bible, you are already reading into it, no matter what. And you are taking the meaning you bring to it, or you make from it, not what the authors originally intended (not all of the authors anyway).

So perhaps, one could say, this is God's way of making sure the message comes through correctly. His authors may have "miswrote" but we'll get the right meaning from it anyway. And I better quit for now and get back to work! ; )

Kurgan

Kurgan--

However, when you compare HOW one person understands it (their interpretation) based against another, you have contradictory interpretations. How do you explain that? How do you know which person has the RIGHT interpretation? If there is no right interpretation, how can you glean any meaning from it at all? And how can you trust anything in it to be true. And if you admit that there is no right interpretation, then aren't you in fact saying that it is ambigious, vague, or simply at the whim of the reader as to what it means?

You jogged my memory on an important point with these questions. People can definitely take several LAYERS of meaning away from a single passage of Scripture. It doesn't mean that one person or the other is wrong or that the passage is ambiguous or vague. It means that the passage is so deep and rich that different people can extract many facets of meaning from it.

I know that in my own life I have read and reread the Bible at different times, and each time I read it, I discover something new that I never saw before. Each time, the passage offers some new and different insight for my life. That doesn't mean the new insight cancels out the previous insight, that there is contradiction. It just means that the meaning of the passage continues to unfold in new and more profound ways.

An example of such a passage would be Psalm 22, which on the surface is a Psalm of David's plight while being hunted by his enemies. That is the normal Jewish interpretation. However, in hindsight since the cross, it becomes clear that this is a prophetic passage describing the suffering of the Messiah. Which interpretation is correct? They both are. Both levels of meaning are true. The passage is rich enough to support that much meaning. Yet it is not in any way ambiguous or vague.

Now, where different people get a conflicting message from a given passage, this is almost always a result of what we bring to the passage. Conor and I each read the Holy Communion passages and each find a contradictory meaning. I see no reason not to treat the language as symbolic. Conor cannot help but see it as literal, the bread IS Christ's flesh, the wine IS His blood.

So we differ. But is this an essential difference? I submit that, even though it is essential in Conor's mind and in the teaching of the Catholic church, it can be demonstrated that it is not truly an essential difference. The Catholic church does not view me as an enemy of the faith because of my position on the Eucharist; it considers me and people like me "separated brethren." If this was truly an essential core issue of the faith (by which I mean an issue that decides whether or not a person is a genuine Christian), I could not be considered a brother or a Christian. I would have to be considered a nonChristian and an enemy of true Christianity.

Kurgan, do you have some concrete examples of a Scripture passages that are so ambiguous that they are wildly intepreted all over the map? (Other than the book of Revelation, of course! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif) I'd be interested in the specific sections you have in mind--particularly if entire books are involved.

Btw, the whole thing about the canon I think was a result of the Jewish councils making a canon (the Hebrew Bible as we have it today) AFTER the Christian canon was set up.

I did a quick check on the Hebrew canon and here's what I found out:

The whole Law (The Pentateuch) was recognized as authoritative by 400 - 350 B.C. ... The books of the Prophets gradually came to be reverenced on a level with the Law, perhaps by 200 B.C. ... The two events which led to the final closing of the Jewish Canon were the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the rise of Christianity. The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple deprived the Jews of the center of their religious life, gave rise to fears that the faith would be diluted or destroyed, and made it vital that the authentic scriptures should be carefully guarded. The rise of Christianity, with its claims to its own interpretation of the Old Testament and its vast body of apocalyptic and Messianic literature, generally unacceptable to the Jews, was another danger. The institution which dealt with this crisis was the academy at Jamnia in Palestine, where many of the best minds of Judaism had congregated. There at the so-called Council of Jamnia, c. 90 - 100 A.D., some books accepted by Hellenistic Jews or by Christians were excluded and the Hebrew Canon established more or less in permanent form. ... It should be emphasized that the works retained in the Canon had long been recognized as sacred and vital in the religious life of the community. The Council of Jamnia merely confirmed what had long been accepted.
Source: Old Testament: Literary Forms In The Old Testament, Monarch Notes, 01-01-1963.

So the Hebrew canon was finalized after the rise of Christianity but before the Christian canon was finalized.

Later--
--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 27, 2000).]

wiz, if you want an example of scripture being interpreted all over the place, just look at the accounts of the Last Supper. After all, it is this chapter (and John 6) that are one of the biggest causes of rifts among Christian sects.

Sorry Wiz, as far as you not understanding, that was only my impression of you, obviously you feel you do understand, and you have said that you do. Having read your posts carefully, I feel that you do at least THINK you do. I just felt that you did not really understand each other, otherwise you would not still be arguing over the same things.

I would like to make it clear right now that I am not trying to be confrontational, or judgemental. I am only trying to present other points of view to the discussion, while expressing my own viewpoint, and anything I may agree or disagree with in what people have said.

I will also say right now that I am behind on this thread.

I have been trying to follow it, but I lack the time (between classes is when I generally am on this thread) to read the entire thing and interpret it in light of this.

So, I apologize if you say something, then several posts later, recant or clarify that statement and I end up looking like an idiot because I didn't read your next twenty responses. I'm actually on page six near the bottom right now. I am trying to address each question/comment on my posts in the order of which it was recieved. It's annoying to me that I can't keep up, really, I'm sorry.

Perhaps you would prefer that I read the entire thread, before posting at all. At one time that was possible, but I've been so busy, and I WANT to contribute, but I only have time to read it one post at a time.

I guess it's just a quirk of mine, like Vagabond's dislike of long-drawn out single posts (if I remember correctly Vagy, you did say you didn't like 'em).

So, please, excuse me if I miss something you say later on, I'll get to it eventually!

In this way it is kind of too bad that this message board isn't structured like those where it pushes messages to the left and you can respond to individual posts, not just in a long, linear thread where each new posts appears at the bottom as a response to the opening message.

I guess the whole point of my last few contributions was that, from the way I see it, (you are free to disagree with me of course), EVERYONE reads into the bible, except maybe those who totally reject it (and those people simply are denying that the premises of the bible are true, for example they say there is no God, so God can't have said this, etc). I think that nobody who believes the bible can NOT read into it, even a bit, because otherwise they run into so many problems. There are ways around these problems: eliminating passages that disagree with an otherwise coherent theology from the text, or by glossing over certain parts and saying they were cultural things that are different now, or by interpreting certain parts symbolically. This however, I consider to be "reading into the text." Reading into it is adding or subtracting or changing anything, other than what the text literally says, word for word. That's call interpretation.

If I say "all pigs are green" then what I am saying is that "pigs" "all of them" "are" and "green." To know what I mean by that, you have to know what I mean by "all" "pigs" "are" and "green" otherwise, you end up interpreting it and reading into it.

Do I mean pigs as in the animal, like a slang term for greedy people or policemen, or am I making some kind of metaphor, or what? Do I mean by green, rich? Do I mean prosperous, or do I mean the color green? What color of green do I mean? When I say they are green, am I saying they are equal to somebody who is rich, or do I mean that they are the physical color, or do I mean they are "new"? That is what I am trying to say when it comes to the bible. Because of the time and language, and cultural and socio-political barriers, and because the audience and the writers were fallible humans, then we are bound to interpretation.

Yes, some people believe that God prevents people from erring in interpreting the text, that is unless they are tricked by Satan into a false interpretation. That's their belief. Some people believe that God's word simply (as a doctrine of faith) is clear. You read it, you understand it. The only way you can miss the message is if you are somehow tainted by evil and you try to WILL another meaning onto it. Those people are entitled to their belief.

What I believe is that the meaning is not 90% clear. You have to read your own meaning into it, even if you only read a bit into it. Whether it's 90%, 80%, 10%, or 0%, the text is not clear. Otherwise, everyone would have the same interpretation. That fact alone says to me that it is not clear. But, that is my belief, and many people I am sure would disagree. I am sure you are posting reasons why you feel it is clear, and I'm happy to read those and understand why you feel that way. A group that you would say "reads into" the Bible, would probably say to you, that YOU, not them are the one being deluded and reading it wrong. For example someone who says Jesus only was being symbolic in one place and literal in another, when you take the opposite side, would say you were reading into the text, because to them the meaning is "clear."

And that, in so many words is what I think.

I'll get back to the rest of this thread later. Thanks for putting up with me. ; )

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 27, 2000).]

Hey, I'm just answering the first question - I didn't have time to read through all the replies , there's a lot of them and scanning some seemed like there was some pretty good discussion going on.

I was raised in Christianity as a conservative Baptist, and I now am probably a mild charismatic.

I agree with what I read on page 1 about 1st century Christianity being the key. Whether you're talking RCC of 2000 years or a Pentecostal movement of 1 century, tradition creeps in quick. The sad thing is when tradition comes in and changes the focus of a church or movement, or waters it down, or whatever. The word "Christian" originally meant "little Christ". In other words, that title was applied because the 1st century church reminded people of Jesus. And in fact, the job of the church is to continue the work of Jesus on earth until he returns, and also to become more like him.

What was Jesus like and what did he do? That is what the church as a whole should look like and should be doing. I defy anyone to read through the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and say that Jesus isn't someone they would love to be around and want to follow. He loved ceaselessly, healed the sick, freed the oppressed, wept with broken people, rejoiced with happy people, fed the hungry, protected the weak, corrected the strong, assaulted religious hypocrisy (why? because it oppressed people he loved and kept them from what God had for them), and on and on. Read those books of the Bible with the mindset of seeing what he was like. If that was who he was and who he is, and he is God's son, and God is like that too - would you follow someone like that? give your life for someone like that?

If "Christians" were like Jesus and being at church was like being surrounded by a bunch of people who reminded you of him, who wouldn't go? If you were sick or hungry and could go to any church or any Christian to get healed and fed, who wouldn't come? The loss of those things is the tragedy. And those things are lost when different branches of Christianity war against each other over minor things, when churches split over whether to get pews or padded chairs (it happens!)

And as far as "Will I have to become a goodie-goodie and give up things I enjoy?", no...you eventually will WANT to become more like him, and when he asks you to let go of those things, you do because you trust him and love him, and trust is love for you. There's a big difference there!

Too many Christians walk around Bible-thumping everybody. Why should someone who doesn't believe in the Bible care what is says about do's and don'ts? Whay should someone who doesn't know God, doesn't believe in him, and doesn't know his love care about what he says? Holiness and purity are important, but they are the result, the FRUIT of spending time with Jesus, of walking with him, of him revealing himself to you, of the Holy Spirit working in a life, of trust, of time...check Jesus out, if he seems cool, ask him to reveal himself to you and he will. Read the book about him. He'll take care of you and your life and work out all the kinks. It is a journey...a good one!

BTW, my screen-name is a play on words. I'm not a drunk. I've actually tried gin and don't care much for it!

Okay, one more thing before I get back to class (I'm gonna be late if I can't pull myself away, lol):

But the idea that the entire Bible is totally up for grabs and without objective meaning is, I think, utterly wrong.

Yes, I agree with you. Thanks for seeing my pov in the "reading into scripture" part. This was the topic of my final short paper for the class (topic: "What is the New Testament?").

I do believe that the Bible has meaning, and that it is important to try to find and understand this meaning. Different people's lives may be improved by their understanding of the Bible. I notice you say "most" when you talk about which problems can be cleared up. You, like me, realize that overgeneralizations are not good (ha, was that itself an overgeneralization?). There are often exceptions.

Your position is that where Christians differ, is in unimportant issues. Yet in your critique of Purgatory, you basically are saying two things:

-the belief in Purgatory is unessential to Christianity, and harmless

and

-the belief Purgatory is anti-Christian in nature, and thus very harmful

Because, while you say it doesn't matter if people believe in it or not (but apparently this could affect your salvation because it would in theory affect how you live your life, etc), you say that from your POV, it's not in the Bible, and people have abused the doctrine for personal gain and to hurt others and become rich, which is anti-Christian. Therefore it should not be believed.

So in other words, doctrines are okay, but only as long as they don't cause what you see as harm.

I see your position then as a compromise.

It's like the whole religion thing. Everybody believes their religion or viewpoint is the "right" one, whether they admit it to themselves or not. If it was not important, they would not be a member of the denomination or group. If they were truly honest about an "anything goes" and "live and let live" attitude, they would simply become an agnostic. That is what I think. Because you're having it too ways.

On the one hand I'm saying to you, I am a Catholic, I believe X, Y, and Z, and that's the right way.

Then I'm saying to you, but I could be totally wrong, and the truth could actually be A, B, and C, or you could be right. And I say you should believe what you want, and not what I believe, and decide for yourself, and it doesn't matter if you disagree with me, etc.

I'm holding contradictory positions, aren't I? I'm saying I'm okay, you're okay, but my beliefs are saying "He's not okay." And I think that's what you believe as well, in essence. And in essence we all do.

I guess maybe this is a paradoxial device we use in our minds in order to achieve balance so we can actually talk about this stuff without sending hell fire down on each other every other second. It's just so we can be polite and "non-judgemental" while we discuss.

This is getting more and more interesting.. but I really must go (for now). doh!

Keep it up.. by the time I come back from E3, I should have a wonderful novel to read from these posts. ; )

Kurgan

Kurgan--

I think you're misunderstanding me--unless I'm misunderstanding you! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

Your position is that where Christians differ, is in unimportant issues. Yet in your critique of Purgatory, you basically are saying two things:

-the belief in Purgatory is unessential to Christianity, and harmless
and
-the belief Purgatory is anti-Christian in nature, and thus very harmful

Let me phrase that to better reflect what I'm trying to say (and thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify). For an individual like Conor to believe in Purgatory is probably harmless to his own individual faith. You do not need to believe in Purgatory to be a Christian, and believing in it will probably not harm your faith or standing with God (it is likely to make you a better person if you take it seriously).

Where it is harmful is in a totally different area than our standing with God. It is harmful in that it has (centuries ago) been used to oppress people and keep them in bondage to a corrupt church institution. It is harmful in that it has caused enormous emotional and mental suffering. I think it is harmful in that it creates a false image of God as a vengeful dungeon-master who inflicts torture on people as a means to purify them. That is not a New Testament image of God ("God is love"), and I think that false image has the potential of driving a spiritual/emotional wedge between people and God.

So, by looking quite specifically at the doctrine, we can see that it is harmless in the most important way (our salvation and standing with Christ is probably not affected either way), though it does cause "collateral damage" to our psyches.

you say that from your POV, it's not in the Bible, and people have abused the doctrine for personal gain and to hurt others and become rich, which is anti-Christian. Therefore it should not be believed.

Not exactly. In stead of "Therefore it should not be believed," substitute "therefore I don't believe it." But I don't object to Conor or you or anyone else believing it. I am not an evangelist for an antiPurgatory campaign.

So in other words, doctrines are okay, but only as long as they don't cause what you see as harm. I see your position then as a compromise.

Nonbiblical doctrines are mistaken, IMO, but if they are mistaken and harmless, I don't worry about it or try to convert others to my pov (I have not been trying to convert Conor to my pov, just explain it, because he termed my pov irrational).

And yes, I am quite willing to compromise and be tolerant on many things that I see as peripheral and nonessential. That's part of getting along and practicing Christlike love in the body of believers. You stand firm on the essentials, bend on the nonessentials.

It's like the whole religion thing. Everybody believes their religion or viewpoint is the "right" one, whether they admit it to themselves or not. If it was not important, they would not be a member of the denomination or group. If they were truly honest about an "anything goes" and "live and let live" attitude, they would simply become an agnostic. That is what I think. Because you're having it too ways.

I don't agree with that. I believe you can have absolutely rock-hard convictions about your core beliefs (the deity of Christ, say, or the reality of the resurrection), yet practice honest tolerance in the nonessential areas. In fact, I believe that's the way I live. You don't have to become an agnostic, you just have to know what is core belief and what is peripheral. You just have to know when to stand firm and when to flex.

Every aspect of my belief system does not have to be defended with life-or-death tenacity.

I'm holding contradictory positions, aren't I? I'm saying I'm okay, you're okay, but my beliefs are saying "He's not okay." And I think that's what you believe as well, in essence. And in essence we all do.

I don't think that's what I believe. In this discussion, I'm saying I'm okay and Conor's okay. My beliefs say, "Well, Conor's probably wrong about (for example) The Eucharist and Purgatory, but what harm does it do? What really matters is that Conor and I follow the same Lord. If he has some views about what I consider nonessentials (yes, I understand they're essential to him, but even that's okay with me), no harm done. We agree on the Big Things, disagree on the little things, everything's cool. I'm even genuinely aware that he could be right and I could be wrong. I don't think so, but I'm always open to the possibility.

I don't think there's a contradiction or paradox in there. I think everything fits together perfectly. Not that I'm uncomfortable with paradox; there's a lot of honest-to-gosh paradox in the Christian faith. But in this case, I think it's just a matter of being able to distinguish between core issues and edge issues, and where Conor and I differ is around the edges.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 27, 2000).]

Welcome, quite-gone gin!

I think you'll find this a congenial place to exchange views. We learn a lot from each other 'round here.

C'ya!

--wiz

Kurgan--

I didn't really finish responding to your comments about the Old Testament canon. Your point is that the Christian church decided on a canon that included the Apocrypha, then the Jewish scholars solidified a canon that excluded the Apocrypha, and the Reformation sided with the Jewish scholars rather than with church fathers in tossing out the Apocrypha as well. I believe that is your point.

In other words, the Jewish scholars chose the books of the Old Testament, and they didn't have the same canon as Christians (they left out some books we included). Then the Reformers basically took the Jewish canon and used it as THEIR old testament, and called the books the Catholic bible still had "apocrypha."

The question in this is, who had the authority to choose which books were to be in the Old Testament, the Christian Church, or the Jewish scribes at a later date?

The canon is determined by the church (which, as we have seen, can be a slippery term). Though the Septuagint canon became the Old Testament of the RC church, the precise content of the Septuagint actually varied from region to region. The Greek Orthodox church accepted the Septuagint, Apocrypha and all, but the Roman Catholic Church actually debated the legitimacy of the Apocrypha right up to the time of Luther. Jerome, one of the highest and most respected of the church fathers, actually rejected the validity of the Apocrypha, and Catholic scholars debated its legitimacy right up until the Reformation.

Martin Luther's objections to the apocrypha were actually based on those of Jerome. Like Jerome, Luther felt it was okay to use the Apocrypha as a worship resource and for historical and moral instruction, but did not view the Apocrypha as authoritative in matters of doctrine. It was only when Luther challenged the Apocrypha in this way that the Pope responded by proclaiming the Apocrypha to be Scripture on the same level of canonicity as the rest of the Old Testament. In fact, many Roman Catholic scholars at the time protested the Pope's action.

Today, the RCC considers the Apocrypha "deuterocanonical," or secondarily canonical. That is not to say the Apocrypha lacks full authority as Scripture in the Catholic church. The Apocrypha was accepted as fully authoritative Scripture, but that acceptance came at a later time than the rest of the Old Testament. It is chronologically secondary, according to the RC church.

The problem with doctrines that have accreted after the close of Scripture at the end of the first century (such as the doctrine of Purgatory, which is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere in the OT or NT, but only briefly in the Apocrypha) is that such late-added doctrines run afoul of this passage of Scripture:

"Every word of God is flawless. ... Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar."
--Proverbs 30:5-6

--wiz

Ikhnaton--

wiz, if you want an example of scripture being interpreted all over the place, just look at the accounts of the Last Supper. After all, it is this chapter (and John 6) that are one of the biggest causes of rifts among Christian sects.

You're referring to the passages which speak either symbolically (the Protestant view) or literally and miraculously (the Catholic view) of the Eucharist/Holy Communion. I am not aware that these passages are "interpreted all over the place," but I am aware of the two interpretations I just mentioned. Of course, this is an issue that Conor and I have been all over.

Are there other variations of interpretation of these passages?

If it is just these two interpretations, then I agree that it is a major distinction between the Catholic and Protestant traditions. I wouldn't call it a "rift," exactly, at least not from my pov, because I feel I can have fellowship with all my Catholic friends even though I don't view the Eucharist as they do. (To me, the word "rift" suggests animosity; if by that word you mean just a simple division of opinion, then yes, it is a rift in that sense.)

--wiz

I haven’t completely been following this whole discussion, but one truth remains above all else, wheatear you believe in the Bible or not, everyone has the choice of free will. People can think for themselves, make choices, and have the ability to grow and adapt. And maybe the fact that you are having this conversation right now is basis enough that there is something bigger out there. It is my belief that evil is the absence of God, does this mean that God does not care? Or that if God was so loving and so caring that he would not allow evil to continue? The truth remains, we have a choice. The choice to serve God, for He only wants what is best, or we can continue on our own ‘so to speak’ because only we know best. It is not religion, it is a relationship, a daily choice.

muchafraid

[This message has been edited by muchafraid (edited April 28, 2000).]

Kurgan--

Sorry to make more reading for you, but I'll be as brief as possible (yeah, right!).

When Paul talks about "faith"(by faith ALONE you are saved) and when James talks about faith (faith without works is dead) are they talking about the same thing?

I think so, yes. They both use the same Greek word pistis, which means not just mental agreement assurance, conviction, trust, and fidelity--the character of one who can be relied on. Paul says it is faith alone that saves, but both Paul and James say that if you say you have faith but live like the devil, your so-called "faith" is a fraud.

Are works necessary?

What do we mean by works. Paul talks of "works of the law," meaning not only good deeds but rituals and observances. He fought those who would bring the old Jewish law (such as circumcision) into Christianity as a burden on Gentile believers. I think, based on what Paul teaches, much of Christianity has become overly laden with ritual and tradition that obscures the reality of the Christian RELATIONSHIP (not religion). When James talks of "works" in James 2, however, he seems to refer more to good works, such as helping the needy, etc.

I'm convinced that the works don't save, but if you don't have good works, then you probably don't have the faith that does save. It's a subtle concept, but elegant, as so much authentic truth tends to be.

I would simply say that what I believe is that the grace of God is all that can save you. If God wants to "save" you, he can. Simple as that.

Well, yes. It's all grace. Faith is our response to God's grace. Ephesians 2:8-- "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--"

James says very clearly (2:18) "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do." No doubt about it, he is not saying that works save us, but that works demonstrate that we have a saving faith.

So we really are arguing about nothing, it's just rhetoric, because if we are only saved by faith (in the sense of just agreeing in your head or saying you believe) then you're a fraud.

I totally agree.

What if you never knew about Christ and you were a good person anyway, but died, would you go to hell then because you didn't have "faith"?

All I know is that God judges justly. The more "light" we are given, the more He holds us responsible for that light. Beyond that, I confess I do not know.

But if I take the text at face value.. I have people telling me different things. Oh, you have to believe in Jesus or you can't be saved. Oh, you can believe in Jesus, but you have to believe X, not Y, or Z. Or, oh, you are saved by your faith in Jesus, but NOT by works. Or, you are saved by faith in Jesus AND by works. So which one is it? If it's all of them, then why did the authors bother saying what they said? Why not simply say "God Loves you, and if you love him, then he'll save you, and if you love him you'll do good works as well to show you love him." Why not just say that?

I think Paul did say that. If I understand you correctly, I think you are describing the essence of the book of Romans.

In other words, no passages appear incorrect or contradictory to any other part of the bible?

Oh, there are problem passages, all right, and seeming contradictions. Many, however, evaporate when properly understood.

For example, there is a common misconception that Genesis 1 and 2 present two conflicting creation accounts. On closer examination, it turns out that the misunderstanding is due to a problem in translating a Hebrew verb tense into English. For centuries, no Jewish theologian ever saw this supposed "conflict"--it only arose after the Bible was translated into English.

I disagree with "Scripture alone" why?
Because I do not worship Scripture.

I don't worship Scripture either. But Scripture points to God, whom I do worship. Therefore I read it and trust it. I'm not sure I see the connection between the "Scripture alone" concept and "worshiping Scripture."

All it is is a book (really a bunch of books) that some guys who thought they were doing God's will decided to bring together into one collection.

God, is the one. God INSPIRED Scripture, and God INSPIRES us, so then we, as teachers, are not below scripture, we ARE scripture. But ONLY because of God, not because of what we have done.

You really lost me there. We ARE Scripture? I'm baffled. Scripture is inspired in an amazing way, so amazing that the Book of Daniel predicts the exact day of Christ's Palm Sunday entry into Jerusalem, and Psalm 22 predicts the nature of His death in excruciating detail, hundreds of years before the Romans invented the cross. That kind of inspiration is beyond any mere human sense of being "inspired" by God.

So when you interpret the bible, you are already reading into it, no matter what. And you are taking the meaning you bring to it, or you make from it, not what the authors originally intended (not all of the authors anyway).

Here are some rules for Scripture interpretation that are designed to guard against reading into the text and missing the authors' original intention:

Rules for Interpreting Scripture

>Since Jesus spoke and the Bible writers wrote primarily for the people of their day, always consider the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the passage you are studying.

>Always consider the context of the unit, chapter, and book when interpreting a text. The meaning of each verse must agree with the theme of the unit, chapter, and book, as well as the overall teaching of the Bible.

>When interpreting a passage or verse, make sure to study each sentence grammatically to get the correct meaning.

>Make sure to get the meaning of each text as intended by the Bible writer or inspired speaker before making application.

>Difficult texts must be interpreted in the light of the clear teachings of the whole Bible. Therefore, study all that Scripture teaches on a given subject before coming to a conclusion on any single verse.

>The New Testament must be interpreted in the light of the Old Testament and vice versa. The Old Testament is promise and the New Testament is fulfillment. Both complement each other.

>For accuracy, use the best translations and, if at all possible, compare with the original text.

Now, these rules do make an assumption that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that God speaks with one consistent voice throughout, even though that voice is set down by many different writers. If that assumption is mistaken, rules such as "interpret the OT in light of the NT and vice versa" will actually have you "reading into" the text on the basis of that assumption. But by operating on that assumption, I always find incredible richness and consistency and sensibility to the Bible, despite the fact that it consists of 66 books by many human writers from a number of cultures writing over a period of a few thousand years.

I read it, and I hear only one Voice.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 28, 2000).]

muchafraid--

It is not religion, it is a relationship, a daily choice.

Precisely.

--wiz

Wiz, just a quick comment, as I only have a moment to be on here and no time to sort through all that (thanks for posting it though, I'll eventually get to it).

I think that what was said earlier about people casting God, Jesus, and the Bible in their own "mould" was true. Protestants see the early Church as Protestant, Catholics see it as Catholic, Secular Humanists either see it as a crazy superstition or as a liberal humanist group that was taken over by crazy fanatics later on.

Everybody wants to claim ownership to this man Jesus and his mission in one way or another, or else attack him and take away his throne (out of fear and/or jealousy).

One part before: you mentioned that a Christian doctrine that is peripheral (that you consider peripheral and unessential anyway) is harmless as long as you don't use it to hurt others. Okay.

But, if this is true, and you seem to be saying it is, then by that same logic, any religious belief is okay, as long as it is not used to hurt others, is it not? If the basic message of Christianity is to merely believe that there is a God, and his Son, Jesus, died for my sins, and I should be "good." That's all I need. So I could believe anything else I wanted to, right?

So then why bother with any of this stuff? If Purgatory, the Eucharist, etc don't matter, why bother with it? Why accept it, why condemn it? You seem to be saying that you reject it, because you feel the "early Church" was protestant, so you reject things you consider to be "later additions" (essentially Catholic doctrines in other words). I think I begin to see your train of thought here. Of course people like Conor would simply argue that those "uniquely Catholic doctrines" were PART of the Early Church, then so if they were unessential then, they are unessential now as well, if you meld those two together. So either some of the things the early church taught were incorrect, or unessential from the very beginning, or you would have to prove instead that those doctrines did NOT EXIST until much later. I thought there were some things posted that gave evidence they did exist in the first century. Certainly not all Christians believed them, but enough did. An example I will give from my class:

at the time of Jesus's death, there arose several movements, at about the same time. The Apostles themselves are portrayed as more or less being united, but it is almost certain that they did not agree on everything, and even the earliest disciples differed and some formed their own groups. This is where critical scholarship comes in. A traditional Christian would probably say that there was ONE group, the Apostles, and then everybody else (they probably wouldn't include Paul here), and so the Apostles were right (orthodox) and everyone else was heretical. Thus the "True" Church was the apostles, and this is the early church the Protestant Reformation was trying to "get back to." This is the Church the RCC is claiming to be a continuation of.

However, what about those other groups? Clearly they had some differing (often radical) beliefs. This gets into the whole "who is a Christian" and "does what you believe matter"? issues.

For example, the Gnostics, they were part of the early Church (true, their writings came from the second century, but evidence suggest they most surely were around in the first century), so are they part of the "invisible church" you mentioned? If they led good lives and believed in Christ (even though their beliefs differed drastically from all other Christians of the time) wouldn't they be saved, even though by today's Protestant and Catholic standards, they were heretics?

So if I wanted to get back to the early Church, how do I know which Christian group was "right"? Was it the adoptionists? The Gnostics? The Marcionites? The proto-Orthodox? None of those other groups survived (well the Gnostics resurfaced), but let's say modern Christians want to "get back to the source." What is the source?

The only source I can see is Jesus himself. However, he left no writings, so we have to trust what his followers said about him.

However, each early Christian group has a bunch of writings, gospels, which have Jesus saying WHAT THEY BELIEVED!

So how do we know? The ones in the bible are mostly proto-orthodox. Yet, John's gospel was used by the Marcionites (I think) and by the Gnostics. Each group had their own gospels, but these got left out by the later Orthodox canonical committees.

Do you see what I'm saying? The current bible says that our beliefs "the orthodox" are correct. Yet, if you read a Gnostic gospel, you'll see Jesus saying stuff that supports Gnostic beliefs. So which Jesus is the "real" Jesus? That was the point of the Jesus seminar. I know that they were biased, I agree, but their aim was an important one.

How do we know that the gospels of the Bible present the real Jesus and not simply one biased towards ONE of the early Christian groups? (or several, mish-mashed together).

My point is that if you want to get back to a "pure" first century Christianity, you still have to choose what beliefs you're going to accept, because even then, from the very beginning, you had diversity, and many groups.

If we make a distinction and say the "winners" who "wrote history" (the orthodox) were right, how do we know they were right? Early Christianity was not pure apparently. There were all kinds of different beliefs. Even in the Gospels, you get hints and mentions of rival schools and groups that came about all at the same time.

Again, if the Bible is your final authority, I wonder, what shows you that the canon established eventually that became the NT canon of today, is the final one and there is no more revelation or writings? Marcion had the first canon, yet he was called a heretic by the proto-orthodox and his was rejected. But he had plenty of followers, and they made equal claims to being Jesus's followers. The canon of the Catholics apparently wasn't good enough, as the Jews made their's and it excluded some of the OT books the Christians used. Then the Protestants rejected the Catholic canon in favor of one that included the Hebrew canon. So apparently the canon was flexible for some time after the bible was written.

And BEFORE the bible was written (this was the time of the early Church), how do we know the writings that went into the bible were the right ones?

In short, if Gnostics had won out, and written the bible, we would be Gnostics today and reading Gnostic bibles today. I would be curious to research the reasons WHY the proto-orthodox won out. My class did not cover this. I have heard rumors it was because of Imperial persecutions, but I do not know for sure.

It seems that you wish to accept the "pure first century Christianity" which apparently means the Christianity that was based on the one that was dominant around the time the Bible was put together. Is this so? I guess I don't see early Christianity, just early Christianties(plural). But if you say that beliefs don't necessarily matter (some are unessential) then this is okay. You can pick any early Christian group you feel best with.

Finally, I know you are saying essentially, that all those who believe in Christ and that we should live a decent life are the Christians. This is the invisible "body of Christ." Your personal preference is that you wish to belong to the "early pure first century Church of the New Testament" because you feel that modern Churches are tainted by "unessential doctrines" and "human traditions," which you feel were absent from this "early Christianity" so you go about this by trying to live by the Bible as interpreted by a protestant, which you feel is the correct interpretation (as far as you are concerned, at least the "best" or "most correct" one). Yet you do not wish others to be forced to this belief, but they must decide for themselves.

I can certainly see your logic here, and for the most part I agree. I doubt all Christians will ever agree on everything. If only a few doctrines can be agreed upon, or at least a few things, and we can all be good people, I guess that's the best we can hope for. But I don't think we should stop talking to each other, and discussing ideas.

I don't believe that I can prove to anyone beyond all possible doubt, that the Roman Catholic Church, as it is today, or as it was 2,000 years ago is the ONE TRUE CHURCH. I never claimed it was perfect, or that anyone was. I cannot also prove that the Bible is true beyond all possible doubt. I can lend historical data (where available) and statistics to try to support my points, but in the end, the evidence is up for grabs interpretation-wise.

Honestly, I think if I ever were to change my religion, it would be to Judaism, because that was the religion of Jesus and his apostles. Of course I'd probably say he was the Messiah. But then I would have to reject certain Gospels.. and that's a whole 'nother story. Just hypothetical of course. ; )

Kurgan

Originally fibbed by Kurgan:
Wiz, just a quick comment, as I only have a moment to be on here and no time to sort through all that..that was a quick comment?? http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

Kurgan--

It is always fascinating in a dialogue to hear one's own views reflected back from another person. There is a strong resemblence to what was in my mind when I posted, but some of the nuances are a bit off-kilter. Which is what normally takes place in communication between people.

you mentioned that a Christian doctrine that is peripheral (that you consider peripheral and unessential anyway) is harmless as long as you don't use it to hurt others.

And as long as it causes you no harm.

But, if this is true, and you seem to be saying it is, then by that same logic, any religious belief is okay, as long as it is not used to hurt others, is it not?

Some doctrines and beliefs might cause no overt harm to other people, but belief in them could be hazardous to one's own soul. There are, for example, various cults/groups that have works-centered beliefs (you must do this ritual, follow this practice, carry out this procedure, perform this service in order to be saved). When the focus is on such works or rituals, the reality of a living faith relationship (trust relationship) with Jesus Christ becomes obscured by the fog. Those peripheral beliefs become the focus and the core belief gets lost. In such cases, peripherals become a dangerous deception.

If the basic message of Christianity is to merely believe that there is a God, and his Son, Jesus, died for my sins, and I should be "good." That's all I need. So I could believe anything else I wanted to, right?

See above.

So then why bother with any of this stuff? If Purgatory, the Eucharist, etc don't matter, why bother with it? Why accept it, why condemn it? You seem to be saying that you reject it, because you feel the "early Church" was protestant...

Whoa! Nope. The early church was Christian, period. Catholicism has added a lot of baggage to original Christianity, but so has Protestantism.

I think the purest expression of first century Christianity I've ever known was when I was involved with a couple of "house churches." We met in homes midweek (in addition to Sunday worship at the "big church"), studied the Bible and prayed together, sometimes shared meals and songs together, and were closely involved in each others lives--praying for each other through the week, helping with problems and needs, etc. That is the kind of Christianity I see in the book of Acts--not megachurches with expensive buildings, stained glass, etc. I'm not knocking the megachurches per se, but it is clear that megachurches do not resemble the house-to-house worship and close, caring community of the first century church.

...so you reject things you consider to be "later additions" (essentially Catholic doctrines in other words).

Yes, but also a lot of Protestant trappings.

I think I begin to see your train of thought here. Of course people like Conor would simply argue that those "uniquely Catholic doctrines" were PART of the Early Church...

Yes, that is Conor's argument. The RCC is first century Christianity.

...you would have to prove instead that those doctrines did NOT EXIST until much later.

Hard to prove a negative. But if you view the Scriptures as complete and sufficient revelation (and I think a careful examination of the Bible shows that it is), then anything that is taught that cannot be found in or justified from the Scriptures need not be believed.

Example: I don't think transubstantiation is clearly, unambiguously taught in the Bible, but there is definitely a biblical case that can be made for it, so I think Conor has good reason to believe in the Eucharist as he does, even though I am unconvinced for my own faith. His case is quite logical, and supports his belief, but is not strong enough to persuade me that I should abandon my view of Communion as symbolic. If Conor is right and I am wrong, I see little harm to my soul in believing as I do, since I approach the sacrament of holy communion with asbolute solemnity and reverence. Even if I am mistaken, which is possible, God will not judge me harshly, since I acted in good faith and a clear conscience upon the light I have been given.

As to the various Christian, pseudo-Christian, and para-Christian sects, we have much the same situation today. There are cults and variations on a theme. All I can say is that God judges the human heart, not I. In a way, that's why I focus so intensely on the essentials (at least what I consider the essentials). As long as people understand what a genuine, authentic faith is Christ is all about, I don't worry so much about the peripherals and window dressing.

So if I wanted to get back to the early Church, how do I know which Christian group was "right"?

It's not about which group is right. It's not about identifying with a certain sect. It's about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

let's say modern Christians want to "get back to the source." What is the source? The only source I can see is Jesus himself. However, he left no writings, so we have to trust what his followers said about him.

Aha! You swerved right into the heart of the matter! Yes, the source is Jesus Himself. Everything is secondary next to Him. And Jesus Himself said:

John 5:39: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me."

Note, He is talking about the OLD TESTAMENT scriptures! You go through the OT, and if you know what you're looking for (prophecies and symbols and allusions regarding the Messiah), you find Jesus on every page. I've heard of people who have become Christians by reading the Old Testament alone and finding Christ in the OT.

Then you go to the NT, and you find a more full and specific revelation. And you see this marvelous, incredible consistency to the entire message, from Genesis to Revelation. For example, did you know that the first prophecy of the coming of Jesus is way back in the beginning of Genesis, right after Adam and Eve sinned. And God says to the serpent, Gen. 3:15, "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel." The woman's offspring is Jesus. Normally, in the OT, the offspring is thought of as begotten of the father, not the mother. The specific reference to the woman's offspring is a reference to the virgin birth. The serpent (Satan) will strike his heel (pierce him upon a cross, kill him in a death that is later cancelled by resurrection), but the offspring of the woman will crush the serpent's head (destroy Satan, sin, and death). That is the first of many, many examples where Christ is foreshadowed throughout the OT. And despite all the many authors, books, and years of compilation of the Bible, you see one theme that runs from Genesis to Revelation: God's redemption of the human race.

So when you raise questions about the canon of Scripture, etc., I can understand these questions, but they arise from a naturalistic view of Scripture that does not take into account that God is preserving His word, making sure that we have the revelation we need. If I am missing some of his revelation by ignoring the Apocrypha, or if Conor is mistaking some ancient human writings for God's revelation by receiving the Apocrypha, well, I don't think there's much harm done either way. The important thing is that the great core of the Bible, some 66 books, is God's revelation to us. And when you read it carefully, you hear not many voices but One.

...if Gnostics had won out, and written the bible...

Again, that's a naturalistic view (and perhaps you pose it for argument's sake, not because you accept it yourself). As I see it, God has preserved His church (the universal Christian church, not any one sect) and His Word in order to present the truth of Jesus Christ to the world. The Gnostics died out because they did not represent the truth God wanted to project to the world. This is not to judge the Gnostic heart and say they did not belong to God--only God knows. But they did not project the truth God wanted to preserve for the world.

I would be curious to research the reasons WHY the proto-orthodox won out.

I think it may come down to a vision that the then-pagan emperor Constantine had, when he saw the cross and the words "By this, conquer." From that time, Christianity was transformed from a banned faith to a state religion (not that a state religion is a good thing, but at least it resulted in the spread of Christianity in a new and powerful way).

I think if I ever were to change my religion, it would be to Judaism, because that was the religion of Jesus and his apostles.

My friend, Grace Lee Whitney, says that Christianity is the flower of Judaism, and that she is a follower of an ancient Jewish rabbi, Y'shua ha Mashiach, who was crucified, buried, and lives forevermore.

That is the gospel truth.

--wiz

Truth be told, after the stress let down of my last final yesterday I sort of lost my enthusiasm for this discussion. I enjoyed reading what followed though.

I will present why Catholics believe in Purgatory at some point, but I don't know when. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

Points of clarification: I never said that a bishop or priest or even the Pope could automatically interpret scripture correctly. The Church as a whole did interpret scripture a long, long time ago. As far as I know there have been no 'new' interpretations, as revelations ended with 'Revelation' http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) At various councils the Church has clarified its interpretation however.

I am certainly not on the defensive TAF. Absolutely nothing Wiz has said has been new to me. I have heard it all before, usually preceding the reasons why they are wrong. Obviously his arguments are convincing to many people, and they are good arguments, but I find the arguments against them more reasonable and more convincing. Otherwise I wouldn't believe as I do.

I am a poor hand at this, so if you really want to hear the other side, I have a number of books which outline it.



------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Conor--

I am a poor hand at this, so if you really want to hear the other side, I have a number of books which outline it.

You are too modest. You present a strong case and present it well. I've learned a great deal.

Thanks!

--wiz

I am certainly not on the defensive TAF. Absolutely nothing Wiz has said has been new to me. I have heard it all before, usually preceding the reasons why they are wrong. Obviously his arguments are convincing to many people, and they are good arguments, but I find the arguments against them more reasonable and more convincing. Otherwise I wouldn't believe as I do.

I do believe you are on the defensive, as is everyone who discusses here. You defended yourself right there! What everyone has been trying to show you is that this is not set in stone, and to claim you are undeniably correct is dangerous, in my opinion. How will you ever be able to change your mind on what you believe when you do this, if you reach new insight that will sway you in the other direction? We have all given you reason to doubt. I don't like that you said "...his arguments are convincing to many people". I think it is much more than that. He doesn't just have arguments, he has valid premises. He has given information along with how he interprets it. His interpretation does nothing for me, but the facts he presents do. He argues from a very safe, understandable position. You, however, still cling to this belief that your church is infallible, and therefore everything it tells you to do is correct. NOBODY here argues that if your church was the one true church then it is still right to go to another church and believe contrary to the true church's doctrine. The heart of this matter is that your claim that the RCC is infallible is VERY FAR from convincing. You can argue for it, as could anyone, but there is literally no means to prove this, much less show this beyond a reasonable doubt. And as I have said before, I see no reason at all why you would need this church to be infallible. You say we are inequipped to interpret the Bible for ourselves, so somebody else needs to do it and tell us what we should think. But are we not still interpreting what they tell us? I see this church as nothing more than a middle man.

However, this is not to say I do everything for myself. I read many other author's interpretations of the facts. But I NEVER will believe beforehand that the author I am reading is 100% correct. Do you see my point?

So, again I will say I have no reason to believe your church is infallible and there is no reason for me to change my views. What more, from what I have learned I can honestly say I don't much agree with some of your churches doctrines. That, to me, is not just reason to be skeptical of your claims, but reason to deny them and argue against them. You say everything Wiz said you have already heard before (I doubt this), but whatever the case if you never keep an open mind nothing will make any difference to you.

This is my proposition. I want you to honestly tell me your opinion on this. Which seems more logical:

1)Argue that the RCC is the one true church, and then believe in everything it teaches.

2)Search for the truth yourself, never claiming you are entirely correct, but trusting your judgement when it is made. THEN, make the decision which church is the true church. If everything it teaches is compatible to your beliefs, then you can believe it is the true church. But if there are some things you feel uneasy about, by all means have reason to doubt and seek God for the answer.

I am awaiting your "proof" of purgatory. I honestly had never heard of it until it was mentioned here, and I never saw any evidence of it in the Bible. The concept is completely foreign to me, and I can't see how anyone ever came up with it/gathered it from any tangible, verifiable truth.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

I see this church as nothing more than a middle man.

LOL!! I never thought of it like that, but there is some merit to the view of the organized, institutional, hierarchical church as a "middle man" between people and their God. I think that is an unfortunate role that the institutional church has played at times.

Now, I don't see the body of Christ, the overall fellowship of believers that we also call "the church" in that way. In that sense, the church is the bride of Christ, and the relationship between Christ and the church is intimate and bonded, no middle man at all.

I do believe that Conor has encountered some version of my arguments before. I trust his integrity, and I don't claim to have plowed any new ground here. I don't want to be perceived as attacking the RCC or trying to dissuade anyone from belonging to that church. Conor is a Christian brother, and I respect his views and his commitment to living out his faith.

--wiz

I most certainly have heard them before. What wiz presented was the same arguments I have been hearing from the Protestant side for about 6 or 7 years now. I have read many, many rebuttals to them as well.

I will get to my defense of Purgatory. Most of what I have to offer is reason, but there are a number of scriptural bases for it too. I would heavily, and I mean heavily, suggest Scott Hahn's Purgatory: Holy Fire script on that site on the second page (I think it is there, but I can get it if it isn't). It is a really good argument in favor of it.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Conor--

I went and grabbed Scott Hahn's Purgatory: Holy Fire transcript and just started reading the first few paragraphs. I noticed he refers to anti-Catholics and non-Catholics. I wonder how Hahn would classify me?

How would you classify me?

What defines a person as anti-Catholic?

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 29, 2000).]

Poor, poor choice of words, in my opinion. "Anti-" means against, hostile to. I hope this man doesn't feel everyone is out to get him. I mean, it is one thing to say someone doesn't believe the way you do, but to say they are against you for not believing as you do is rather harsh. But I am taking this out of context. Conor, I will read any material you can provide me once my finals are over. Just one more week...

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Conor and theahnfahn--

I just finished reading Hahn's Purgatory transcript and the transcript of the story of his conversion from a Presbyterian minister to a Roman Catholic. I wish he had defined the term "anti-Catholic" in the Purgatory piece--it left me wondering who he referred to.

But when I read his autobiography, I got a better picture of where he was coming from. As a Protestant, he himself was rabidly anti-Catholic--that is, he aggressively tried to convert Catholics out of the RCC and into Protestant Christianity.

That is something I would not do. Although I'm critical of some aspects of Catholic history and doctrine (just as I'm critical of some aspects of Protestant history and disagree with the doctrines of some Protestant denominations), I consider Catholics my brothers and sisters in Christ and I don't see their way of following Christ something they need to be "saved" from.

After reading his autobiography, I suspect Hahn would classify me as a nonCatholic rather than an antiCatholic. I disagree with a lot of his interpretation, but I agreed with a lot of what he said, too. Like Hahn, I'm disgusted that the Presbyterian Church USA (which I once belonged to) has taken a pro-abortion position, and I deeply respect that Catholic Church for remaining faithfully pro-life. That's one of many things I respect about the Roman Catholic Church.

At the risk of engaging in amateur psychoanalysis, I get an impression that some of Hahn's motivation for converting to Catholicism may be rooted (at least in part) in the zealous anti-Catholicism of his earlier days. It's not an uncommon pattern: I know people who were out-of-control sexaholics prior to converting to Christ; afterwards, they became totally celibate.

That's not the whole story in Hahn's case, of course--he went through an intellectual and spiritual crisis regarding his understanding of certain passages of Scripture. But I strongly suspect that his former intense antiCatholicism and the remorse and emotional/spiritual conflict that set up within him played some part in his decision to become a Roman Catholic.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 29, 2000).]

Just popped in.. hmm, sounds alot like our buddy St. Paul! ; )

I keep getting tempted to respond back here, when I really should study, then finish reading this thread. So sorry, I am TRYING not to keep coming back, but I am addicted I guess. lol (and if you are wondering, I can type pretty fast)

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 29, 2000).]

Conor—

A few observations on the Scott Hahn stuff I read last night. First, I found his thinking to be deep and profound, not in any way superficial. He has been on both sides of the street, and he has chosen a different side than mine, and I understand his reasons and agree that they are right for him. I do not agree that he is objectively correct in his interpretation of Scripture—I see problems in a number of his key arguments. But those problems would not fatally undermine his argument if you are predisposed to believe in Roman Catholicism.

Some of his more profound and powerful statements:
We treat our bodies with respect. We've got to learn to treat our souls the same way.
Absolutely!!

The essence of Christianity is Christ reproducing His life, His suffering, His death and then His resurrection in glory in us. That is the essence of Christianity. Christ is our substitute for Adam who did us in, but He is not a substitute in the sense that He was righteous so that we could be unrighteous.
Yes! That is a powerful corrective for the idea that is often heard in Protestantism that faith is everything and righteous living is unimportant. However, it is libelous to caricature Protestantism as PRIMARILY promoting faith without righteousness. Hahn doesn’t come out and make that accusation, but he cites several extreme excesses that I consider to be at the fringe of Protestantism, and he gives the impression (or at least does not correct the misimpression) that he is describing mainstream Protestantism. (For example, the “name it and claim it” view is very much a minor fringe element in Protestantism, but in reading Hahn you would think it is mainstream.)

Another great point:
Hebrews 12, verse 29, tells us that our God is a consuming fire. That's the kind of love He has. It just burns out of control. Our God is madly in love with us. He's madly in love with us. It's sheer madness for the God who owes us nothing, to whom we owe everything but to whom we gave practically nothing. He turns around and gives us everything including himself by becoming one of us and allowing us to kill him. He's madly in love with us, and that mad love is burning out of control and filling this vast universe.

What a beautiful, eloquent statement! And here’s another very true and powerful Hahn statement:

I've got to tell you, a lot of people are making salvation out to be heavenly welfare. No wonder it sells. I could fill a church in a matter of months, it I was preaching nothing but welfare from heaven for nothing we do. We don't have to suffer. We don't have to work. We don't have to obey. We should, but we don't have to. That's wrong, but it will sell in this century and in every age.

Like Hahn, I don’t believe in cheap grace. I believe in a tough-minded, demanding, brawny salvation that requires everything we are and have and do. I believe God uses suffering in our lives (he doesn’t cause it, but he uses it) in order to refine our character and our faith. But that in no way (IMO) has any bearing on Purgatory.

He goes on to make statements that I find logically insupportable. He draws a distinction between paying for our sins and making restitution for our sins that seems purely semantic and realistically meaningless. If Christ paid for our sins, but we have to make restitution for our sins in the form of penance and Purgatory, then Christ’s payment is incomplete and almost meaningless. Restitution is repayment. It’s like saying, “You owe me a debt of $10,000 but I will forgive the debt completely; however, I do require that you make restitution and give me the $10,000 you owe me.” That is pure double-talk. Hahn is just juggling words when he says:
Now are we paying for our sins? No, they are paid for. And the only way we can make restitution is because the life of Christ through the Holy Spirit has been poured out in us so that through our sufferings Christ's glory can be reproduced in us.

Christ is reproduced in us as our faith and character grow through the challenges and sufferings of this life. That is the message of Romans 8:29. The torture of Purgatory can’t make us Christlike. It's too late for that.

Hahn makes a very lengthy presentation ostensibly about Purgatory. The first 25 percent or so of his argument is scriptural, and is well-reasoned, though it is based on a paucity of Scripture passages, all of which are subject to differing interpretation. The rest of his argument is entirely based on inferences from broader principles that are not specifically dealing with the Purgatory issue.

The thing that I find so striking about his argument—a striking defect, it seems to me—is that he seems unable to point to Scripture, particularly the 66 books that I consider Scripture—and say, “Here is where Purgatory is clearly taught and explained.” Every other essential doctrine of Scripture (every one that I would consider essential, anyway) has abundant support.

Salvation by grace through faith (for example) is found in all four Gospels, especially John, and is woven throughout the letters of Paul (esp. Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians). Some people come along and say, “Well, James 2 conflicts with that idea,” but then I point to Romans 6 and say, “Read Romans 6 and James 2 side-by-side and you’ll see that Paul and James agree with each other—they both agree that salvation is by grace through faith, but if you don’t have righteous works, then it appears you don’t have a genuine faith—everything is still consistent.”

Where is the abundant, clear evidence for Purgatory? Why must the case be built up from inferences and vague references and unclear and arguable connections (Purgatory = Sheol) that are far, far, far from being definite and unambiguous. Why is the case based on such a slender selection of Scripture passages?

I find Hahn’s entire presentation fascinating, challenging, stimulating. I enjoyed reading it and found much to instruct me, much that I can agree with, much that even stretched my awareness and understanding. But I ultimately found his conclusions re: Purgatory to be unconvincing.

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 29, 2000).]

Kurgan--

Just popped in.. hmm, sounds alot like our buddy St. Paul! ; )

The same thought already occurred to me. A persecutor who joins the persecuted.

The analogy fails, however, in that Hahn never had a blinding revelation and a direct word from the Lord, and Hahn's conclusions are at odds with the doctrines of our buddy, Paul. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

--wiz

Ooops.

Add an "IMHO" to the above!

--wiz

Ha-ha! Just came across this quote and had to post it!

Christianity got over the difficulty of combining furious opposites by keeping them both, and keeping them both furious.
G. K. CHESTERTON

--wiz

Conor (or Kurgan or Ike or ???)--

An interesting thought just occurred to me. Martin Luther was a devoted Catholic who loved his Church, and he was a highly regarded teacher and theologian at the University. When he taught sola fide from the Scriptures, his insights seized imaginations all around him, and soon the entire university was talking about it and practicing it--not as Protestants, but as faithful Catholics.

Luther never had any trouble with the sola fide doctrine while he was within the church, and it was endorsed by many Catholic teachers and theologians. It wasn't until he posted the 95 Theses attacking the corrupt practice of selling indulgences that he ran afoul of Church authorities.

Even then he remained completely respectful toward Pope Leo X, as his letter to the Pope clearly shows. (See http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/nine5-pope.txt) )

I don't know if Leo X was himself corrupt or not, but he clearly knew about and tolerated the corrupt practice of selling indulgences, and when Luther very respectfully brought the problem to his attention, Leo responded by excommunicating Luther.

Ultimately, under pressure from the Reformation and from the faithful who were being oppressed by corrupt practices, the church ended up making many of the same reforms that Luther had tried to make from within. Luther did not choose to leave the church, but was chased out of it.

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/icons/icon5.gif) Now, here's the question I have:

If Leo X had chosen to respond to Luther's concerns, clean up the corruption, and elevate Luther for his conscientious and courageous stand and spiritual insights, what would have been the result? What do you think would have happened?

My own opinion: The Reformation would have never taken place, Luther would today be regarded as one of the great "doctors" of the Catholic Church, and he might even be known as St. Martin the Reformer! (Okay, the St. Martin is tongue-in-cheek--but the rest of it, I honestly believe.)

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 30, 2000).]

Purgatory presumes two things. The difference between guilt and punishment, and the difference between mortal and venial sin.

God forgives the guilt of sin, yet He still requires reparation (atonement, expiation) for sins.

"David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David, 'The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.'" 2 Sam, 12:13-14

David was still punished. The Bible also clearly distinguishes two levels of sin.

"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal." 1 Jn 5:16-17

"but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death." James 1:14-15

James distinguishes beginning sin from mature sin that brings death. Such beginning sins that aren't mature are called venial sins, as they will not go to Hell if they are unforgiven. The consequence for unforgiven mortal sins is Hell. Souls that die in a perfect state of grace go directly to Heaven. Those in unforgiven mortal sin go to Hell. There is obviously a middle ground, for those with the scars of sin on their soul that will not enter Hell, yet are not pure enough for Heaven where nothing unclean will enter.

The Bible is clear that God is perfect holiness and we are called to that perfection.

"So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mt. 5:48

"…as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, 'Be holy because I am holy.'" 1 Pet 1:15-16

Without this perfect holiness we cannot enter Heaven.

"Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14

"…nothing unclean will enter it [heaven]." Rev 21:27

The name for this place of purification before entry into Heaven has been called Purgatory. Purgatory consists of these three points:

1) Only imperfect saints in the state of grace enter Purgatory. It is not a second chance. Your destiny has been decided.

2) Purgatory is for purification and reparation. The effects of sin are purged and punishments due to sin are paid.

3) It is temporary. It will cease to exist once the last person has gone through it.

The word itself is not found in the Bible, any more than 'Trinity' is. The doctrine itself is implied several times.

"And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come." Mt. 12:32

There is the implication that some sin can be forgiven in the next life. Sin cannot be forgiven in Hell, nor is it necessary in Heaven. Such remission must be in Purgatory.

In Luke 16 Jesus describes the fate of a rich man and Lazarus. The rich man is obviously not in Heaven because he is in torment. The man cannot be in Hell because he exhibits no sign of one damned. He begs for his brothers to be spared what he is going through. Such an act of charity is not possible for one in Hell, as well as interacting with Abraham.. It is a story, true, but Jesus would not be committing false witness about the reality of Hell.

As well, in the story of the unforgiving servant, Jesus concludes with the fact that the wicked servant was thrown in prison even after his debt was forgiven for mistreating his fellow servant. He is thrown in jail not forever, but until all his debt had been paid.


If someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire." 1 Cor 3:15

This cannot refer to the eternal loss of Hell. Also, no one suffers in Heaven. Again the middle state is referred to.


"For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few person, eight in all, were saved through water." 1 Pet. 3:18-20

"For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead that, though condemned in the flesh in human estimation, why might live in the spirit in the estimation of God." 1 Pet 4:6

Note that is a prison for disobedient spirits, and yet they were saved when Jesus preached to them. It wasn't Heaven, it wasn't Hell. It is not the 'limbo of the fathers' where the righteous souls of the OT waited for Christ, because it is a place for disobedient spirits. St. Peter is describing a temporary state. It at least proves the existence of a third place.

Of course the clearest affirmation of the doctrine comes from the second book of Maccabees, but that has been shown to be less than useful to Protestants. The book, even if not included in inspired scripture, accurately reflects the Jews of second century BC. Jews prayed for their dead, and still do. I honestly find it puzzling that the seven books in question can be questioned at all, because the NT isn't questioned. The canon for the NT came from the same source that included the 'apocrypha' in the OT. If you reject their version of the OT, how can you trust their (and your) version of the NT? On what grounds?

Another point is that the earliest Christians clearly prayed for the dead. Ancient Christian tomb inscriptions from the second and third centuries frequently contain prayers for the dead. An example is the epitaph of Abercius (180 AD), "The citizen of a prominent city, I erected this while I lived, that I might have a resting place for my body. Abercius is my name, a disciple of the chaste shepherd who feeds his sheep on the mountains and in the fields, who has great eyes surveying everywhere, who taught me the faithful writings of life. Standing by, I, Abercius ordered this to be inscribed; truly I was in my seventy second year. May everyone who is in accord with this and who understands it pray for Abercius"

Of course praying for the dead only makes sense if the early Christians believed in Purgatory. Tertullian, writing in the year 211 AD, presents the practice of praying and sacrificing for the dead as an established custom: "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries." The practice of praying for the dead was universal until the Reformation.

"May the Lord grant mercy to the family of Onesiphorus because he often gave me new heart and was not ashamed of my chains… May the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day." 2 Tim 1:16-18

St. Paul at least believes praying for his departed friend will help him, which only makes sense in the context of Purgatory. Praying for the dead presumes an intermediate level of purification, whatever you wish to call it.

In short, a place such as Purgatory is necessary to purify us of the effects of sin. Jesus enabled us to get to Heaven. Purgatory makes us ready for it. Obviously not all go through Purgatory (such as the thief). We believe the Thief made a perfect act of contrition before God, and given full indulgence by Jesus. He was truly, truly sorry for everyting he had done to hurt God. God purified him in that instant. I can only imagine the pain it must have caused him to have fully realized the depth of his sin.




------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Thank you, Conor. That was a strong, concise, well-reasoned, well-documented presentation. I think you did a much better job than Scott Hahn at making the case, btw. His presentation made many of the same points, but rambled considerably. Yours is much better focused.

Question: What is Purgatory like? And how do we know that for sure?

(Please don't hurry to reply--I'm sure this is a busy time for you, and I really appreciate the time you took to craft the previous post.)

--wiz

It was a good argument, but I still wouldn't claim it to be well-reasoned. Perhaps it is, but not to me, at least. I always play the skeptic, especially in cases like this. This is no offense to you Conor, I know you couldn't have formed the argument any other way, but one should always be wary of isolated references like the ones in your argument. Many of your assumptions from the quotes you gave seemed very weak to me, and when taken out of context I can hardly claim them to be correctly-reasoned. This isn't your fault, it is a lack of the information I need to make a decision. I will look in to this, to make sure your references were gathered from more than a mere hunting and pecking of the Bible. I sometimes made the mistake of looking at one line in the Bible and jumping to wild conclusions, but I soon found that applying that line to the paragraph, passage, or even the whole book focused things for me.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

There is speculation about what Purgatory is like (7 levels of varying intensity, blah blah) but I don't think anyone actually knows. I can't imagine it is that bad an experience myself. I mean, how bad could any amount of pain possibly be if you knew for a fact you'd come face to face with God at the end of it?

Another thing I need to point out that I forgot. Have you been saying that Catholics believe we are saved by good works? Unless I am horribly mistaken, every Christian denomination believes we are justified by grace alone. Faith comes when we accept that grace, and good works are a necessary result of accepting that grace. I am unaware of any teaching that good works actually save us.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

What do you even define as "good works"? To some, that may be loving every man and woman and expressing that love in every way possible. To others, good works are paying dues to a church and holding snakes. Do you consider the celebration of the Eucharist a "good work"? I think we need to define our terms here.

More response on Purgatory, faith and works, etc. to come.

Meanwhile, when you get time, Conor, I'd be interested in your thoughts on the question I posed: Had the Pope and the church dealt with the corruption in the church during Luther's time, isn't it virtually certain that Luther would have remained in the church and the Reformation never would have happened? Clearly, if Luther had not been excommunicated and a death sentence (actually, a kill-on-sight "hit" contract) put on him, he never would have left the church. I don't see any other possible way of interpreting the facts of history.

--wiz

Conor--

"Crime and punishment. Sin and penance. I could step into a confessional, unload my conscience, then take my five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys. But that seemed a feeble gesture." --Toronto Star columnist Rosie DiManno

Have you been saying that Catholics believe we are saved by good works? Unless I am horribly mistaken, every Christian denomination believes we are justified by grace alone. Faith comes when we accept that grace, and good works are a necessary result of accepting that grace. I am unaware of any teaching that good works actually save us.

In the discussion of faith v. works, grace is not the issue. Grace is a given. That is God’s part of the equation. The question here is: What is our part of the equation? What is the saving response to grace that we must make? Is it faith? Is it works? Or is it faith plus works?

And TheAhnFahn refines the issue further by asking: What do we mean by works? Is it good deeds toward others? Is it rituals and religious observances? Or is it both?

My clear impression is that Catholics believe that a person is saved by faith plus works. If that were not so, then there would be no dispute over so-called “sola fide,” because we would all believe in faith alone, both RCC and Protestants. Since Catholicism believes in salvation by faith yet rejects “faith alone,” it must believe in faith plus works.

This is a position I find impossible to understand, given that the Scriptures are so clear that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith, NOT by works at all. There are many, many passages which make this plain, including Ephesians 2:8-10:

8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

There’s the whole package right there—God’s grace, our faith; that alone is what saves. Where do the works come in? As God’s workmanship we are created to do good works. We are His workmanship because He refashions and reshapes us by saving us and changing us and making us increasingly more Christlike as we mature. If we don’t do good works, then it shows that we are not his workmanship, and our faith is hollow and meaningless and not the kind that saves. It is a subtle truth, but it is not circular reasoning. Faith and works are both a response to grace, but it is only the response of faith that saves. The response of works proves the genuineness of the saving faith. Saving faith does not exist in an absence of works, of course, but at the same time we have to recognize that the works do not save, only faith does (by God’s grace, of course).

What are the works we are to do?

James 2 spells out some very practical, non-ritualized kinds of works that demonstrate the reality of one’s saving faith, including meeting human need for food and clothing, not discriminating against the poor or showing favoritism to the rich and powerful, etc. These are very practical works. James does not talk about ritual but about truly doing works toward our brothers and sisters that demonstrate the reality of our faith.

But the Catholic tradition has compounded and confused the issue (IMO) by layering Christianity with rituals and traditions that are perceived by many of the Catholic faithful as what I might call “saving works.” I have personally known a number of Catholics who have no concept of salvation by faith. They have put their entire hope and trust in their identification with the Church, by observing various rituals, by going to confession and performing penance (like the “five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys” in the quote at the top of this post) that is performed ritualistically and without meaning. Ask them if they know what will happen to them when they die, and they shrug and say they “hope” they’ve done enough good deeds to get to Heaven. They have no assurance, and they really have no faith in Christ, only a church affiliation and a lot of rules to observe. (In fact, I just recently heard that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1993, contains some 3,000 rules and regulations that must be observed in order to be a good Catholic.)

(An aside before proceeding: I know that some priests are trying to inject more reality into the process of penance—instructing a penitent to perform an act of service instead of merely reciting a rote prayer repetitively. But that is still regarded by many Catholics as a work that saves, because many Catholics do not understand that salvation is by faith alone.)

(Another aside: Are there excesses and deviations from the truth on the Protestant side? ABSOLUTELY!! Just as there is a tendency among many Catholics to trust works and rituals and church identification to save them, many Protestants believe that faith alone saves, so if they have mentally agreed with a Christian creed at one point in their lives, if they have “accepted Christ” at some point in their lives, then they can go out and live like sinners and still be saved—so they think. “I’ve got my ‘fire escape,’ my get out of Hell card, so now it doesn’t matter how I live—I’m home free!” That is wrong—just as wrong as trusting in works. So the works emphasis in Catholicism can be carried to one false extreme, and the faith emphasis in Protestantism can be carried to the opposite false extreme. The error of taking works too far is called Legalism. The error of taking faith too far is called License. Either extreme is wrong and dangerous to the soul.)

About all the rituals and rules and observances and traditions of Catholicism: I do not see the majestic and incredibly rational God of the Anthropic Principle being so meticulously stuck on thousands of little rituals and observances and rules that must be obeyed. Nor do I see the God and Father of Jesus Christ being so stuck on rituals and rules—quite the opposite. When you read the story of Jesus, you see Him coming into a situation much like today’s Catholicism (it was 1st century Judaism) and confronting the rigidity and rules and regulations which bound people to the letter of a religion instead of freeing them to worship in spirit and in truth.

I don’t say that Catholicism is a false religion, or a counterfeit brand of Christianity. But I do believe it is the natural tendency of people over time to take the purity of a faith relationship with God (such as existed in ancient Israel or 1st century Christianity) and to gradually encrust it and overlay it with layers of tradition, rituals, and rules that obscure the simple, beautiful truth. That, I believe, is what Luther discovered the Church had become by the 16th century, and he sought, however imperfectly, to return to a 1st century Christianity. My major criticism of Luther would be that he didn’t go far enough. We need continual reformation and renewal, and we need to cleanse our faith of man-made religious overlays that lead to either legalism or license. Even Protestants need continual reformation and renewal. We all have to get back to the Source, which is the Word, both the living Word of John 1 (Jesus Himself) and the written Word of God.

The problem with the early church was that the Reformation should have been going on continuously for 1500 years before Luther came along. By that time, the corruption was so epidemic and endemic, it became impossible to root it out, except by actually leaving the organized institution. The church that left the organized institutional RCC was much closer to the original church than the church that the RCC had become. That is why, contrary to what the Catholic church teaches, I am as much an heir of Jesus and the apostles as any Catholic is. Not more of an heir, but not less either (though the RCC claims I am less).

All of which is my usual long-winded way of getting to this conclusion:

The Catholic church appears to me to teach a faith-plus-works salvation, and the “works” appear to me to be definable both as works of service and kindness to others and legalistic works of Church ritual, rules, and traditions. That is my perception. If I am shown to be wrong, I will gladly stand corrected.

--wiz


------------------
"God never wrought a miracle to convince atheism because his ordinary works convince it."
--FRANCIS BACON (1551-1626)

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 03, 2000).]

I am honestly not quite sure how to respond. I am almost certain (I only qualify it because I admit there is a chance I am wrong) that the Church teaches we are not saved by works. Or by faith alone. It is a strange distinction I am trying to draw here. I am saying we are not saved by faith alone because simply having faith is not enough. We must do what is right, we must obey Jesus, we must follow Jesus. Even the demons believe. In that way works are necessary, but they don't save us. We must try to be like Jesus, and that includes good works, so we must do good works.

I am also not sure how I would define 'good works' exactly. I could say it is doing what Jesus would do. Living Christianity.

I would also disagree heavily with the assertion that Luther was trying to return to anything. I have seen no evidence whatsoever (and much to the contrary) that what he implemented had ever been believed or practiced by the Apostles or their successors.

I think you are implying that the Jewish law itself was in the wrong. I don't see that. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. The Jewish religion has many rituals instigated and approved of by God in the OT. Obviously some of them were no longer necessary because of circumstances (like circumcision, which was no longer physically necessary), but I don't see any reason that God-sanctioned rituals wouldn't continue. The matters of which rituals are to be done I leave to my Church, as the only source of Sacred Tradition passed down once for all by the Apostles (my belief).

Obviously, many of Luther's complaints were valid (the sale of indulgences was absolute nonsense that should have been thrown out), but when he wanted to throw out a number of key Christian practices and beliefs (as well as wanting to toss some books from the NT like James and Esther because he didn't like what they said, but didn't dare) I can't see how the Church could give in when they saw him like I do. Trying to compromise the wholeness of Christ's Church, whatever his motives.

I think it would be helpful to show why the Church believes the office of Peter holds the authority of Christ's Steward. I will make a case soon (today or tomorrow).

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited May 03, 2000).]

Conor--

I would also disagree heavily with the assertion that Luther was trying to return to anything. I have seen no evidence whatsoever (and much to the contrary) that what he implemented had ever been believed or practiced by the Apostles or their successors.

I understand that you don't agree that Luther was actually taking the church back toward original Christianity, but I don't see how you can deny that he was trying to, that that was his intent, however misguided you consider him to be.

Obviously, he believed that the church had become polluted with manmade rules and traditions and practices. That's the whole idea of "Sola Scriptura," to strip away 1500 years of added tradition and distill Christianity down to only what is found in Scripture. You can (and do) argue that Luther ignores oral tradition that is valid (IYO) alongside of Scripture, tradition which you say goes back to the beginning.

But given the fact that Luther didn't see oral tradition in the same light as you do, he saw himself as trying to return to the first century origins of the faith. I don't expect you to agree that he was right, but I should think it would be completely obvious that, however misguided you may see him to be, that is what he was trying to do. He wasn't trying to invent a new religion that never existed before. In his own mind, at least, he was trying (especially while he was working within the church, prior to being excommunicated) to refine the church from within and return it to its Scriptural moorings and beginnings.

I think you are implying that the Jewish law itself was in the wrong.

No, no, no, not the Old Testament law!

But the thousands of rules and traditions and restrictions that had grown up around the law, particularly what Jesus called "the leaven of the Pharisees," which had caused the law to swell as leaven causes bread to swell. Jesus never attacked the OT Law of Moses, but continually battled the additional legalistic trappings of Pharasaism (which frankly remind me so much of the rituals and legalism of Catholicism) that the Jewish leaders had added to the original purity of the Law, which placed the people in a spiritual stranglehold.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

You're right. Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it--but he also came to abolish legalism so that people could worship in spirit and in truth.

--wiz



------------------
"God never wrought a miracle to convince atheism because his ordinary works convince it."
--FRANCIS BACON (1551-1626)

Conor—

I wanted to get back to you with some response to your purgatory explanation. I won’t respond point by point and verse by verse, although I will make some general statements that should include and be responsive to all of your points and all of your verses.

You say:
Purgatory presumes two things. The difference between guilt and punishment, and the difference between mortal and venial sin. God forgives the guilt of sin, yet He still requires reparation (atonement, expiation) for sins.

I earlier responded to this same distinction in Hahn’s argument, and my response remains unchanged. I quote my earlier post:

[Hahn] draws a distinction between paying for our sins and making restitution for our sins--a distinction that seems purely semantic and realistically meaningless. If Christ paid for our sins, but we have to make restitution for our sins in the form of penance and Purgatory, then Christ’s payment is incomplete and almost meaningless. Restitution is repayment. It’s like saying, “You owe me a debt of $10,000 but I will forgive the debt completely; however, I do require that you make restitution and give me the $10,000 you owe me.” That is pure double-talk.

The Bible makes no distinction between the forgiveness that Christ purchased on the cross and the atonement and expiation and propitiation that Christ purchased on the cross. It’s all the same act, the same death, the same sacrifice, the same blood that buys it all. We cannot pay the debt, we cannot make restitution, because we don’t have the resources. Only Jesus himself has the perfect resources to repay that debt, and He did it, finally, once and for all, on the cross.

Some scriptural examples (in brief) of the principle:

Romans 3:25: “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.”
Heb 2:17 “… that He might make atonement for the sins of the people...”
1John 2:2 “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”
1John 4:10 “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.”

You used the word “reparation” with the parenthetical synonyms of atonement and expiation. I checked my computer Bible (several translations) for the word “reparation” or “reparations” and it does not appear. I checked atonement and expiation, and the only uses I found were related to what Christ accomplished on the cross, not to anything we can do in the way of penance or hard time in Purgatory.

I do not see that the David and Bathsheba story applies. What happened to David was not penance or Purgatory but the consequences of sin. I was acquainted with a young man who made a commitment of his life to Christ as Lord after living a sexually promiscuous lifestyle. His sins were forgiven, but the natural consequences of his sins remained (his body was ravaged by a sexually transmitted disease that ultimately took his life). The fact that this young man suffered and died did not in any way make restitution or atonement for his sin—it was just the normal sequelae of a certain kind of behavior. The concept that we can in any way make reparation or atonement to God for our sin is alien to the Scriptures.

You cite passages such as:
"So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect." Mt. 5:48
and
"…as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in every aspect of your conduct, for it is written, 'Be holy because I am holy.'" 1 Pet 1:15-16
and
"Strive for peace with everyone, and for that holiness without no one will see the Lord." Heb 12:14
Of course, God calls us to good works and righteous conduct. And when we fail in that, we have this promise:
1John 1:9: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

Notice how that verse connects with this one that you cited: "…nothing unclean will enter it [heaven]." Rev 21:27 Of course nothing unclean will enter heaven, but it is God who purifies us from unrighteousness and uncleanness by his forgiveness, not by our being punished in this life or roasted in Purgatory.

You say that the word Purgatory is not found in the Bible, any more than 'Trinity' is. The doctrine is implied, you say. But the concept of the Trinity is not merely implied, it is explicitly stated. There are many, many passages that refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, including quite a few that name all three in a single phrase. But the biblical evidence you cite for Purgatory is slender and inferential and based on scattered passages that have more than one reasonable interpretation. You cannot compare the clear teaching of the Trinity to the obscure and questionable purported references to Purgatory.

The rest of the passages you refer to, such as Mt. 12:32 or Luke 16, are inconclusive and unpersuasive. “…either in this age or in the age to come” does not seem like it can refer to Purgatory, since “age” (Gr. aion, usually translated “world”) appears in context to refer to this life or the afterlife, not to any inbetween state such as Purgatory. And it is a stretch to conclude that either Heb. Sheol or Greek Hades = Purgatory. I can buy the idea of a inbetween place, not only because it is found in the Bible, but because it matches the external evidence I have seen, including well-corroborated cases of Near-Death Experiences or NDEs. But the idea that the inbetween state is Purgatory, and that the church can get you a lighter sentence through indulgences, penance, prayers, good works, in effect by buying off either God Himself or the church (and yes, that’s how I see this elaborate system of tit-for-tat payoffs)—to me, that smacks of man-made religion, like the religion of the Pharisees. It does not match up with the pure, rational, beautiful character of the God of the Bible or the God of the Anthropic Principle. I’m sorry, but it doesn’t (IMO).

And I have to come back to the historical evidence. We know that the church has used Purgatory as a corrupt money-making scheme. The selling of indulgences was a racket (the church still gives indulgences today, but thankfully does not sell them anymore). There is also strong historical evidence that the idea of Purgatory was borrowed from Mesopotamian pagan religions and grafted onto Scripture passages having to do with sheol and hades. The idea took hold under a corrupt pope, Gregory, around AD 600 and was not confirmed as part of the deposit of Catholic faith until the Second Council of Lyons, more than twelve centuries after Christ. Why was it not confirmed in the second or third century if it is such an ancient and central doctrine? Why did it take well over a millennium? And why was it confirmed during the most corrupt period in the history of the Catholic Church?

The canon for the NT came from the same source that included the 'apocrypha' in the OT. If you reject their version of the OT, how can you trust their (and your) version of the NT? On what grounds?

In a sense, I do not reject the apocrypha. I agree with Jerome in objecting to the apocrypha as inspired Scripture. Jerome felt that the apocrypha was useful for historical and moral instruction, but not as a source of doctrine. I see it the same way. Many Protestant denominations use the apocrypha in that way (including Anglicans and Lutherans), but do not view it as on par with inspired Scripture. The apocrypha was not considered fully canonical in the early church. Many other Catholic scholars besides Luther viewed it as Jerome did. Pope Leo X, who excommunicated Luther, proclaimed the apocrypha as fully inspired Scripture in response to Luther, and over the objections of many Catholic scholars at that time. Today, the fact that it was not immediately and early accepted as fully canonical is evidenced by the fact that the Catholic Church itself calls the books of the apocrypha “deuterocanonical,” or secondarily canonical.

Of course praying for the dead only makes sense if the early Christians believed in Purgatory.

No, praying for the dead makes sense if you believe in any kind of middle place between life and afterlife—not necessarily Purgatory as it is taught by the RCC. And I really must suspend judgment on the entire issue of that middle place. Clearly, Jesus told the thief on the cross, “today you will be with me in paradise.” There’s no middle place in that statement. It may be that the resurrection did away with a need for a middle place, I just don’t know. The fact that many early Christians believed in certain things, such as praying for the dead, does not make it so.

The bottom line, as I see it, is that it can be shown that so many beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church are late additions. Even if you make the case that these beliefs were generally accepted for centuries before they were “officially” made part of the “deposit of faith,” it is clear that for many years, these practices and beliefs and doctrines were NOT part of the official deposit of faith. They didn’t become official doctrine until (in many cases) a thousand years or more after Christ. This clearly throws the claim that the RCC is the one and only original first century Christian church into serious, SERIOUS question.

Meanwhile, my claim that I am practicing first century Christianity by practicing only biblical Christianity cannot be questioned (except on grounds of RCC “infallible” authority), because it is clear that the Bible was closed by the end of the first century. That was the original point that began this dialogue, and I haven’t seen anything that would alter my opinion on that claim.

--wiz

Well a critical scholar would probably say that no, the Bible was not closd until much later, as you have all sorts of manuscript variations and different canons stretching out to the third century and beyond.

The bible being "closed" would only be in the opinion of a certain group. After all, Marcion had a canon before anyone else, and he made the claim that Jesus was not divine, certainly going against what the orthodox Christians believed at the time.

Again, I say, if you are trying to get back to "first century Christianity" I ask you WHICH first century Christianity are you trying to get back to? A critical scholar would argue that the Bible was written by Christians from a variety of groups and belief systems, and that the canon represents essentially a committee dictated compromise of documents. And of course members of other groups were excluded, and so they put together their own canons.

Kurgan