REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Two letters from the times of the Early Christians:

"The Epistle of St. Ignatius to St. John the Apostle

Ignatius, and the brethren who are with him, John the holy presbyter.

We are deeply grieved at thy delay in strengthening us by thy addresses and consolations; thy absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten, then, to come, for we believe it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather secret matters. But Salome also, whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they report, she is cheerful in persecutions and afflictions, free from murmuring in the midst of penury and want, grateful to those that injure her, and rejoices when exposed to troubles; she sympathizes with the wretched and the afflicted as sharing in their afflictions, and is not slow to come to their assistance. Moreover, she shines forth gloriously as contending in the fight of faith against the pernicious conflicts of vicious principles or conduct. She is the lady of our new religion and the handmaid among the faithful in all works of piety. She is indeed devoted to the humble, and she humbles herself more devotedly than the devoted, and is wonderfully magnified by all, while at the same time she suffers detraction from the Scribes and Pharisees. Besides these points, many relate to us other things regarding her. We do not, however, go so far as to believe all in every particular; nor do we mention such to thee. But, as we are informed by those who are worthy of credit, there is in Mary the mother of Jesus an angelic purity of nature allied with the nature of humanity. And such reports as these have greatly excited our emotions, and urge us eagerly to desire a sight of this (if it be lawful so to speak) heavenly prodigy and most sacred marvel. But do thou in haste comply with this our desire; and fare thou well. Amen.



The Epistle of Ignatius to the Virgin Mary

Her friend Ignatius to the Christ-bearing Mary.

Thou oughtest to have comforted and consoled me who am a neophyte, and a disciple of thy John. For I have heard things wonderful to tell respecting thy Jesus, and I am astonished by such a report. But I desire with my whole heart to obtain information concerning the things which I have heard from thee, who wast always intimate and allied with Him, and who wast acquainted with His secrets. I have also written to thee at another time, and have asked thee concerning the same things. Fare thou well; and let the neophytes who are with me be comforted of thee, and by thee, and in thee. Amen."

As for the Immaculate Conception...well, the Blessed Virgin herself appeared to a little French girl, and referred to herself as "the Immaculate Conception". Incidentally, that little French girl is now looking beautiful, her spirit having departed over a century ago.

Think of it this way. What was the holiest object in the Old Testament? The Ark of the Covenant. Why was the Ark of the Covenant holy? Because of what it contained (the Rod of Aaron, the first priest, manna, and the Word of God enscribed in stone), and Who rested there (the shekinah glory, the Holy Spirit). The Blessed Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. She is holy because of what she contained (The body of the Eternal High Priest (rod of Aaron), the Bread of Life (manna), and the Word of God enfleshed), and Who rested upon her "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you".

A link on the Immaculate Conception, after digging deep through the link I posted before.

Immaculate Conception

One note on this link: "The person of Jesus Christ is divine, not human" but the person of Jesus Christ is in fact both divine and human.

Incidentally, the phrase "full of grace" appears one other time in the Bible, in John 1: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

But I see over and over that God can remove His annointing from an establishment He has started if it goes wrong in the heart, which I believe the leadership of the RC church did ... and the True Church will spring up in the lives of believers elsewhere. The Church of Christ will never die - and it does NOT have to be confined to any particular "church" structure, IMO.

Okay, a question: If you think that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer a Christian church, why did you take communion there? Also, how exactly do you think the Catholic Church has "gone wrong"? Do you refer merely to doctrinal fallacies?

An article on Christ and the Church, especially the Catholic Church ceasing to be Christian. Note: the article is written from a Traditionalist viewpoint, meaning that the author certainly implies that non-Catholics cannot be saved. This is not the teaching of the Church. However, despite the fact that they are a schismatic sect, I don't remember anything else in the article contrary to the teachings of the Church.

BTW, re: G. K. Chesterton: Out of curiosity, why did you mention his quote about tradition a while ago?

But neither is there anything that says you need to believe what a church authority says without considering it yourself, IMO

I agree. The Catholic Church does NOT teach for us to never consider things for ourselves, by any means. She would only teach that if she herself did not really believe they are true, but only teaches them "to keep the masses enthralled" or for some other similar reason. I think we can all agree that that's rather silly. However, it is like you're description of wifely submission. We are not to "submit mindlessly"; we have minds, and voices, and we are to use them. However, just as the wife is to ultimately submit to her husband, so we are to ultimately submit to the Church, and through her, Christ.

Teaching Church

Matthew 18:17 "And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector."

Sounds pretty authoritative to me. This passage is referring to sins not doctrine; but, IMO, authority is authority is authority.

Acts 20:28 "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

What is to shepherd? To guide. How can a Church which does not, when it comes right down to it, have any authority, guide?

In Ephesians 5, " just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish."

"A glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle...holy and without blemish." Sounds more likely to be right than I am.

1 Tim 3: 15 "but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

The Pillar and Ground of the Truth sounds like something that we ought to listen to, doesn't it?

Again, I see the Church as made up of believers, not made up of hierarchy. It's hard to word this, but do you see what I mean?

Now, here is where there is a difference in Protestantism and Catholicism. Protestantism is "either/or"; Catholicism is "both/and". Saved "Either" by faith "Or" by works; saved "Both" by faith "And" by works. "Either" worship Christ, "or" revere His Mother; "Both" worship Christ, "And" revere His Mother. Made "Either" of a hierarchy "Or" of believers, made "Both" of a hierarchy "And" of believers.

In slightly related news (I think we talked a bit about this a few days ago), I last night had the singular experience of watching Braveheart in Russian. o.O

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Whew, finally got all that done.

*wonders if this is the first time he's had four posts in a row*

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
*wonders if this is the first time he's had four posts in a row*

*doubts it*

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Who wants to go through and check all 6-some thousand?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Is THAT what's under (or not under) those kilts? I always thought they wore cute little boxers!

Perhaps the fact that I'm a descendant of Robert the Bruce explains why I like to run around the house in my skivvies ...

or less...

Personally, I think all men should wear kilts. And wear nothing under them.

[Rían]

Thanks for the posts, Gwai. I can tell you spent a lot of time one them. I disagree with many of your points, and don't wish to get into any more detail at this time. My main concern is that people are aware that not all Christians believe what the Catholic church believes. I might get into more detail later; don't know... but it's just getting too long to comment on each point, and as I said before, I continue to disagree with many of them.

But I still think we agree on the main (to me) points - God is our creator; mankind chose to sin; this sin rightly separates us from a holy and perfect God; Jesus voluntarily came to earth and suffered and died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins; those who choose to believe all of the above, and take action on the belief such that they make Jesus Lord of their lives (IOW, it's not just a meaningless "word" belief), have the relationship restored, because the debt of their sin is paid, and they will be in heaven for all eternity with God.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
If the Catholic church teaches what Gwai just said about infant baptism, then I'm OK with that. But I don't think that's what Guill was saying ... I'd like to hear from him, whenever he has some time (we all have loads of free time, right? *sigh* I wish!

Well, lets break it down and see if I do.

Being baptized and going to heaven are two very different things.

Agreed. Being baptized means one is Christian... being Christian is a huge honor, but an equally huge responsibility. I would venture to guess that if there is anyone in Hell, Christians would probably out number everyone else.

The Church believes that baptizing an infant protects their soul; UNTIL they reach the Age of Accountability.

I can agree with this as well. Infants are in a state of developmental innocence. Having them baptized in an assurance that they are saved, especially because they can’t sin. I would also like to add to this that baptism confers a real grace that helps the infant or anyone else baptized for that matter. Baptism isn’t just a stamp of approval, but the creation of a new life, a rebirth of the child into a life filled with Christ’s grace.

The idea that someone automatically went to heaven because they were baptized would be very un-Catholic.

Well, I would think that it would be pretty definite that a baptized infant who is incapable of sinning would enjoy eternal bliss in God’s kingdom... and I’m personally inclined to believe that this would hold true for unbaptized children as well.

Baptism is the circumcision of the new Covenant; it intitiates us into the Covenant, but it Does Not ensure that we enter heaven.

I’m in total agreement here. Being born again of water and spirit does not insure that the new person will always live in the light of Christ. Two notable examples that I can think of off-hand: both Napoleon and Fidel Castro were baptized as Christians, Catholic Christians at that; they are certainly not the most virtuous of souls for Christian emulation. However, it can not be disputed that both of these men were and are Christians, that both men were reborn through water and the spirit into new life with Christ... but I strongly suspect that their actions reflect the fact that they did not continue to live that new life. Whether they are “saved� or not, well that’s not for me or anyone else to guess.

Salvation for the Catholic is an ungoing process; Catholics don't believe that being baptized means your definitely going to heaven any more than you would believe that going to Church means one automatically "gets in".

Agreed. Catholics don’t have the “Jesus Prayer.� Not that it’s not a useful prayer, or anything, but accepting into my life a deep faith in Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior is no guarantee that I’m going to be saved, either. We are Christians by virtue of baptism, we are good Christians by how we practice Christian virtue, faith, hope and charity being the most fundamental of these virtues. God grants us the grace to be good Christians, and it is by virtue that we co-operate with this grace in what Gwaimir calls “an ongoing process.� It is one thing to say “I believe,� and it is another thing to believe. Faith is a way of life, and if real it shows in everything we do, the big and the small.

I think that I’m saying the same thing that Gwaimir is saying regarding baptism. I think, though, that part of the problem here is a general misunderstanding: baptism isn’t just a ritual that acts out someone’s faith. Baptism is much more radical than that. Baptism puts to death the old person, and gives life to a new person:

Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3-4)

Baptism, then, affects a real change... it gives birth to a new person. Of course, that new person, even though they are equipped through baptism with the weapons and armor to fend off the evil one and the powers and principalities of this world of darkness, do not, of course, have to co-operate with this grace, and, in fact, I know of only one person to live her whole life entirely co-operating with this grace. The rest of us fail--some, like me, more than others. There are, however, some who live lives almost completely in co-operation with this grace, and are recognized by the Church as saints.

--Dave

[Rían]

After reading your post, Guillaume, I see more than ever how much I disagree with some basics of RC doctrine . I see that some of the differences are with terminology, but I disagree with the underlying things, too.

I'll touch on a few points, but basically I'd just like to point out, as Valandil did, that there are Christians that do NOT belong to the RC church, and disagree with some of the doctrines the RC church teaches.

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Being baptized means one is Christian... being Christian is a huge honor, but an equally huge responsibility. I would venture to guess that if there is anyone in Hell, Christians would probably out number everyone else.

I disagree - when one chooses to place active faith in Christ, one becomes a Christian, and then chooses to get baptized in obedience to what Christ taught. And given the meaning of "Christian", which is basically "little Christs", or those that try to follow His ways, I don't see how Christians could possibly be in hell. I just flat out disagree with what you say, and I don't think there is any scripture that supports it.

Baptism isn’t just a stamp of approval, but the creation of a new life, a rebirth of the child into a life filled with Christ’s grace.

Again, I disagree - the new life is thru belief, as supported by Scripture. Infant baptism is one of those areas that I call "extrapolations" - there is NO record of infant baptism in the NT, and there is NO command to perform infant baptism in the NT. NONE. The only thing that I know of that could possibly be referring to it is when the jailer's family was baptized. There could possibly have been an infant in the family, but it is NOT stated, and if it was important, I think it would have been stated.

I’m in total agreement here. Being born again of water and spirit does not insure that the new person will always live in the light of Christ.

I agree with this - Paul himself talks about sometimes doing things he doesn't want to do.

Two notable examples that I can think of off-hand: both Napoleon and Fidel Castro were baptized as Christians, Catholic Christians at that; they are certainly not the most virtuous of souls for Christian emulation. However, it can not be disputed that both of these men were and are Christians, that both men were reborn through water and the spirit into new life with Christ... but I strongly suspect that their actions reflect the fact that they did not continue to live that new life.

But it CAN be disputed that they were Christians (I'm doing it right now ), esp. if the only claim was that they were baptized as infants, when it's obvious that they had no personal belief or decision in the matter. Now a RC may not dispute it, but I certainly do, along with many, many other Christians I know.

"Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life." (Rom. 6:3-4)

This is another improper extrapolation by the RC church, IMO. There is NO record of infant baptism in the NT. There IS a record that those who have a saving belief in Jesus, made by personal choice, get baptized. If the RC church says to baptize infants, then they should NOT say that this verse applies to infants, IMO, who do NOT make any personal choice about Jesus.

... and, in fact, I know of only one person to live her whole life entirely co-operating with this grace.

Again, if you're talking about Mary, this is not stated anywhere in the NT. But you're welcome to the opinion, and if anyone would be this way, I can well imagine it would be Mary.

Thanks for your long answer, Dave, but I must say that I disagree with much of it I think many Catholics are Christians (or to be more exact, since we seem to have somewhat different definitions - many Catholics have a saving belief in Jesus that means among other things that they will be in heaven). I really think the RC church has gone wrong in many areas, but God is stronger than any particular church, and can bring people to Him despite a particular church's shortcomings. And His true church is made up of believers worldwide, and not tied to any particular worldly church structure. But I still think that in the very minimal basics, Catholics and other Christians agree. What do you think of my "basics" I listed a post or so up?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

The Catholic Church’s teaching is based on the practice of the Church since the first century. Much of what I’ve said you can read for yourself in the Didiache, Saint Ignatius of Antioch, etc. all of which was written in the first century and reflects the earliest practices. I’ve stayed away from making statements from dogmas defined later. What you are calling extrapolation is actually the earliest practices of the Christian Church, practices that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox weren't willing to give up at the time when the canon of Scripture was formulated, and are hardly going to give up today. Scripture is only half the story, the other half is Tradition, the practice of the Church from which Scripture, itself, came. We don’t re-invent the wheel, nor do we feel a pressing need to re-invent the wheel.

In reference to infant baptism, however, you should really look at the Hebrew practice of circumcision that parallels very well infant baptism. In short, just because something is not explicitely stated in Scripture, doesn't mean it was not part the practice of the Church, or that it wasn't practiced even before the Scriptures were written. A history book about the United States, for example, is hardly equiped to cover all aspects of that history, nor is it capable of explaining every single practice in American society. Only by looking at the whole picture, being aware that Scripture is limited by those who wrote it, and by those for whom it was written, can it be placed in useful context.

If you are saying that if its not in Scripture, then its not real, then my question for you is: before Scripture, what did Christians base their beliefs?

Edit: this is the crux of the problem, btw: the place of Scripture in doctrine. I find it kind of frustrating any argument that says, "well, that's not in the bible," only because it doesn't really say anything. There is a lot that is not in the bible, not the least of which is the notion that God is a Trinity, Father, Son and HS, nor does the bible say that Jesus is both human and divine. If we are to accept that is a viable argument, we must be willing to admit there is nothing wrong with abortion, contraception, capital punishment (which, btw, is supported by the bible), genocide (something else that is supported by many passages in the bible), etc., etc., etc... If the bible is the only thing, then it comes down to how each individual person interprets it. That is extremely dangerous. I'll stick with Ignatius of Antioch who wrote at the close of the first century, that a personal interpretation of Holy Writ is illegitimate.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal

Edit: this is the crux of the problem, btw: the place of Scripture in doctrine. I find it kind of frustrating any argument that says, "well, that's not in the bible," only because it doesn't really say anything. There is a lot that is not in the bible, not the least of which is the notion that God is a Trinity, Father, Son and HS, nor does the bible say that Jesus is both human and divine. If we are to accept that is a viable argument, we must be willing to admit there is nothing wrong with abortion, contraception, capital punishment (which, btw, is supported by the bible), genocide (something else that is supported by many passages in the bible), etc., etc., etc... If the bible is the only thing, then it comes down to how each individual person interprets it. That is extremely dangerous. I'll stick with Ignatius of Antioch who wrote at the close of the first century, that a personal interpretation of Holy Writ is illegitimate.

I agree....it doesn't make sense to have individual interpretation of the Bible b/c then you could have beliefs that would contradict each other ....i.e. Mary is the Imacculate Conception or she isn't, Jesus is both God and man or he is just one or the other..the list goes on and on.

there is only ONE absolute belief about God. so there can only be ONE true interpretation of Scripture.

[Valandil]

Hmmm... I think when we look closely at how our definitions differ, we're agreeing with each other more than we appear to be on the surface. There are particular doctrines that it seems we just are not going to agree on, but it has been very interesting to me to hear (read) a good summation of the Catholic viewpoint on these things... even if I'm not to the point of agreement, I understand quite a bit better.

I think this is all quite helpful - just so we're careful that we don't put each other in the position of actually defending our views. We can disagree, but maintain respect and not 'attack' (thereby bringing in the defensive posturing). And I hope I haven't done so, btw. If I have, I apologize for it.

Especially now at Christmastime... I think I'm gonna re-post the one I put up the other day!

[Valandil]

You are cordially invited to: A BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION!!!

Guest of Honor: Jesus Christ

Date: Every day. Traditionally, December 25 but He's always around, so the
date is flexible....

Time: Whenever you're ready. (Please don't be late, though, or you'll miss
out on all the fun!)

Place: In your heart. He'll meet you there. (You'll hear Him knock.)

Attire: Come as you are... grubbies are okay. He'll be washing our clothes
anyway. He said something about new white robes and crowns for everyone who
stays till the last.

Tickets: Admission is free. He's already paid for everyone... (He says you
wouldn't have been able to afford it anyway...It cost Him everything
He had. But you do need to accept the ticket!!

Refreshments: New wine, bread, and a far-out drink He calls "Living Water,"
followed by a supper that promises to be out of this world!

Gift Suggestions: Your life. He's one of those people who already has
everything else. (He's very generous in return though. Just wait until you
see what He has for you!)

Entertainment: Joy, Peace, Truth, Light, Life, Love, Real Happiness,
Communion with God, Forgiveness, Miracles, Healing, Power, Eternity in
Paradise, Contentment, and much more! (All "G" rated, so bring your
family and friends.)

R.S.V.P. Very Important! He must know ahead so He can reserve a spot for
you at the table.
Also, He's keeping a list of His friends for future reference. He calls it
the "Lamb's Book of Life."

Party being given by His Kids (that's us!!)! Hope to see you there! For
those of you whom I will
see at the party, share this with someone today!

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Val,

Save some space in the back for the Catholics

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I'll stick with Ignatius of Antioch who wrote at the close of the first century, that a personal interpretation of Holy Writ is illegitimate

Even Scripture itself, in part.

I just flat out disagree with what you say, and I don't think there is any scripture that supports it.

All that is necessary for that is the ability to lose salvation, which is pretty well supported.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
Val,

Save some space in the back for the Catholics

LOTS of space available! But it's not the space that needs 'savin'!!

[Rían]

You can sit next to me, Guillaume, if you would like to - I don't care what church you belong to

[Rían]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
there is only ONE absolute belief about God. so there can only be ONE true interpretation of Scripture.

Do you mean absolute truth, instead of absolute belief? I would agree with that, then, but my only objection is when a particular church claims to have a totally correct interpretation, esp. when things like IC are irrelevant to whether or not a person will spend eternity with God or not, which I think is about the most important question there is. Yes, I agree that Mary either IS or IS NOT in a state of IC (however that's worded?), but I don't think it's something that should be on the level of things that are clearly stated and are central to the issue of where a person will spend eternity.

But that's just MHO , and I wish you all a Merry Christmas! I'll be back in a few days or so.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, Rian. The Immaculate Conception is explicitly stated. Just not in the Bible. But then again, there are many doctrines which are not explicitly stated in the Bible, such as the Trinity, the Dual Nature of Christ, the Age of Accountability, the canon of Scripture, the Rapture, the Invisibility of the Church, Revival, Eternal Security, and many more. Out of curiosity, which of these do you (that includes other Protestants) believe in?

I think it would be "was or was not Immaculately Conceived".

my only objection is when a particular church claims to have a totally correct interpretation

But again, what about the Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit will teach us all things?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Merry Christmas all, and Happy New Year. I'm moving on Saturday, so I'll be away for awhile. Our discussions here have been great, and God bless all of you!

--Dave