The apostle John was intimate with Jesus. But in Revelation 1:17 he sees Jesus and says, "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead." He is the creator. We are creatures. He is infinite. We are finite. He is holy. We are sinners.Yes, we are to be in fellowship with Jesus but He needs to lift us up rather than us bringing Him down. We can get lifted through the word, through the sacraments, through the church, through prayer. These things are not barriers between us and God but bridges. They allow us to get a taste of heaven on earth. That is a glimpse of that intimacy we are all destined for.
When we feel we don't need the bridges. When we feel intimacy with God is just part of our ordinary life then we cheapen heaven. We stop striving for God and start presuming we have Him. There can be moments of joy in this life when we experience an ecstasy of communion with God. But that should not be the norm. There will always be periods of spiritual dryness. We walk by faith and not by sight. We can never need the experience. It is a blessing when it is there.
He closes with an interesting thought:
You understand, I trust, that there are many views of Jesus out there in the church. Some are closer to the truth than others. You also understand, I hope, that a false view of Jesus is worse than no view, because you think you hold the right thing you never go in search for him really.
a dear friend heard a sermon recently that basically went like this: You can't really know Jesus, because he isn't like your friends. He is vastly different from us. I think the attempt was to invoke reverence. But the teaching is from hell. You can know Jesus intimately, better than your friends. Or what in the world was the incarnation for? Jesus came for the very purpose that we might know God. Be intimate with him. Everything else is a sideshow.
And so the very best thing you could ever pray is "Jesus, I ask you for the real you; take away every false Christ and show me the real you."
It just goes to show how everything comes back to authority. How do we correct false images of Jesus in our minds? You can pray for that grace but the principle way those images are corrected is through the church. If you are not open to the fullness of truth in the church then how do these images get corrected? Often they don't. Often people change their minds based on some teaching but the new teaching is just as likely to be wrong as the old.
He acknowledges there are teachings from hell within protestantism. Bright people are embracing them. But how does he know he is doing any better than those guys he feels such pity for? He doesn't.
John, like many other modern Evangelicals, tries to set up the tired false dichotomy:
ReplyDeleteintimacy/relationship/spirituality vs. religion/doctrines/theology
Why can't intimacy be found within religion? Isn't doctinre--defining the boundaries--necessary for flourishing relationship? And how can you have a spirituality involving a God you don't care to know anything about (theology)?
I see God answering John like this:
John: "Jesus, I ask you for the real you; take away every false Christ and show me the real you."
God: "I've been offering you the real me since the beginning. I've given you my Church to keep bringing you the real me now. I've guided councils and Popes to 'take away every false' Christ. If you want intimacy with me, approach my Bride."
Unless a church's teaching and Jesus' teaching differ, and unless a church's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's opinion.
ReplyDelete(Apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are not unique to any church, and papal infallibility was invented in the 1800s.)
Jesus broke bread with Judas, but the church withholds communion from divorced people.
Jesus befriended prostitutes and sinners, but the church holds that homosexuals are disordered.
Jesus recruited female disciples, and the early church elected married bishops and deacons, but the church appoints celibate male priests.
etc. etc. etc.
I remember praying prayers like this as a protestant. If I was told that I was making assumptions about how God should take away those false Christ's I would have been confused. What ways have I excluded? I am open to correction from God's word, from sermons, from books, from friends, even from enemies. But it all had to come through my reason. Reasoning that had protestant assumptions deeply buried in it.
ReplyDeleteUnless a church's teaching and Jesus' teaching differ, and unless a church's opinion is any more valid than anyone else's opinion.
ReplyDeleteDo have something better? If Jesus is God He must have preserved His teaching somehow somewhere. If the church's opinion is just one more human opinion among the hundreds of others out there then how do we find the gospel?
Apostolic succession and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are not unique to any church, and papal infallibility was invented in the 1800s.
You are conflating a bunch of things here. I think you know you are doing that. If you want a serious discussion about such matters I am happy to do that.
Jesus broke bread with Judas, but the church withholds communion from divorced people.
Jesus befriended prostitutes and sinners, but the church holds that homosexuals are disordered.
Jesus recruited female disciples, and the early church elected married bishops and deacons, but the church appoints celibate male priests.
There are always arguments one can make. If you have a conclusion you want to arrive at you can find a way to get there. But what if you want God's conclusion? Then being able to argue for or against any position does not help. That is why the church is a gift and not just something to sneer at.
OK, let me make another run at it:
ReplyDeleteUnless you believe that the Catholic church is the only church that benefits from apostolic succession and divine guidance and/or unless you further believe that the Catholic pope is infallible, then the opinion of the Catholic church or that of the pope is just one opinion.
For me, there are numerous reasons (which I mentioned, but chose not to elaborate on -- sorry if that seemed like a conflation to you) that suggest to me that the current opinion of the Catholiic church is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus or of the original church.
We agree that it is difficult to discern the Gospel, but we disagree as to whether one can employ a "one stop shop" approach to find it. (I wish that the search could be that simple.)
Thanks. No sneering intended.
For me, there are numerous reasons (which I mentioned, but chose not to elaborate on -- sorry if that seemed like a conflation to you) that suggest to me that the current opinion of the Catholic church is not consistent with the teachings of Jesus or of the original church.
ReplyDeleteI guess I need to know how you know what the teachings of Jesus are and what the teachings of the original church are. Everyone has an opinion. There are many authors who claim everyone else has Jesus wrong and they figured Him out. You seem to be making a similar claim. Based on what?
We agree that it is difficult to discern the Gospel, but we disagree as to whether one can employ a "one stop shop" approach to find it. (I wish that the search could be that simple.)
I think it has to be pretty simple or I will mess it up. I am able to make myself quite certain of things that are wrong. My sin is that bad. So I need something definitive enough to correct these errors even when I am being quite stubborn about it. If I have to go to many sources and discern what is true and what is not in each then I have zero chance of getting it right.
Thanks. No sneering intended.
Maybe sneering is strong. More like dismissing without argument. Just declaring the claims of the church to be false is really not helpful. If you have reasons we can go through them one by one.
I'm saying that this is all someone'e opinion, unless we accept infallibility and we believe that the Pope's opinion is always God's opinion.
ReplyDeleteInfallibility can be a tough nut for some Catholics and many non-Catholics to swallow, as the appointment of Peter was not that explicit, and there is no evidence that Peter led the early church and much evidence that James (the "brother" of the Lord) led the early church.
Further, papal primacy is a recent innovation, and papal infallibility is even more recent.
In addition, there has only been one instance of an ex cathedra pronouncement of infallibility, although there is some presumption of infallibility in the realm of faith and morals.
While there is a "creeping infallibility" in Vatican pronouncements, there is only one teaching that is expressly deemed infallible.
There have been anti-popes and heretical popes, and popes who inherited or purchased the role. Some were appointed by secular rulers. Thus, not all popes acted as the vicars of Christ.
If we don't accept infallibility, we all need to form our consciences. For me, I read the Catholic catechism and encyclicals and the like, and I also read writings of the church fathers and saints and lots of theology from different perspectives, Catholic and otherwise.
I'm glad to discuss these or any other issues, in as much detail as you would like. Thanks.
I'm saying that this is all someone's opinion, unless we accept infallibility and we believe that the Pope's opinion is always God's opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe church does not teach that the pope's opinion is always God's opinion. It does teach that the pope can't corrupt the teaching of the church so that the gospel is lost.
Infallibility can be a tough nut for some Catholics and many non-Catholics to swallow, as the appointment of Peter was not that explicit, and there is no evidence that Peter led the early church and much evidence that James (the "brother" of the Lord) led the early church.
How explicit does something have to be? It takes Sola Scriptura to the next level. A Sola Explicita Scriptura if you will. Did Peter lead the early church? Look at the first half of Acts. Count the references to Peter and those to James.
Further, papal primacy is a recent innovation, and papal infallibility is even more recent.
Without getting into a quote war I would simply reply No and No.
In addition, there has only been one instance of an ex cathedra pronouncement of infallibility, although there is some presumption of infallibility in the realm of faith and morals.
Not sure what you mean here. If you are referring to a specific chair then there has only bee one in the last century. If you are referring to any teaching that meets the 4 criteria of Vatican I then there are quite a number. The criteria matter. The chair, not so much.
While there is a "creeping infallibility" in Vatican pronouncements, there is only one teaching that is expressly deemed infallible.
Nothing creeping about infallibility. It is precisely defined.
There have been anti-popes and heretical popes, and popes who inherited or purchased the role. Some were appointed by secular rulers. Thus, not all popes acted as the vicars of Christ.
Actually they all did. Not the anti-popes but all the popes. That is regardless of their virtues or vices. Regardless of how they got the job. If they held the office they were the Vicar of Christ and they had the graces of that office.
If we don't accept infallibility, we all need to form our consciences. For me, I read the Catholic catechism and encyclicals and the like, and I also read writings of the church fathers and saints and lots of theology from different perspectives, Catholic and otherwise.
So how do you know what to accept and what to reject? The catechism has the doctrine of infallibility in it. You say you rejected that. You seem to be assuming some source of truth greater than the church and won't tell me what it is.
I'm glad to discuss these or any other issues, in as much detail as you would like. Thanks.
I'm glad. I love these discussion. I might need to do the next reply in a different post. These comment boxes get hard to follow.
My comments on creeping infallibility, papal primacy and infallibilility, the leadership of the early church, etc. are facts that are well-documented in history and theology.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say that you are avoiding a quote war, you are really avoiding reality. (Do you really believe that Arian popes were acting as vicars of Christ, even when they advanced heresy?)
At best I am right and at worst, we have a difference of opinion, so no need to dwell on it.
SO, HERE IS MY ONE AND ONLY CHALLENGE TO YOU:
My comments about the tenuous nature of infallibility are my opinions. Rather than talk about our opinions, let's stick to the facts:
If you can produce five or ten matters of infallible teaching and point to where they are officially pronounced as infallible teaching, then I will concede your argument that infallibility is precisely defined.
If you cannot produce five or ten matters of infallible teaching, then you should concede that it is not infallible. Otherwise, you are saying that somewhere in the 600-page catechism there must be something that is infallible, and I will ask you how we can know which teachings are infallible and which teachings are fallible.
Thanks.
I am not sure what you mean here. The bible is infallible. All the councils are infallible. You want 5 articles of faith? Try the apostles creed. If comes from the Council of Nicea and is therefore infallible.
ReplyDeleteI believe in God the father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
That is #1. God created heaven and earth.
And in Jesus Christ His only begotten Son. Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
That is #2. The virgin birth.
He suffered under Pontious Pilate was crucified dies and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again from the dead.
That is #3. The resurrection of Jesus.
He ascended into heaven. From then he shall come again to judge the living and the dead.
That is #4. The second coming.
I believe in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Catholic Church. The communion of saints. The forgiveness of sin. The resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
That is #5. Resurrection and eternal life.
Is that what you want?
BTW, if you want quotes about the papacy they are around. Try this discussion.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/10/st-ignatius-of-antioch-on-the-church/
No, I challenged your assertion that Catholics have "fullness of truth in the church" by saying that authority in Catholicism is only an opinion, unless one accepts infallibility.
ReplyDeleteThen, I asked for five or ten examples of Catholic teachings that are infallible, and you cited the Bible and the Nicean Creed, which are accepted both by Catholics and Protestants.
Can you cite any teachings that are unique to Catholicism and pronounced as infallible?
If not, how can you claim that Catholicism has any unique or reliable knowledge of truth?
Thanks.
No, I challenged your assertion that Catholics have "fullness of truth in the church" by saying that authority in Catholicism is only an opinion, unless one accepts infallibility.
ReplyDeleteDid I disagree with that? I would not say you have to accept the full developed doctrine of infallibility but you need to accept the authority of the bishops at some level. If you don't then everything is just human opinion. That means the bible and all the councils and creeds become human opinion as well. If I think Matthew is a forgery and not the word of God that opinion is just as good as saying Matthew part of the inspired scriptures. Without authority all questions of faith reduce to human opinion.
Can you cite any teachings that are unique to Catholicism and pronounced as infallible?
If not, how can you claim that Catholicism has any unique or reliable knowledge of truth?
There is the immaculate conception. There is the doctrine of infallibility. There is the teaching on the Eucharist, justification, the assumption. Catholics are generally not accused of not having any infallible doctrines. They exist. What is your point?
I challenged you to show me the catechism or encyclical that pronouncess that any of these matters are infallible, and you cannot do so.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that church teachings are a matter of opinion, unless they are infallable, which is also a matter of opinion.
I suppose you could pull a Bill Clinton on it and pretend you can just redefine words. Is that where you are going? I don't know anyone who seriously denies that the Catholic church claims these to be infallibly defined doctrines. Why accept the teaching and then hide behind such a flimsy argument to try and escape it's force?
ReplyDeleteIt would be hard to make that argument to your local priest or bishop. They would never accept that you are making a good-faith effort to ascent to the teaching of the church. So in the end you could not just push the interpretation idea as far as you like. There is a living magisterium that is going to call you on it.
If it is freedom from dogma you want then why even be a Christian? Just call yourself a theist and you have complete freedom. Why tie yourself to the bible? Because it is the word of God? Great reason. But that is precisely the same reason I tie myself to the teaching of the church.
Without authority all questions of faith reduce to human opinion.
ReplyDeleteI like that, there's the "money quote".
Hi, Randy. Lost you somewhere in the transition. I'll add you to Google Reader and keep up again.
Great to hear from you Martin. My old blog died badly so I could not post a link to my new one. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteHi Randy, I'm a Calgarian and also a recent convert from Protestantism (I was received into full communion this past Easter). I don't know whether or not 'Anonymous' is going to be commenting further; if so, perhaps he could respond, if not I'd be interested in your thoughts. I got the impression that 'Anonymous' was leaning toward the notion that all truth claims are merely opinions. Is this an accurate assessment?
ReplyDeleteRegards,
Casey
Good to hear from a fellow Calgarian! Welcome to the family of God.
ReplyDeleteI think Anonymous is a protestant. I think he is trying to show how the Catholic critique of protestantism can be applied equally effectively to Catholicism itself. I could be wrong.
The trouble is the objection falls apart when you examine it. I think he kept commenting until he realized I could find the holes in his argument. One would hope that realizing his argument has holes will cause him to rethink things. My experience is that they repeat the same arguments to the next guy hoping he can't point out the same flaws. Many protestants believe that if you can convert a Catholic even with false arguments you should do it.