What does "works" mean to you?

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

40 minutes ago, CuteInTheLord said:

What would anyone then trust if not their own reading of scriptures? Someone elses? When there are profit speakers that use the words in the Bible to make God out to be a money machine in exchange for worship? 
Who is qualified to interpret scripture as an absolute inerrant source? What mortal? 

I would argue the Church Jesus founded in Matt 16:18. I posted this in the Fathers thread and I think it's revelant to what you are asking. 

Heres a summary of how I view Church history

1. Jesus founds a Church (Matt 16:18)

2. Jesus puts Peter in charge of his Church (Matt 16:19, John 21:15-17)

3. Jesus give authority over his Church to the Apostles (Matt 18:18)

4. Jesus tells us that he will send the Holy Spirit to protect and guide his Church. (John 16:12-13)

5. We see both Peter and James excersising this authority (Acts 15)

6. Both Paul and Jesus tells us that this authority will continue. (John 21:18, Titus 1:5, Acts 14:23, 2 Tim 2:2).

7. The faith is persevered and passed on according to the way of the Apostles (Church Fathers)

The following article goes much farther in depth all with scripture references. 

https://www.catholic.com/tract/pillar-of-fire-pillar-of-truth

We see Jesus started a new Church, putting Someone in charge and promising to send the Holy Spirit to protect and guide his new Church. So it's not a mortal you trust to interpit scriputre. It's the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

Here's something else to consider. The possibility of a personal bible did not even exsist until the 1500's when the printing press was invented. So the idea that God intended for his flock to reject his Church and become a Church of one "Me and God" does not make sense. It's not the model Jesus laid out. We are called to come together and worship, not separate ourselevs from each other. 

You also touched on someone who make God sound like a money machine, yes we are told in scriputre that there will be those that do that. Twist scripture for there own benefit. So the question becomes, which Church is the true Church that Jesus founded. A topic perhaps for a different thread. 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Judas Machabeus

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

7 minutes ago, CuteInTheLord said:

Interesting you should outline that when I've seen discussions here in browsing the boards wherein that very model is held in deep contempt with no effort of concealment of that fact.  

I'm sorry for you that you don't understand the relationship a Christian has with God. 
However, I do appreciate your input because most of what you said before that admission is something I can agree with.

 

I am aware of where I am. I know the model I posted is hugely contested, this is a Protestant forum after all.

as for your assertion that I don't understand the relationship a Christian has with God, you loose me there. I don't know why you think that. I'm Christian and have a very real and deep relationship with God. 

But, we are all entitled to our thoughts and opinions. 

Cheers and God Bless

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

14 hours ago, gdemoss said:

I see can be as very different from is.  Can be appears to mean we find cases where it is true and cases where it is not.  Is appears to mean all cases are dangerous.  What I have read is documentation expressing that one must have the mediation of the cathoilic church to have a personal, direct,  immediate relationship with God.  

It's a "both and" for me. Meaning that you need the guidance of the Church to keep you from entering into heretical views. 

All throughout history we see this, someone developes a theological view  on their own and the Church corrects the heresy and doctrine is a result. That doctrine is the guidelines in which you need to stay in, while you develop your relationship with God. 

The Arian heresy that said Jesus was not divine. Arian had his personal and private relationship with God and from that he decided that Jesus was not fully human and fully Devine. The Church declared his teaching a heresy and dogmatically defined the teaching that Jesus was fully man and fully God. It was always taught and believed yet Arian still fell into error, because he knew better because he had his personal relationship with God.

This is what is meant when you read things about needing the Church in order to have that relationship with God. 

Now you may disagree with that assertation. I'm guessing most here would, but for me and my personal relationship with God thats how I see it. 

Actually as I wrote that last sentence as a playful poke at the "Me and God" model it brought something to mind. 

If all you need is a bible and nothing else to have that relationship with God than how do you settle different interpitations of scriputre. 

Lets use John 6 as an example. Jesus very clearly says we are to eat his body. He's so adment about it that John changes the Greek words he uses from casually eating to chomping and nawing. 

Someone else will saw no, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or what he really ment was .....

whos right? Both have the same bible and both have a personal relationship with God. Who's right? This was my point, when you reject the Church you have a de-evolution of the faith because there is no authority guiding the faithful. This is why there are over 30K Protestant denominations and people are getting so frustrated they are resorting to staying home with their bible and rejecting church all together. This is not what we see in scriputre. We don't see people staying home by themselves. We see a community being built. 

Please please don't take what I am saying as an absolute. I'm not saying that everyone that stays home with their bible and rejects the brick and mortar church is a heretic. 

There is a need for an authoritative body to be the final arbitrator when it comes to interpitation of scriputre. When that authority is rejected and the authority is given to each person than we end up with what we see. 30K plus denominations all declaring theirs is the truth and the way. 

Ephesians 4:5-6

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

one faith, not 30K versions of one faith.

and in closing, I don't know you nor do I know your relationship with God. Nor would I judge it. I'm speaking in general terms. Through Jesus all things are possible.

Cheers and God Bless 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
Even proof reading before hitting send I still miss grammar error.

[gdemoss]

10 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

It's a "both and" for me. Meaning that you need the guidance of the Church to keep you from entering into heretical views. 

All throughout history we see this, someone developes a theological view  on their own and the Church corrects the heresy and doctrine is a result. That doctrine is the guidelines in which you need to stay in, while you develop your relationship with God. 

The Arian heresy that said Jesus was not divine. Arian had his personal and private relationship with God and from that he decided that Jesus was not fully human and fully Devine. The Church declared his teaching a heresy and dogmatically defined the teaching that Jesus was fully man and fully God. It was always taught and believed yet Arian still fell into error, because he knew better because he had his personal relationship with God.

This is what is meant when you read things about needing the Church in order to have that relationship with God. 

Now you may disagree with that assertation. I'm guessing most here would, but for me and my personal relationship with God thats how I see it. 

Actually as I wrote that last sentence as a playful poke at the "Me and God" model it brought something to mind. 

If all you need is a bible and nothing else to have that relationship with God than how do you settle different interpitations of scriputre. 

Lets use John 6 as an example. Jesus very clearly says we are to eat his body. He's so adment about it that John changes the Greek words he uses from casually eating to chomping and nawing. 

Someone else will saw no, Jesus was speaking metaphorically or what he really ment was .....

whos right? Both have the same bible and both have a personal relationship with God. Who's right? This was my point, when you reject the Church you have a de-evolution of the faith because there is no authority guiding the faithful. This is why there are over 30K Protestant denominations and people are getting so frustrated they are resorting to staying home with their bible and rejecting church all together. This is not what we see in scriputre. We don't see people staying home by themselves. We see a community being built. 

Please please don't take what I am saying as an absolute. I'm not saying that everyone that stays home with their bible and rejects the brick and mortar church is a heretic. 

There is a need for an authoritative body to be the final arbitrator when it comes to interpitation of scriputre. When that authority is rejected and the authority is given to each person than we end up with what we see. 30K plus denominations all declaring theirs is the truth and the way. 

Ephesians 4:5-6

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

one faith, not 30K versions of one faith.

and in closing, I don't know you nor do I know your relationship with God. Nor would I judge it. I'm speaking in general terms. Through Jesus all things are possible.

Cheers and God Bless 

 

 

This type of thinking requires the church to be infallable.  For if they have been given the authority to dogmatically declare the proper interpretation of the scriptures there is no room for error.

The public record shows that the church has admitted to being wrong and sinful throughout the years.  They have proven to be absolutely falable and untrustworthy in their own practice of Christianity.  

If you want to see the church coming to a consensus on interpretation of scripture it is found in the counsel of Jerusalem in acts.  The whole church agreed together not just some clergy members.  

Paul is one example of man not needing the church but rather able to have an intimate personal relationship with God without the church.  He did not confer with those who were apostles before him but rather went away for 3 years.  

Many men since the beginning of time have had intimate personal relationships with God outside of a congregational setting but that said it is clear to me that he desires and has ordained that we should congregate and share our gifts one with another frequently so this I do. 

Every person has the responsibility of seeking to follow after truth and I believe that you believe that the catholic church is the ultimate authority in matters concerning interpretation of the scriptures.  And that the sacraments are not works per se but rather graces given by God to enhance experiencing communion with God.

John 6, what a wonderful scripture.  Those who are yet carnal must believe he speaks of his actual flesh and blood body for they are in need of milk and not strong meat.  He clearly makes the distinction when explaining to his disciples that he speaks spiritually in carnal terms to drive away those who do not believe that are lost in their carnality.  The whole previous context was about people following him so they could fill their bellies with bread and fish. 

We live in fleshly bodies but we must be born again, born from above by the spirit.  Paul spoke to the Corinthians as unto carnal for they were yet babes in Christ in need of milk but those who have had the day dawn and the day star arise in their hearts have a mature walk with God.  I do not make any claim to have the ability to perfectly interpret scripture.  I am still drawing closer to God and growing in Christ.  But I have seen in both my early carnal Christian life and that of others grave error that could not be avoided due to immaturity and carnality.  I learned that time had very little to do with maturity.  Just as Hebrews says,  many people spend alot of time getting nowhere and it is found that they still need milk long after they should be on meat.

Peace be with you.

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

If Paul didn't need the Church than why did he go to Jerusalem to have the problem at his local church resovlved. Why not just make the decession right than and there. 

And than in Galatians we see Paul going to Jerusalem to confirm with the Aposltes. So I disagree with your assertion that Paul didn't need a church. He recognized its authority and submitted to it.

In Galatians 1 Paul tells us that he received his revelation directly from Jesus. Than 12 verses later he tells us that he is sent to Jerusalem by revelation to lay the gospel he's preaching out to the Apostles. So after 14 years Paul needs correction in going solo and is sent to the Church to submit. He didn't go because he wanted to, he was told to go. And what did he do, laid his gospel before the Apostles for them to give their approval. 

Galatians 1:11-12

11 Brethren, I would have you know that the gospel which was preached by me is not man'sgospel. 
12 For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 2:1-2

1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them(but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.

 

 -----------------------------

 

As for the term infallible, what does it mean?

-------

edit

-------

i came across this article while googling the topic of Paul consulting with the Apostles. I don't know who Alan Knox is or the rest of the content on the website as far as theology is concerned. But this article speaks directly to the topic of Paul and "Lone Ranger" Chritianity. Lone Ranger is the term he uses

http://www.alanknox.net/2012/09/because-paul-did-not-consult-with-others-about-his-own-service-right/

Edited May 9, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
It's obvious

[Absolem]

Good works is doing deeds in Jesus name. Pretty simple. We can get into healing the sick and raising the dead if you want. Those are works. Still giving someone a cup of water in Jesus name won't go without its reward.