tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post5398006496590069349..comments2024-01-24T10:39:27.668-05:00Comments on Coming Untrue: Debunking Baptismal Myths #4: Trump Cards and Semantic RangesDr. S. L. Andersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06303707167715370504noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-76634682806688057822015-03-07T15:22:31.712-05:002015-03-07T15:22:31.712-05:00That's a very upbeat comment, Bernie. Actually...That's a very upbeat comment, Bernie. Actually, if you think about it, you are correct about the fact that Christ is the CEO here and ultimately is responsible for where the business is going and for how well it is doing. So we can breathe a sigh of relief and just make our contributions as best we can.<br /><br />Although, I cannot help bursting your bubble a bit in that I gave you a low ball estimate of 20000 denominations, the actual one was pegged at 30000 to 40000 ;-).Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-68847261762530389132015-03-04T11:42:03.678-05:002015-03-04T11:42:03.678-05:00Several suggestions for your consideration Q:
You...Several suggestions for your consideration Q:<br /><br />You mention the "my way or the highway" mentality as a source of division. The problem is somewhat deeper in that nobody on either side of the Protestant / Catholic division thinks of it that way at all. Both sides believe they are defending not their own honour, but rather the honour of God. THAT'S what makes the differences insurmountable in many cases and that's why views are so entrenched.<br /><br />Secondly, you mention multiple Protestant denominations - 20,000 is your number. Suffice it to say the only way to get near that number is to parse minor differences between Protestants so greatly as to be ludicrous. The vast majority of Protestants belong to one of only several distinct denominations and even those differences are often relatively small. I often work collaboratively alongside Pentecostals, Baptists and several others - and I don't consider them unsaved or unloved. They're often tremendous people and tremendous brothers and sisters in Christ - they're just not completely on board with things as I see them.<br /><br />To be fair when we look at the Catholic church, we see *exactly* the same thing without the differing names. There are more mature and less mature Catholics who accept and embrace differing degrees of the Catholic doctrine. There are "Catholic" practices and principles that are accepted in NYC but would never be accepted by "Catholics" in sub Saharan Africa. There are *huge* differences under a single big-tent dubbed "Catholic", so to point the finger at Protestants as if they were the only divided group is unrealistic. Catholics are divided too in 20,000 ways if you wish to parse it that finely.<br /><br />Thirdly, Protestants aren't the church. Neither are Catholics. We can call the church divided if we wish. But it isn't. Because the only church that matters is the church Christ is building. From what I can see of it (and I see it only dimly), He has a very good idea of what He is doing and who is in / who is out. I'd bet that there will be some Catholics in His composition and I know there will be some Protestants. He'll surprise us.<br /><br />Lastly, you suggest that Protestants teach that "I believe" is a sort of magic token that - once spoken - assures even a wildly sinful person can basically force his way into God's heaven. Nothing could be further from conventional Protestant theology. What IS clear is that many will make a claim to heaven which the Lord Himself will reject by saying "depart from me, I never knew you". If there are any Protestants (or Catholics) who think that a magic phrase, or beads, or donations or even baptism will in and of itself "earn" heaven, they are in for a very bitter disappointment indeed.Berniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11964708678887990251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-8181622826153205702015-03-03T19:05:28.344-05:002015-03-03T19:05:28.344-05:00My interest is with no dogma in particular Tom. Yo...My interest is with no dogma in particular Tom. You can probably get a good idea from the web concerning the difference between Evangelical and Catholic dogma here - <br /><br />http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1573399/posts<br /><br />And some idea of the old sectarian discussions concerning baptism, eucharist, etc. carried on forever over here.<br /><br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/001-the-death-of-protestant-america-a-political-theory-of-the-protestant-mainline<br /><br />No, what I am specifically wondering about is that no one else is wondering about the state of affairs in Christendom and questioning whether an approach of "my way or the highway" can ever change that and is something that's acceptable to God. <br /><br />In my opinion, if the Catholic church had steered clear of politics in the middle ages (and had sold fewer indulgences :-) there would probably still be one faith. After all, it became a political power play by the German princes who where interested to get a monkey off their back, not exactly because they were the more saintly people. The last point also applies to Luther who was completely unsaintly (to the point of foul language and vulgarity) and definitely did not qualify to start a church. It could only happen because it was in the political interest of the power elite.<br /><br />But, that's human nature for you and water under the bridge. Now, how does one proceed from here? The fact that the church splintering continues to the point of having reached over 20000 Protestant denominations (because if Luther can start his own church, so can I) does not seem odd to anyone (except me?) and that's why I called it a mess in a previous comment.<br /><br />I fully understand the difference in approach towards interpretation in faith that eventually congealed between the churches. Believe me there are Catholics who envy the Protestants for their concise formula, which is short on responsibility but long in a simplistic and unrealistic approach by claiming that the need to strive and struggle to live a decent live is unnecessary works because only you and basically not God has further input into the situation. Your input being to say at the end I Belief (in Christ) as though it is a magic formula and God's input being - Well Said, therefore you are saved - so we can ignore how you lived. That is sooo unrealistic and an improbable interpretation of the Bible, but of course so attractive to human nature, and therefore so popular. It's attractive to run your life as your own and sole authority and you can do as you please as long as there is some easy declaration by you later on by which you ASSUME you are saved.<br /><br />Now again, how does one sort this out, the easy way (the Protestant way) or the hard way? Personally, I have my own thoughts on that. We seem to all ignore the most simple fact, namely, that God is and always was fully aware that this situation would arise, as he is always aware of human history. We are therefore allowed to fail ourselves and him by making wrong choices and not remedying things when called for (and my contention is that if you have generated 20000 plus versions of Christianity you have made the wrong decisions and choices). The question is, why are we allowed to do so if God really exists (the question of the atheist)? And that is the question that really must be addressed. It is possible that marching in lock step under the umbrella of a single church is not best for Christianity and that more people are brought to Christ with greater diversity of denominations, so God creates good out of harm (once more), but that's speculation. I read about an answer once given by persons having gone through an NDE (near death experience) where they were told that life is a like a school that is meant to teach us how to live and learn to make the right choices.<br /><br />Maybe that's really what it is about and, fortunately, there are already people who make that happen.<br /><br />http://www.paulist.org/profile/ecumenism/vatican-ii-protestant-perspectiveQmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-8385269160537988192015-03-02T13:43:56.268-05:002015-03-02T13:43:56.268-05:00Actually, I wasn't trying to be snide (though ...Actually, I wasn't trying to be snide (though I might have taken the opportunity to be mildly droll). I just thought your comments on Lord's bodily presence in the eucharist were phrased ambiguously enough that I wanted to clarify which you meant.<br /><br />So as far as probabilities go, I get that you are saying you see the Catholic interpretive schema as being more likely than the Protestant version. But I'm wondering, within the set of Catholic dogmas that you think are probably true (or truer), do you have some beliefs that seem to you more probable than others? Are there some, for instance (and you don't have to name them -- I'm just curious), that seem more likely than others?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-79511142085178065932015-03-02T13:26:13.076-05:002015-03-02T13:26:13.076-05:00Well, yes, Tom. You know that of course because yo...Well, yes, Tom. You know that of course because you know I am a Catholic. Your question, I suppose, is therefore intended to emphasize that your particular branch of Protestantism (evangelical) does not believe in the Eucharist? It may also be your point to make a gentle reminder that perhaps my claim of being a rational person does not go hand in hand with a belief in the actual presence of Christ in the Eucharist :-).<br /><br />Frankly, as I may have mentioned before, I assign probabilities to my beliefs and knowledge, which means therefore for practically everything happening in my life. My probabilities are greater for the Catholic version of this than the Protestant one, and that's it. Not least of which are contributors to my probability assessment as, e.g., given in the link below describing the many miracles and testimonials throughout history concerning Christ's real presence in the Eucharist. <br /><br />Another point adding to my probability score is my contention that faith and belief in Christ/God has to be experiential. A point I always emphasize with atheists in that you cannot find and evaluate God/faith from the outside, but you have to experience it from the inside, practice it, to see if it meets its promises. In other words, you have to at least run the experiment before coming to your conclusions. This applies to receiving the Eucharist as well.<br /><br />http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/a.html<br />Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-23073795150759914202015-03-01T11:16:14.980-05:002015-03-01T11:16:14.980-05:00Pardon me for not quite getting it, Q, but are you...Pardon me for not quite getting it, Q, but are you not simultaneously saying the Lord <i>is</i> and <i>isn't</i> bodily present in the wafer? Is this a case of having one's wafer and eating it too?Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-61002756130477285252015-02-27T12:00:10.385-05:002015-02-27T12:00:10.385-05:00Concerning the eucharist I understand that even wi...Concerning the eucharist I understand that even within Protestant denominations there is a divergence of views.<br /><br />Here is a Protestant viewpoint,<br /><br />http://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html<br /><br />and here is a Catholic one (in both cases there are numerous other write-ups to be found of course).<br /><br />http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/eucharist.php<br /><br />Here is my personal one:<br /><br />First, it is clear that Christ predicted the difficulty with his teaching regarding that topic, is it not?<br /><br />https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+6%3A56-57&version=NIV<br /><br />It is further clear that it is irrational to suggest that God would want his creatures to commit cannibalism. You can (as a matter of fact must) therefore stipulate that, by definition, it cannot be cannibalism, or you are committing to an irrational idea, are diminishing God, and your motives, abilities, and perhaps your character, become questionable. This means you have to look for a different explanation.<br /><br />Personally, since I claim to be a rational person, then why would I subscribe to an irrational idea of committing cannibalism, which would be a real contradiction to my claim?<br /><br />Well, here is why and it is strongly based on my background as a scientist/engineer in the "hard" sciences (physics, math, Reliability materials and product/process development and analysis).<br /><br />Transubstantiation leaves the physical form and material of the Eucharist intact. Obviously you know that when you receive communion. <br /><br />The Catholic teaching is that the Eucharist is a spiritual food.<br /><br />Also, I know enough, that every material thing in this universe is essentially a form of energy even if congealed into what we call atomic and subatomic matter. Now, when God as spirit createt the world he apparently used and translated his spiritual energy into a just as ethereal physical energy with localization enabled. God and his emissary angels clearly have the ability to move back and forth within the two energy domains. Hence, the Eucharist, after all, is nothing else than a spiritual food (a medicine, if you will) that links these two domains to heal and counter the corrupt influence of the material world within the domain of human creation. Since the doctor (Christ) prescribed the medicine, it is therefore only wise to go with his recommendation.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-60089828338281419162015-02-27T09:21:19.631-05:002015-02-27T09:21:19.631-05:00My apologies, not only did I see that post I comme...My apologies, not only did I see that post I commented on it. You know what they say about memory and age.Micahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-75431326342713219052015-02-27T07:07:56.047-05:002015-02-27T07:07:56.047-05:00Hi Q. There are probably lots of sentiments expres...Hi Q. There are probably lots of sentiments expressed by Protestants about Catholicism and the mass over the years with which I would either not completely agree, or which I would qualify or moderate in some way. Fortunately I don't presume to speak for all Protestants and they don't speak for me. It seems to me that while there is something more than a little distasteful about a doctrine that the physical body of Christ is present in a wafer, it really isn't in the same ballpark as placing a child on the altar. <br /><br />It's a minor cavil, but I also note that dissenters from Baal in Judah from Baal worship in Judah are referred to by this particular Protestant as the "church of God", something which I believe is inaccurate and a source of great confusion in Christendom.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-28464757114850790392015-02-27T06:59:36.252-05:002015-02-27T06:59:36.252-05:00I quite agree with you about 1 Corinthians 10:4, M...I quite agree with you about 1 Corinthians 10:4, Micah -- it is very much on point. Meanwhile, I'm not sure if you've seen this post. http://www.cominguntrue.com/2014/03/debunking-heavenly-mythology-ii-saint.html I may not get into the disagreement over the Greek to the extent that would interest you (like you, I have no academic qualifications to debate it in any great depth; I'm a typical layman with a dictionary who reads a lot; thankfully there has been enough discussion generated by many scriptural controversies that even us laymen can tell when we're reading codswallop), but it does address the controversy itself, and by odd coincidence is one of our four or five most-read posts since we started cominguntrue.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00346761712248157930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-77053286285241258982015-02-26T18:00:52.931-05:002015-02-26T18:00:52.931-05:00Hmm, I do not intend to stoke the fire, but this i...Hmm, I do not intend to stoke the fire, but this is too sweet an opportunity to not point this out. See the text below, which illustrates the sentiment during the Protestant Reformation, that seems to contradict your statement about Baal and the Catholic Church :-/. It is clear that sentiments have largely quieted down since then (but of course not entirely). But it does suggest that rapprochement between churches may indeed be difficult.<br /><br />From:<br />The Book of Concord, translated and edited by Theodore Tappert, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House / Muhlenberg Press, 1959)<br /><br />Apology of the Augsburg Confession [1531], Article XXIV: The Mass<br /><br />Carnal men cannot stand it when only the sacrifice of Christ is honored as a propitiation. For they do not understand the righteousness of faith but give equal honor to other sacrifices and services. A false idea clung to the wicked priests in Judah, and in Israel the worship of Baal continued; yet the church of God was there, condemning wicked services. So in the papal realm the worship of Baal clings -- namely, the abuse of the Mass . . . And it seems that this worship of Baal will endure together with the papal realm until Christ comes to judge and by the glory of his coming destroys the kingdom of Antichrist. Meanwhile all those who truly believe the Gospel should reject those wicked services invented against God's command to obscure the glory of Christ and the righteousness of faith.Qmannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5596708332568087278.post-68702909297931114912015-02-26T11:48:06.107-05:002015-02-26T11:48:06.107-05:00Tom, I am impressed, this has been a detailed and ...Tom, I am impressed, this has been a detailed and well thought out dissection of the baptism of the believer.<br /><br />Can I persuade you to now take up the Petros and petra controversy? I cannot understand how Matthew 16:18 can become so convoluted that verses such as 1 Corinthians 10:4 have to be totally ignored. I could never be accused of being a Greek scholar, but with the internet I don't have to be. I only have to be able to read and understand how to let Matthew Henry help me translate Greek to English.<br /><br />This is but a single example, there are many as you know.<br /><br />"the rock moreover was Christ" <br /> petra = Christos<br /> petra != Petros<br /><br />Can you elaborate?<br /><br /><br /><br />Micahnoreply@blogger.com