from Wanted Information - Re: Catholic beliefs

I didn't want to get that thread off topic, so I've started a new one addressing Jake's and Paul's comments on pre-millenialism.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004

Answers

“Some Fundamentalist Protestants hold to the error of Millennialism, believing that Christ will actually reign as king over the entire earth for a thousand-year period at some time in the future. These Protestants read the passage as meaning that the entire Church would be taken to meet Christ in the air on a cloud ("raptured out") at the start of the Millennium…” - Jake

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

This is the post-tribulation position—what I believe. The reign is without end. The millennium only is a period between the two resurrections, in which Satan is bound. Christ’s reign does not end at the end of this thousand-year period.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

“Against this error is the fact that this notion was first taken from a marginal commentary in a Protestant Bible and over time was given a life of its own.” - Jake

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

The Scofield Reference Bible of 1917 popularized the pre-tribulation doctrine (that the church is raptured sometime before the great tribulation of Matt 24). However, this was not where the doctrine first appeared. Morgan Edwards, a Baptist minister, was probably the first to separate our Lord’s coming form the rapture. Soon after that, Irving and Darby were teaching pre-tribulationism.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

However, the pre-tribulation doctrine (as it appeared in the Scofield Bible) is not the same as pre-millennialism.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

“St. Augustine , enunciating the belief of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, held that the thousand-year period allegorically refers to all of time after the death and resurrection of Christ and that those who are alive at the Lord's second coming (parousia) will be "caught up," that is, changed by the power of God from being corruptible and mortal to being incorruptible and immortal (cf. 1 Cor. 15:51, 2 Cor. 5:2-4).” – Jake

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

The “Fathers and Doctors of the Church” were not as united in this belief as asserted. In fact, nearly all orthodox writers were pre- millennialist. Only the North African writers favored the allegorical interpretation of the millennium.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

“The whole Rapture/Tribulation theory (or I should say theories - there are various conflicting versions of this tradition) was unheard of by any Christian on earth prior to the early 19th century, when it was dreamed up by a couple of itinerant fundamentalist preachers.” - Paul

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

Again, the pre-tribulation rapture hoax was started by some Baptist minister, and made popular by the highly contaminated Scofield Reference Bible. But to discount the entire premise, Christ’s reign after the 2nd coming, is blatantly ignoring scripture.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

“The Catholic Church does not profess any doctrine that is not based on revelation by God to the Apostles. There is no such thing as a valid Christian doctrine which originated more than a thousand years after Christ. Therefore the Catholic Church rejects this manmade tradition, which was never and still is not a part of genuine Christian doctrinal truth. One more example of the great danger of building one's theology on the shifting sands of unauthoritative personal interpretation of Scripture.” – Paul

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

While I agree that personal interpretation is vulnerable to error, blindly following false teachings handed down for even a thousand years is just as dangerous. History can confirm scriptures, but everyone is responsible for knowing what is written. We have no excuse for not investigating passages ourselves.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

"While I agree that personal interpretation is vulnerable to error, blindly following false teachings handed down for even a thousand years is just as dangerous."

Especially if they are at odds with what has been written...

"History can confirm scriptures, but everyone is responsible for knowing what is written."

Do Catholics subscribe to this statement??? Or are they only responsible for what the Catholic Church teaches them to believe???

"We have no excuse for not investigating passages ourselves."

True... We will be judged by what has been written... (see John 12:48).

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 06, 2004.

Catholics are responsible for knowing what is written - which they cannot avoid if they attend Mass regularly. But they are not responsible for personally figuring out the meaning of what is written. If they were, the Catholic Church would have thousands of conflicting denominations just like Protestantism, instead of 2,000 years of pure, unchanging doctrinal truth. Certainly we can "investigate passages for ourselves". And once we arrive at our personal subjective interpretations of what we have read, we can then compare them to the teaching of God's Church, the biblical pillar and foundation of truth, to see if our personal ideas hold up against objective truth. If they don't, we were wrong. And recognizing that we were wrong, we will be open to true and authoritative interpretation, and we won't run off and found a new denomination.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.

So basically, any interpretetion a Catholic arrives at which is different from the Church's teaching is invalid. Why even bother to read then? If you already believe that the Church has no error in truth, it would be a waste of time to even pick up a Bible. If you did pick one up, and read it, and found inconsistancy between scripture and practice, it wouldn't matter because the Church is right.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

Luke,

I think Paul is talking mainly about doctrine.

There is a lot of value for a Catholic to study Scripture In fact, I'd say it is necessary. Scripture speaks to our hearts and strengthens us on a personal level. It brings us closer to Christ. There is so much to be learned in Scripture for our everyday lives. It provides wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of God and life. It is a path for the Spirit to speak to us.

I personally find that Scripture helps me to better understand Church teaching. Study of Scripture also defends one against those who misinterpret Scripture or take it out of context.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 06, 2004.

I've taken classes where I've never read the book, but expected the teacher to tell me what I needed to know. I've found I usually gain just a partial understanding of what's required and it's usually just enough to get me by. But when I actually crack the book open and read along with the teacher's instruction, I understand so much more and it reinforces what the teacher is trying to teach.

But if I were to read the book without a teacher to help me understand what I'm reading, or to correct my misunderstanding of the text, then I'd be even worse off.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 06, 2004.

I am talking about doctrine also. It is necessary to know why the Church teaches what it does. Think about the people in denominations who accept the word of their pastor. He gives them 10 verses and says, "See it's all here," and they believe him. I can take verses and "prove" that God is dead. I can can take some other ones and "prove" that Christ's words were false. You don't have to tell me that this is a major evil root amoung protestants.

Therefore it is always necessary to read and study, and not only your teachings, but those beliefs held by others.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

I agree Luke.

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), November 06, 2004.

Luke said: We have no excuse for not investigating passages ourselves.

Luke, I agree if by "we" you mean the people who participate in this forum. No doubt we all have access to Bibles since we have access to computers and the Internet, and we are all able to read.

However, what about those who are illiterate, or who live in third- world countries and lack access to Bibles? What about those who are mentally incapable of understanding something that they read? Also, before the invention of the printing press, copying a Bible was extremely expensive and labor intensive, so the general public could not own bibles. They were instead displayed in churches where all could read them, and tied up to prevent these valuable items from being stolen. Even then, however, only those who were literate could study them, and this was not many.

Luke 12 (KJV) 47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

God has given us all at least some level of a gift, in that we have access to Bibles and are able to read. We have been given much, so much is expected of us. However, I would not apply the same standard across the board (meaning around the world or over the centuries).

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

"So basically, any interpretetion a Catholic arrives at which is different from the Church's teaching is invalid."

A: It doesn't take a theologian to recognize that any belief which contradicts the truth is untruth. Since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth", therefore any doctrinal interpretation a Catholic - or anyone else - arrives at which contradicts the teaching of His Church is necessarily false.

"Why even bother to read then? If you already believe that the Church has no error in truth, it would be a waste of time to even pick up a Bible."

A: You cannot understand the meaning of a passage as taught by the Church unless you first are familiar with the passage itself. Granted, a person can become familiar with the Scriptures simply by attending Mass - which is the only way most Christians learned the Scriptures for most of the history of Christianity. But obviously reading the text yourself, if you are capable of doing so, allows for closer attention to detail than simply hearing it read to you.

"If you did pick one up, and read it, and found inconsistancy between scripture and practice, it wouldn't matter because the Church is right."

A: That is not possible, since the Scriptures ARE the teaching of the Church, as recorded by early leaders of the Church. The Catholic Church alone decided what texts would be included in its Bible and what texts would be omitted; and it did not include anything which conflicted with its own teaching. Therefore, no true inconsistencies can exist. Naturally there can be inconsistencies between the teaching of the Church and your personal interpretations of Scripture. But that simply demonstrates the invalidity of personal interpretation, not any conflict between the authoritative teaching of the Church and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 06, 2004.

Right Emily, I was certainly speaking to those who actually have a Bible. I've read somewhere that average Christian household has, say, 5 Bibles. It might not have been 5, but it was a few at least.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 06, 2004.

"Since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth", therefore any doctrinal interpretation a Catholic - or anyone else - arrives at which contradicts the teaching of His Church is necessarily false."

Actually, this promise was made to the Apostles, not to the Church...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

"But obviously reading the text yourself, if you are capable of doing so, allows for closer attention to detail than simply hearing it read to you."

The first century Christians didn't have a problem understanding God's word that was spoken to them since the word of God was first taught orally and now is taught through the inspired word of God we have today known as the Bible...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

Luke wrote, "If you did pick one up, and read it, and found inconsistancy between scripture and practice, it wouldn't matter because the Church is right."

To which Paul replied: "A: That is not possible, since the Scriptures ARE the teaching of the Church, as recorded by early leaders of the Church."

It most certainly is possible for there are many things Catholics teach that are not found in Scripture...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

"The Catholic Church alone decided what texts would be included in its Bible and what texts would be omitted; and it did not include anything which conflicted with its own teaching. Therefore, no true inconsistencies can exist."

Actually, it was God who decided which texts would be included in the Bible... Just because a Church catalogs the Bible does not mean that they own it...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

"Naturally there can be inconsistencies between the teaching of the Church and your personal interpretations of Scripture. But that simply demonstrates the invalidity of personal interpretation, not any conflict between the authoritative teaching of the Church and the authoritative interpretation of Scripture."

This is merely Paul's interpretation for there are many things the Catholic Church teaches that are "not" found in the Bible. God expects us to understand His word and obey the gospel of Christ in order to be saved... The Catholic Church can "claim" all day that they are the true church of Christ however, this is not the truth. Any church that does not abide in the doctrine of Christ (which is the word of God) does not have God and the Catholic Church has long abandoned the doctrine of Christ and substitute their own doctrines for the doctrines of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 07, 2004.

> "... the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth" ... Actually, this promise was made to the Apostles, not to the Church...

A: Good point Kevin, and a very important one! Christ made this promise only to the assembled bishops of His Church, not to the Church at large. And so it remains today.

> "The first century Christians didn't have a problem understanding God's word that was spoken to them since the word of God was first taught orally and now is taught through the inspired word of God we have today known as the Bible..."

A: Yes, the Word of God was taught orally by the Holy Catholic Church for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, until the printing press was invented in the 16th century. The Church grew and prospered in unity and in truth for all this time. It was only after Bibles became readily available and individual members of the Church who, as you said above, were NOT guaranteed fullness of truth, started trying to interpret it for themselves that Christianity began to fragment.

> "there are many things Catholics teach that are not found in Scripture..."

A: Well of course there are. Christ guaranteed His Church the "fullness" of truth, not just that part which the Apostles happened to mention in their correspondence. John tells us there were a great many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in writing. (John 21:25) Protestants on the other hand reject many truths that are perfectly apparent in Scripture, simply because their founder, whoever that might have been, lacked the faith to accept it.

> "Actually, it was God who decided which texts would be included in the Bible... Just because a Church catalogs the Bible does not mean that they own it..."

A: Yes, of course it was God who inspired the Catholic Bishops in their choices of Biblical texts. Otherwise the Bible would not be the Word of God. The fact remains, without the Catholic Church the Bible would not exist.

> "The Catholic Church can "claim" all day that they are the true church of Christ however, this is not the truth. Any church that does not abide in the doctrine of Christ (which is the word of God) does not have God and the Catholic Church has long abandoned the doctrine of Christ and substitute their own doctrines for the doctrines of God."

A: Sorry, but history tells the facts. The Catholic Church is the only Church that existed through most of the history of Christianity. the only Church in the 10th century. The 5th. The 2nd. The 1st. There are two types of Christian churches. The ONE Christ founded for all men, which is historically documented in every century since; and the ones who abandoned His Church to go their own way, as prophecied by Christ Himself. (2 Tim 4:3-4)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 07, 2004.

I wrote, "... the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to "all truth" ... Actually, this promise was made to the Apostles, not to the Church..."

To which Paul replied, "A: Good point Kevin, and a very important one! Christ made this promise only to the assembled bishops of His Church, not to the Church at large. And so it remains today."

This is not true. The Catholic Church cannot prove that 1. Bishops would continue to be successors to the Apostles and 2. That this promise is still being fulfilled i.e. continuing revelation from God.

"A: Yes, the Word of God was taught orally by the Holy Catholic Church for the first 1,500 years of Christianity, until the printing press was invented in the 16th century."

Actually, the word of God was taught orally by the Apostles and inspired men in the first century and then when everything was revealed and written down, the need for oral teaching (without the written word) was no longer needed. The Catholic Church claims (they make a lot of assertions) many things that they cannot prove.

"The Church grew and prospered in unity and in truth for all this time. It was only after Bibles became readily available and individual members of the Church who, as you said above, were NOT guaranteed fullness of truth, started trying to interpret it for themselves that Christianity began to fragment."

Actually, the Catholic Church didn't want Bibles in the hands of the laity for they knew when this happened that they would see that many of their doctrines are not in accordance with what was written.

"A: Well of course there are. Christ guaranteed His Church the "fullness" of truth, not just that part which the Apostles happened to mention in their correspondence. John tells us there were a great many things Jesus said and did that are not recorded in writing. (John 21:25).

Just because we don't have all of Jesus writings (what has been written is enough to produce faith) does not mean that the Catholic Church has the authority to go beyond what has been revealed in God's word.

"Protestants on the other hand reject many truths that are perfectly apparent in Scripture, simply because their founder, whoever that might have been, lacked the faith to accept it."

I have told you many times Paul that I am "not" a Protestant. Which truth that has been revealed in Scripture am I "rejecting". I want you to lay out which truth(s) I (as a member of the church of Christ) am rejecting and we will see if this is true in accordance with what has been written in the Bible.

"A: Yes, of course it was God who inspired the Catholic Bishops in their choices of Biblical texts. Otherwise the Bible would not be the Word of God. The fact remains, without the Catholic Church the Bible would not exist."

Please notice dear readers this is Paul's "opinion" that the Catholic Bishops were inspired. There is no mention anywhere that "inspired men" would be needed to catalog the books that would be required to be placed in the Bible. Without the Catholic Church the word of God would still exist for God plainly stated in 1 Peter 1:25, "But the word of the LORD endures forever."

I wrote, "The Catholic Church can "claim" all day that they are the true church of Christ however, this is not the truth. Any church that does not abide in the doctrine of Christ (which is the word of God) does not have God and the Catholic Church has long abandoned the doctrine of Christ and substitute their own doctrines for the doctrines of God."

To which Paul replied, "A: Sorry, but history tells the facts. The Catholic Church is the only Church that existed through most of the history of Christianity. the only Church in the 10th century. The 5th. The 2nd. The 1st. There are two types of Christian churches. The ONE Christ founded for all men, which is historically documented in every century since; and the ones who abandoned His Church to go their own way, as prophecied by Christ Himself. (2 Tim 4:3-4)"

This is Paul's opinion and there is no proof that the Catholic Church is "the only church that existed through most of the history of Christianity"... Just because a church is mentioned in history does not mean it is the true church of Christ...

There is only one church, the church of Christ not two as Paul stated above, and I can assure you it most certainly is "not" the Catholic Church for this church does not endure sound doctrine and has most certainly turned from the truth and turned aside to fables that cannot be found in God's word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 09, 2004.