Clinton changed sacred Scripture to meet his purpose. His most flagrant appropriation of God’s Word for man’s glory is this passage from the Gospel according to Bill Clinton: “Scripture says, ‘Our eyes have not seen, nor our ears heard, what we can build.’” The original Scripture penned by Paul reads, “What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, What God has prepared for those who love him.” [1 Corinthians 2:9].

–Source

theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 11:13 PM

Thanks for your comments, both of them; just wanted you to know I read them both in full.

As I promised I won’t respond (I truly don’t have time), except since I’m here I’ll just point out that I already linked to a Catholic addressing of the “metaphor” interpretation (it’s a bit down on the page but I linked to this page above on 4/26, as you see). Take care.

Kinda baffled about your “disingenuous” comment I guess though. Auralae asked me about the motherhood of Mary. That’s what I was addressing; that’s why my comments focused on that. None of the Catholic teachings (her perpetual virginity or immaculate conception for example) contradict the fact that she is a mere human but very blessed by God. It’s just that my post would have been several times longer if I were addressing other teachings about Mary, and plus Auralae hadn’t asked.
…..
inviolet on April 28, 2008 at 7:27 AM

Disingenuous was not really the right word. The right word was misleading. But if I had said your answer was misleading, it would have come across as if I were accusing you of lying. Since I wasn’t, I settled for saying it was a bit disingenuous to speak as if Mary was just an ordinary woman in Catholic theology, when — among other things — Catholics believe she was born somehow without sin (Immaculate Conception), has a special intercessory influence with Jesus, is a Perpetual Virgin, and is even co-Redeemer with Christ.

Apparently, as well as being a mother to all believers.

Well, no, I think it was a hard saying because right before that, what did they say? they didn’t say, “so this man isn’t going to overthrow the government?…This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Elsewhere, as you know since you’ve read the gospels (:) ) , the gospel writers explain the motivations of the people questioning Jesus, in asides (”plotted how they might entrap him in speech” (Matthew 22:15), “because he wanted to justify himself” (Luke 10:29).

Therefore because of the juxtaposition of the two statements in Scripture, with no political explanation intervening to contradict the clear arc of this conversation (”How can this man give us his flesh to eat”, “this is a hard saying, who can listen to it”) we Catholics conclude the problem is doctrinal, not political.

It was, of course, a hard saying, exactly as the scripture says it was. That is, it was a saying they did not want to hear or deal with.

But your reasons for calling it a hard saying simply don’t add up. Even if the only reason they said it was a hard saying is because they understood it literally, you completely fail to show that Jesus meant it literally.

But by all means, let’s discuss context. The chapter starts off with the feeding of the 5000.

John 6:8-15
8 One of his disciples, Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, saith unto him,
9 There is a lad here, which hath five barley loaves, and two small fishes: but what are they among so many?
10 And Jesus said, Make the men sit down. Now there was much grass in the place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand.
11 And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would.
12 When they were filled, he said unto his disciples, Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost.
13 Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten.
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
15 When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

As I said, they wanted a political leader, a king. In Catholic terms, a Messiah with temporal power.

Again, context from later in that same chapter:

John 6:24-27
24 When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.
25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.
27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

Again, they wanted a leader who would provide for them. In demonstration of which:

John 6:28-31
28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.
30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jesus corrects them from looking for physical things and directs them to spiritual things.

John 6:32-35
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.
34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.
35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

The Jews were also offended because Jesus described himself as from God

John 6:41-43
41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?
43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.

Finally, having already offended some of them multiple times, we come to the “hard saying.”

John 6:47-58
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Then, of course, the reaction you base your interpretation on:

John 6:60-63
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

But wait! In that last verse, Jesus says the flesh profits nothing: it is the spirit that quickens or makes alive. And that the words that Jesus speaks are spirit and life. But how can this be, if we have to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have life?

If it’s a metaphor.

I’ll probably be less online myself for selfish reasons anyway, my secondborn has a HUGE project due in a couple of weeks on Corrie Ten Boom and Night (by Elie Weisel). Her class was offered a very large list of subjects they could choose from to write a term paper, and also make a project (a collage for instance) for two classes…Corrie Ten Boom was NOT on the list, and after I had taken a look at it…I suggested she ask her teacher if she might not be an appropriate subject…her teacher didn’t even recognize the name until “The Hiding Place” was mentioned.

Thank goodness that my daughter (and two classrooms through her) are getting a chance to see the counter to Night–which they are going into in amazing depth, for 5 weeks at least–for those who don’t know, used to but have forgotten, Elie Weisel is a Jewish man who survived Auschwitz as a teenager, losing his faith in G*d as a result of his experience. Corrie Ten Boom on the other hand, had her faith refined and purified by that horrid crucible.

*chuckle* and here I was just going to say “Hi!” and wish you my best…ah well! Good luck in YOUR studies!

theregoestheneighborhood on April 28, 2008 at 4:03 AM

Thanks for your comments; I appreciate knowing your views.

You presume it was a hard saying because they understood it to be meant literally. (somewhat of a leap.) From there, you presume they were correct to take it literally. (A huge leap.)

Well, no, I think it was a hard saying because right before that, what did they say? they didn’t say, “so this man isn’t going to overthrow the government?…This is a hard saying, who can listen to it?” Elsewhere, as you know since you’ve read the gospels (:) ) , the gospel writers explain the motivations of the people questioning Jesus, in asides (”plotted how they might entrap him in speech” (Matthew 22:15), “because he wanted to justify himself” (Luke 10:29).

Therefore because of the juxtaposition of the two statements in Scripture, with no political explanation intervening to contradict the clear arc of this conversation (”How can this man give us his flesh to eat”, “this is a hard saying, who can listen to it”) we Catholics conclude the problem is doctrinal, not political.

Again, I understand you see it differently. As I said I didn’t expect you to agree with me but I wanted you to see that Catholics have good reason to see the Scripture that way, especially in the context of the rest of Scripture. We aren’t just inventing these things out of thin air. Luther apparently agreed, and he DID think the Body and Blood of Christ was present with the bread and the wine. Lutherans follow this today. And the Orthodox Christians (who are also not Catholic) do believe Jesus is present instead of the bread and wine. That it is not solely a Catholic view is true. That’s what I meant.

Kinda baffled about your “disingenuous” comment I guess though. Auralae asked me about the motherhood of Mary. That’s what I was addressing; that’s why my comments focused on that. None of the Catholic teachings (her perpetual virginity or immaculate conception for example) contradict the fact that she is a mere human but very blessed by God. It’s just that my post would have been several times longer if I were addressing other teachings about Mary, and plus Auralae hadn’t asked. If you’re wondering about other teachings and what is actually taught, the website linked below is a terrific place to start as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Speaking of which,

Auralae on April 28, 2008 at 6:21 AM

Thanks for your kind tone; it’s a pleasure discussing things with you. Auralae, just to clarify, I sent you that one link about Martin Luther+Mary strictly for his quotes at the beginning about Mary’s motherhood (I was googling for it). I didn’t read that whole article and don’t know the orthodoxy, shall we say, of the Catholicism of the people writing it.

I would, on the other hand, vouch for the authenticity of the Catholic teaching of everything from Catholic Answers, since (I understand you don’t agree with them but) they go strictly by what the Catechism says and Vatican documents, and the Church’s interpretation of Scripture passages.

…and if we had any evidence of people calling Paul THEIR father, and him accepting this
title, then you might have a point….

Stephen, filled with “grace and power” (Acts 6:8-15) calls even Jewish spiritual authorities his fathers in Acts 7:2, and, more significantly, Paul calls himself a father in 1 Cor. 4:14–15.

I see the time on your post, Auralae. It’s good I saw it before I checked in here cause I got behind in other things this week since I am so eager (as you see :) ) to answer those who have questions about what the Catholic CHurch teaches that I neglected some of my homework in (surprise) master’s theology work. Gotta get dressed for work now, and need to focus on classwork this week to catch up this week so unfortunately won’t be able to continue this very interesting (but time consuming : ) conversation.

I would encourage you to continue asking if you have other questions I didn’t answer. Any question you or I can think of has already been thought of by the Christians who came in the centuries before us and there are answers for you. I don’t want to flunk my research paper which is due next week :) so here is just one of my good sources which is good because it’s concise, charitable and reliably accurate in presenting Catholic teaching: that website again is:
Catholic Answers

Gotta zoom for work. I’ll probably check back to see any responses the two of you may have ’cause I want to see what you both have to say, but won’t have the time to respond. Thanks to you both for the good conversation; nice talking with you. God bless you both.

Here’s the verses quoted in support of praying to saints:

20Bless the LORD, you His angels,
Mighty in strength, who perform His word,
Obeying the voice of His word!
21Bless the LORD, all you His hosts,
You who serve Him, doing His will.

Psalm 103:20-21

1Praise the LORD!
Praise the LORD from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights!
2Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts!
3Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all stars of light!
4Praise Him, highest heavens,
And the waters that are above the heavens!
5Let them praise the name of the LORD,
For He commanded and they were created.
6He has also established them forever and ever;
He has made a decree which will not pass away.
7Praise the LORD from the earth,
Sea monsters and all deeps;
8Fire and hail, snow and clouds;
Stormy wind, fulfilling His word;
9Mountains and all hills;
Fruit trees and all cedars;
10Beasts and all cattle;
Creeping things and winged fowl;
11Kings of the earth and all peoples;
Princes and all judges of the earth;
12Both young men and virgins;
Old men and children.
13Let them praise the name of the LORD,
For His name alone is exalted;
His glory is above earth and heaven.

Psalm 148:1-13

Only the first verse was used in that link–but you get the idea…so far, NEITHER of these passages supports the idea that we should be praying to those who’ve already passed on…instead, everyone is to be focused on G*d

The link states that Rev. 5:8 is an example of saints praying for those of us still living…let’s check that out in context:

1I saw in the right hand of Him who sat on the throne a book written inside and on the back, sealed up with seven seals.
2And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the book and to break its seals?”

3And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the book or to look into it.

4Then I began to weep greatly because no one was found worthy to open the book or to look into it;

5and one of the elders said to me, “Stop weeping; behold, the Lion that is from the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome so as to open the book and its seven seals.”

6And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.

7And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

8When He had taken the book, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each one holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
9And they sang a new song, saying, “Worthy are You to take the book and to break its seals; for You were slain, and purchased for God with Your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.

10“You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth.”

11Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was myriads of myriads, and thousands of thousands,
12saying with a loud voice, “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing.”

13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever.”

14And the four living creatures kept saying, “Amen ” And the elders fell down and worshiped.

Again, the focus is precisely on G*d and noone/nothing else.

Prayers of saints being as incense in the Heavenly Temple is something entirely different than an example of saints praying FOR the living.

Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16).

1First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

3This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,

4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

5For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

6who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying) as a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8Therefore I want the men in every place to pray, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and dissension.

I’m not seeing anything in here about praying to the dead…or the dead praying for us. Instead, everything is in present tense, and we are exhorted to pray to G*d.

No where in that link does it explain how we’re supposed to ask these righteous saints to pray for us WITHOUT PRAYING TO THEM in the first place. They’re dead, talking to the dead is expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:11 and Lev. 19:31.

10″There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,

11or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead.”

Lev. 19:31′Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.

The article continues:

As the following passages show, the early Church Fathers not only clearly recognized the biblical teaching that those in heaven can and do intercede for us, but they also applied this teaching in their own daily prayer life.

Hermas

“[The Shepherd said:] ‘But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’” (The Shepherd 3:5:4 [A.D. 80]).

Here, Hermas is being encouraged to pray to G*d, not anyone else. This wouldn’t be the same Hermas as the one from “The Shepherd” would it? (I hope not)

Clement of Alexandria

“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]” (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).

Again, there isn’t anything here suggesting that the true believer should be praying TO anyone other than G*d…no one is arguing that the saints and the angels aren’t arleady praying to Him…just that we shouldn’t be prayint TO them.

Origen

“But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep” (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).

Hmmmm here’s the first actual quote where someone is saying that angels and the dead are interceeding…kinda goes against 1 Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

Cyprian of Carthage

“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy” (Letters 56[60]:5 [A.D. 253]).

This seems more like a suggestion than an assurance that those already passed are indeed praying for us…or that we whould ask anything of them…instead, he’s still suggesting that EVERYONE should be praying to G*d. We never have received an answer to how one is supposed to ask anything of the dead, without praying to them.

Methodius

“Hail to you for ever, Virgin Mother of God, our unceasing joy, for to you do I turn again. You are the beginning of our feast; you are its middle and end; the pearl of great price that belongs to the kingdom; the fat of every victim, the living altar of the Bread of Life [Jesus]. Hail, you treasure of the love of God. Hail, you fount of the Son’s love for man. . . . You gleamed, sweet gift-bestowing Mother, with the light of the sun; you gleamed with the insupportable fires of a most fervent charity, bringing forth in the end that which was conceived of you . . . making manifest the mystery hidden and unspeakable, the invisible Son of the Father—the Prince of Peace, who in a marvelous manner showed himself as less than all littleness” (Oration on Simeon and Anna 14 [A.D. 305]).

YIKES! Jesus is the bread that comes down from Heaven–how is Mary “our feast” ??? The pearl of great value is the Kingdom of Heaven! (Matthew 13:45-46) and she’s supposed to be gleaming with the light of the sun and unstoppable fires, while Jesus made Himself “less than all littleness”

I ferverently hope this is somehow referring to the moments and days after His conception….but somehow doubt it considering what just preceded it. This quote epitomizes so much of what us protestants see as so far off base from scripture. Methodius is addressing Mary–he’s praying to Mary, there’s no other word for it….and his focus taken off of G*d.

Time to get the kids ready and off to school! See you later!

Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17);

“To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and

Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace

from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

…and if we had any evidence of people calling Paul THEIR father, and him accepting this
title, then you might have a point….but the whole purpose of the verse was to avoid exactly what the Catholic Church has done in setting up a heirarchy–and a layer between followers and their Savior.

This link sets up red herrings and straw arguments. There is a huge difference between refering to someone who is either biologically, or spiritually, or emotionally one’s
“father”–which is used to denote a PERSONAL and intimate relationship: and the hierarchy within the Catholic Church. Strangers refer to priests as “father”–and they are expected to!

How many people actually have the type of intimate relationship with their priest, that they would really and truely believe them to be their spiritual fathers???

It is a formal title–exactly like Rabbi. How anyone can take one look at the Pope, or any Cardinal–picture the Vatican etc remember the “kissing of the ring” and such and NOT think of Matthew 20:25-28

But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles

lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26″It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, 27and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them “father.”

Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their

flock as “my son” or “my child” (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4).

I feel that I’ve already sufficiently addressed passages like the ones in both Timothy’s and Philemon-1:10 and even 1 Peter 5:13–they are all references to SPECIFIC PEOPLE with whom Paul and Peter had very special and intimate relationships–not a general relationship, as between a priest and his whole flock (or a pastor and his congregation) however, I would like to address the passages that ARE more “on topic” namely those who refer to whole
congregations as children, instead of specific people, like Timothy, Mark, or Onesimus.

The first is Ephesians 4:19-”My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you–”

THAT verse is an excellent example of support of the catholic position on “father” until you check out the rest of the chapter…since the Catholic Church does NOT argue that Jerusalem (in heaven) is our mother, nor does it suggest that priests be called brethren-but ‘father’–while Paul himself refers to both–in that same chapter! If the one, then why not the others??

Ephesians 4:26-28 But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother.

27For it is written,
“REJOICE, BARREN WOMAN WHO DOES NOT BEAR;
BREAK FORTH AND SHOUT, YOU WHO ARE NOT IN LABOR;
FOR MORE NUMEROUS ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE DESOLATE
THAN THE ONE WHO HAS A HUSBAND.”
28and you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.

“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.”

(notice how within this supporting verse, John refers to himself WITH the sinners??–this doesn’t mesh at all with the conventional idea of the confessional…)

Check out the rest of this passage:

3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are
in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.

(and Jesus taught us to pray to our Father, and not to call any man here father, master, or teacher after the manner oof the Pharisees and Sadduccees of the day)

7Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining.

9Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.

(Ok–anyone else here have a mind just screaming “Islam!”)

12I write to you, dear children, ecause your sins have been forgiven on account of his name.
13I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you have overcome the evil one.
I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.
14I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning.
I write to you, young men, because you are strong,
and the word of God lives in you,
and you have overcome the evil one.

In the context is becomes quite clear that John is not setting a precedent for future teachers to be called father, as your link teaches–in fact, later in the chapter he says:

24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.

26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.

28And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming.

John didn’t consider himself their father–he considered himself ALSO to be a child of THE FATHER.

Context is everything. the last example from the link you shared was 3 John 1:4 But when read in context, again, it’s certainly no precedent for priests to be called father:

1The elder,
To my dear friend Gaius, whom I love in the truth.

2Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well. 3It gave me great joy to have some brothers come and tell about your faithfulness to the truth and how you continue to walk in the truth. 4I have no greater joy than to hear that my children are walking in the truth.

5Dear friend, you are faithful in what you are doing for the brothers, even though they are strangers to you. 6They have told the church about your love. You will do well to send them on their way in a manner worthy of God. 7It was for the sake of the Name that they went out, receiving no help from the pagans. 8We ought therefore to show hospitality to such men so that we may work together for the truth.

9I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

11Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.

Once again, this is an example of a special relationship–John feels a bond with Gaius–and a fatherly pride that his student (and others as well) are living godly lives–but he also specifically refers to “brothers” and to this person as his dear friend what, four times? to one reference to “children” This makes clear that John himself refered to leaders within the church as friends and brothers, that’s the precedent! There is NO precedent set here for calling priests fathers–especially considering that Matthew 23:9 forbids it!

from your link:

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers

…and that’s precisely what the Catholic Church has done. They have “set themselves up up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers”

When nuns first started wearing black dresses and wimples it was to remind themselves that they were JUST LIKE every other girl/woman–and NOT especially pure just because of their vows–so by continuing these uniform standards into today, they’re doing precisely the opposite of what their founding orders intended–as is exactly the case with calling priests “father” and having them wear special vestments and having special powers (like absolution and blessing) not to mention the hundreds of years of an exclusively latin mass, when it was NOT the native tongue of the recipients.

inviolet–you are very well versed–and that is FANTASTIC, but it is by no means the average for the Catholic believer
throughout time. For the majority of the time, the catholic Church has kept her secret mysteries to herself, or even made them more mysterious (e.g. Jesus passing through Mary’s hymen like light through glass, and her perpetual virginity, not to mention her immaculate conception)

NOW! I am very interested in this conversation…have been for years….but I don’t want to risk offending–I’m sure plenty of us have very strong opinions on this subject (obviously) we very well probably will just agree to disagree ;-) but I once again want to thank you for even engaging (let alone so well) IN this conversation. I especially appreciate that we’re not arguing salvation here. I may completely disagree with some Catholic doctrine–but Jesus addressed that in Matthew 5:19 where He says that whoever breaks even one commandment and teaches others to do so, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever keeps them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. To me, the important word is IN. So, if I’m completely off base and you end up waaay closer to the throne than me–I can still look forward to meeting you and worshiping the Father with you there!

Oh my! This is long already…and I haven’t even checked the next link…hope I’ll be able to answer more shortly!!

In REvelation 12, a woman is described as giving birth

to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

We understand this to be Jesus, so the woman is Mary.

Then in Revelation 12:17,

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus (emphasis added)

That last describes all us Christians (we “keep God’ commandments and bear witness to Jesus) so we are the “rest” of the woman’s “offspring” (by God’s doing, of course, not Mary’s, since He is all powerful while she’s a mere human).

Revelation 12 is allegorical, so “the woman” does not necessarily mean just one woman. More likely, the woman refers to the Jewish people. This fits the context far better than Mary.

Verse 6 says the woman “fled into the wilderness.” The closest corollary for Mary would be the flight to Egypt. But Egypt was a great civilization, and symbolic of the world. Hardly what God would describe as a wilderness.

Verse 13 says when the dragon, Satan, was cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman that brought forth the man child. Again, it doesn’t fit Mary, but it does fit the Jews, who have been persecuted through the years. In fact, you could pretty much identify the face of evil through the ages by checking out how they treat the Jews. For example, we have the Nazis of WW2 and the Islamic radicals of today.

Verse 17 says the dragon was angry with the woman, and went to make war with “the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” This would almost certainly be a reference to the Jews which formed the original church, as Paul said,”even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.” It would be the same remnant that we as Gentile Christians were grafted into.

Obviously, if this is the case, then the above passage does NOT teach that we are the children of Mary in some way.

This doesn’t mean we think Mary’s anything more than human. Just that, like our earthly mother, she prays for us, and wants what’s best for us – to come to Jesus. “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5) is her calling card. …
inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 9:52 AM

You seem to be leaving out some of the doctrine of Mary in the Catholic church, though, such as having an Immaculate Conception, being a Perpetual Virgin, having a great role in intercession with Jesus, and being a Co-redeemer with Christ. So even if she is not understood to be divine, it seems a bit … disingenuous … to describe her as “just like our earthly mother that prays for us and wants what’s best for us.” The Catholic view of Mary is certainly much bigger than just that.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 8:51 PM

As I said, I didn’t expect you to agree with me right away.

Ah, good. Then you won’t be too disappointed.

However, may I point out that since I’m sure you’ve read John 6 many times, you know that the reason given for people leaving is specifically stated: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and right after that ,”This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” There is no mention whatsoever in John 6 of any other reason. Yes, you are correct that some Jews wanted a political Messiah. This is not the stated reason given in John 6 for His own disciples leaving Him.

They said it was a hard saying, You presume it was a hard saying because they understood it to be meant literally. (somewhat of a leap.) From there, you presume they were correct to take it literally. (A huge leap.) You consider no other reason why they might have taken it as a hard saying. Frankly, the reason you believe it is literal is because the Catholic church teaches that it is literal. If you lacked that pre-existing belief, I suspect you would read this as a metaphor.

Not being Catholic, I lack that pre-existing belief, and read it as metaphorical.

Comparing John 4 and John 6 is very useful here, since Also, in John 4 (the passage to which you referred earlier) Jesus talks only of eternal matters yet a lot of people came to believe in Him there (IOW He didn’t lose any followers over not being a political figure, just two chapters earlier; quite the contrary).

from John 4

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him because of the word of the woman 15 who testified, “He told me everything I have done.” When the Samaritans came to him, they invited him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. Many more began to believe in him because of his word, and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”

That’s not political language; “he told me everything I’ve ever done” isn’t a reference to political activity so “savior of the world” can’t be taken as meaning they thought He was a political revolutionary.

Yes, some people did expect Him to be a political figure. But that isn’t the stated reason for the Samaritans coming to Him in John 4, and the Jews leaving Him in John 6. They both did so because of His teaching.

So His not being a political figure as the reason in this particular passage is, may I say, not in keeping with what the text plainly says. They left because they didn’t believe His teaching. Comparing people’s reactions in John 4 and John 6 actually underlines this fact IMO.

I almost hate to point it out, but the Samaritans were not looking for a Messiah as a political figure, as the Jews were, so your comparison is lacking here.

Only Luther considered this to be anything more than a metaphor, and even he rejected the idea of the bread and wine being turned literally into the body and blood of Jesus.

Actually, Luther himself believed in consubstantiation, based on the Bible alone, meaning that he thought Jesus was truly present along with the bread and wine in Communion (Catholics believe the bread and wine disappear and only Jesus remains under their appearance). This is what Lutherans believe (virtually all of them AFAIK) even today.

I thought I had made the point clearly enough, but let me try putting it another way. Luther, alone among the Protestants, believed that Jesus was somehow present in the bread and wine. But even he did not believe we were literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ.

So: Lutherans, the Orthodox, Catholics, others I’m sure I’m not thinking of right now. Not peculiarly Catholic.

So, NOT Luther, and Orthodox was originally the same as Roman Catholic, until the Roman empire split into east and west. So I’d have to say it was still a peculiarly Catholic interpretation.

If you’ve actually read the Gospels,

*smiles*
Given the way I’ve been quoting Scripture right and left I wouldn’t think there would be any doubt. :) But in case there is: Yes, I have. Hundreds of times.

inviolet on April 27, 2008 at 7:22 AM

As I said, if you’ve actually read the gospels, you should have picked up on a few things. Such as Jesus being rejected in large part because the Jews did not want a Savior from their sins, but a great King to deliver them from the Roman yoke. Which certainly had a lot to do with the fact that many who had started to be his disciples turned back. (To this day, people get offended and give up on God because they expected something and didn’t get it. As if God is obligated to do what we expect.)

If you don’t see that the Jews looked for a political Messiah, then I would question whether you had truly read the Gospels. Fortunately, I see you acknowledged as much, even though you downplayed it.

Auralae on April 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM

OK, one more quick try on your Mary question before I have to go out and give up on this comment-eater thingy :) :

In REvelation 12, a woman is described as giving birth

to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

We understand this to be Jesus, so the woman is Mary.

Then in Revelation 12:17,

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus (emphasis added)

That last describes all us Christians (we “keep God’ commandments and bear witness to Jesus) so we are the “rest” of the woman’s “offspring” (by God’s doing, of course, not Mary’s, since He is all powerful while she’s a mere human).

The writer of Revelation is John, the same “beloved disciple” to whom Jesus gave His mother and her him, and symbolically, all of us too. John apparently (by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – since this is Scripture) understood Jesus to have meant the same thing at the Cross that Catholics understand. This doesn’t mean we think Mary’s anything more than human. Just that, like our earthly mother, she prays for us, and wants what’s best for us – to come to Jesus. “Do whatever He tells you” (John 2:5) is her calling card.

You can find more on that link to the Catholic Answers website. Gotta go. God bless you.

Why do Catholics call priests “father?”

Auralae on April 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM

Well, have written two long comments and apparently both are getting eaten. So will just say: thanks for your very kind comments, they made my day. And here’s a website where you can get answers to your questions (sorry, I tried to answer!)

Catholic Answers website library of topics

Auralae on April 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM

Thanks for your very kind comments; they made my day.

Just wrote you a sorta long post but somebody ate it (??) so here goes again:

Sorry that your friend wasn’t able to explain Catholic teaching to you. Here are quick answers to your questions:

Why do Catholics call priests “father?”

The Intercession of the saints

Asking saints in heaven to pray for us

Do Catholics worship saints?

Mary’s motherhood
Here’s what Luther said about Mary being our mother too.

Also, see REvelation 12 which confirms the Catholic interpretation of John’s account of Jesus giving Mary to John (the “beloved disciple”) and John to Mary (behold your son), and symbolically there to all of us:

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. –Rev. 12:17

The woman is described earlier as the mother of the “male child” who is “destined to rule all the nations” (that is, Jesus). So the woman is Mary and all Christians (we keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus) are “the rest of her offspring.”

John wrote Revelation, the same person to whom Jesus gave Mary as his mother. So he, inspired by the Holy Spirit since this is Scripture, evidently understood Mary to be all Christians’ mother, the same way Catholics do. Her motherhood is not the main point of this Revelation passage of course, but this aside shows what Scripture tells us about it.

Did Mary do this? No; she’s a mere human. But by the grace of Jesus she received special gifts because God chose her to bear Him into the world and she becomes our mother too–what does that mean? She prays for us, wants what’s best for us, that is, that we come to Jesus and are saved.

“Do whatever He tells you” is her calling card.

Sorry I have to scoot but thanks again for your kindness and if you have other questions here’s a good place to start:

Catholic Answers website library of topics

God bless you and hope you have a good day. (We’ll see if this post makes it!)

Auralae on April 27, 2008 at 4:27 AM

Thanks for your very kind comments; they made my day.

As you see I’ve been writing quite a bit on this thread and have several commitments today but was eager to see your questions answered, as they’re excellent ones. I’m sorry your friend wasn’t able to answer them.

So since I need to go, here are a few links for you:

re: why do Catholics call priests “father?”

re: asking Mary and the other saints in heaven to pray for us:
The Intercession of the Saints
Praying (asking saints in heaven to pray for us to God) to the Saints
Saint Worship?

re: Mary’s motherhood, from an interesting source, Martin Luther
By the way, very interesting confirmation of Mary’s motherhood (through Jesus) of us all is in Revelation 12; Jesus is talked about here: “a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod” (so the woman is Mary) and at the end of the chapter:

Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus. (Rev. 12:17)

So “those who keep God’s commandments and bear witness to Jesus are described as “the rest of her [the woman who is the mother of the child destined to rule all the nations, i.e. Mary] offspring.”

Yes, Catholics believe that Jesus, in giving Mary to “the beloved disciple” and she to him “behold your mother” that in Jesus, she is the spiritual mother of us all. This just means that she prays for us, cares for us, wants what’s best for us which is that we will come to her Son. She is a mere human. But God has given her special graces since He chose her to bear Him into the world.

Sorry that I need to go do other stuff but thanks for your questions. Here’s a good place to start with other questions you (or anyone else) may have:

Catholic Answers website library of topics

God bless you. Hope you have a good day.

theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 8:51 PM

As I said, I didn’t expect you to agree with me right away. However, may I point out that since I’m sure you’ve read John 6 many times, you know that the reason given for people leaving is specifically stated: “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” and right after that ,”This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” There is no mention whatsoever in John 6 of any other reason. Yes, you are correct that some Jews wanted a political Messiah. This is not the stated reason given in John 6 for His own disciples leaving Him.

Comparing John 4 and John 6 is very useful here, since Also, in John 4 (the passage to which you referred earlier) Jesus talks only of eternal matters yet a lot of people came to believe in Him there (IOW He didn’t lose any followers over not being a political figure, just two chapters earlier; quite the contrary).

from John 4

Many of the Samaritans of that town began to believe in him because of the word of the woman 15 who testified, “He told me everything I have done.” When the Samaritans came to him, they invited him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. Many more began to believe in him because of his word, and they said to the woman, “We no longer believe because of your word; for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the savior of the world.”

That’s not political language; “he told me everything I’ve ever done” isn’t a reference to political activity so “savior of the world” can’t be taken as meaning they thought He was a political revolutionary.

Yes, some people did expect Him to be a political figure. But that isn’t the stated reason for the Samaritans coming to Him in John 4, and the Jews leaving Him in John 6. They both did so because of His teaching.

So His not being a political figure as the reason in this particular passage is, may I say, not in keeping with what the text plainly says. They left because they didn’t believe His teaching. Comparing people’s reactions in John 4 and John 6 actually underlines this fact IMO.

Only Luther considered this to be anything more than a metaphor, and even he rejected the idea of the bread and wine being turned literally into the body and blood of Jesus.

Actually, Luther himself believed in consubstantiation, based on the Bible alone, meaning that he thought Jesus was truly present along with the bread and wine in Communion (Catholics believe the bread and wine disappear and only Jesus remains under their appearance). This is what Lutherans believe (virtually all of them AFAIK) even today.

So: Lutherans, the Orthodox, Catholics, others I’m sure I’m not thinking of right now. Not peculiarly Catholic.

If you’ve actually read the Gospels,

*smiles*
Given the way I’ve been quoting Scripture right and left I wouldn’t think there would be any doubt. :) But in case there is: Yes, I have. Hundreds of times.

First, inviolet–thank you especially for all your patience in responding…it’s horribly sad to see christians “bashing” eachother over doctrinal differences…that said, you do sound like a much more ‘christian’ catholic than I’m used to. It’s been wonderful seeing you respond with kindness and gentleness.

Mojave Mark brought up the thief on the cross…I would like to ask a couple more questions about catholic doctrine, if you don’t mind (and if you’re still checking back here!)

Why are priests called “father” when Jesus specifically said, “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” -Matthew 23:9

I know you said that Mary isn’t prayed to…but you also said, “We ask her for her prayers” –but in order to ask her–you MUST pray to her…and that goes against Jesus’ teaching, since He prayed-and taught His disciples to pray to the Father.

Jesus went out of His way to correct reverence of His mother and place it squarely upon His Father in Luke 8:21 and Luke 11:28, when He specifically said that contrary to his mothers womb and breasts being blessed, those who hear and practice His words are blessed; and those who hear and obey are His mother, His brothers and sisters-see also Mark 3:34, and Matthew 12:50

Am I understanding you correctly to say that catholic doctrine teaches that John 19:27 is a universal command…but then what did verse 26 mean, when He told His mother to behold her son-referring to John???

These are just a few questions I’ve had concerning the differences in doctrine…I once asked a catholic friend…but he didn’t know, and later joined a Baptist church. Thank you again for your patience!

Does anyone really understand that to mean that Jesus was offering her literal water? Or that the water would be a literal well in her?
theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 2:41 AM

My point about Jesus’ words in John 6 vs. John 4 (or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter) is that no one left Him in droves, even those who had been following Him for a while, and He didn’t have to say even to His own disciples, “are you going to leave me too?” Tellingly, Peter answers, “where else are we going to go? You have the words of everlasting life?” (IOW “we don’t get it either, but we know you are the Christ.”) Not “Sure, we knew you only meant a symbol and we’ll explain it to everybody. Hey, all you guys, come baaacck!”

His disciples, in other words, never left at His other “metaphors” (which really were metaphors). This wasn’t, and they knew it, hence the difference.

Sorry, but that is REALLY unconvincing. If you’ve actually read the Gospels, you should have picked up on the fact that the Jews of the day were really looking more for a political Messiah. Jesus offered them nothing along those lines. After feeding the 5000, they wanted Jesus to be a king that would lead them to power and provide for them. He shot it down. He told them to forget about the “meat that perishes” and labor for the eternal meat. The, he said the Moses didn’t give them the bread from heaven (manna), but that He was the bread from heaven.

Have you picked up yet that Jesus a) refused to be a king or political leader b) implied he was greater than Moses, and c) told them He came direct from heaven, meaning from God.

So it’s hardly surprising He started losing disciples.

The idea that they left because they knew it wasn’t a metaphor is pure speculation. First, you give them way too much credit for being able to pick up immediately on when Jesus was speaking metaphorically or not. Jesus’ own disciples missed it a lot of times. So did the more educated Pharisees and Sadducees, who thought Jesus was not speaking metaphorically when He said you could destroy the temple, and He could raise it again in three days.

But somehow this time it wasn’t a metaphor, and somehow everyone who was listening got it?

Here’s a good explanation of how Catholics understand that passage (read especially why Catholics understand John 6:63)
….
inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:22 AM

A peculiarly Catholic way of understanding the passage, that is to say, not shared by anyone else. Only Luther considered this to be anything more than a metaphor, and even he rejected the idea of the bread and wine being turned literally into the body and blood of Jesus.

The words “separation of church and state” are not in our constitution.

Deep point. What about “fair trial”?

freevillage on April 25, 2008 at 11:24 PM

The basis for “fair trial” is the correct application of Article 3 Section 2 and the 5th, 6th, and 7th Amendments.

The basis for “separation of church and state” is a misreading and misapplication of 1st Amendment.

The text of the 1st Amendment is

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to limit the power of the Congress and the Congress only.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect the Church from the Congress, not protect the Congress from the Church.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to protect the freedom OF religion, not create a governmental freedom FROM religion.

The purpose of the 1st Amendment is to ensure religious freedoms – to ensure the rights of religious people to practice their religion freely:
1) Religious Freedom from a Congressionally-created state religion (as they had in England with the Church of England).
2) Religious Freedom of Speech
3) Religious Freedom of Press
4) Religious Freedom of Peaceable Assembly
5) Religious Freedom to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The recent misapplication of the 1st Amendment as a “Separation of Church and State” is completely wrong and exactly opposite of the intent of the framers. This recent application has been used to ban religious speech from any activity associated with public funds. The first Amendment is intended to protect religious free speech, not restrict it.

fossten on April 26, 2008 at 11:21 AM

Jesus uses baptism to wash away our original sin (Adam’s sin), something necessary for our salvation, not from our body (the KJV says “flesh”) but from our spirits. Jesus applies this to children based on the faith of their parents. You don’t believe it: I get it.

Yet “baptism saves you now” doesn’t mean “baptism saves you now.” :) OK.

Obviously this doesn’t mean: “pour water on your head with no belief in Christ and you’ll go to Heaven.” Coupled with faith in Christ, this gift from Jesus (note: not “this work” – read your James, “works” means “good works” not “sacraments”) He uses to save us.

Nice talking to you, fossten. Sorry you don’t know I’m a Christian, but I know you are. This is off the main page so time to go now. Just for fun I’ll leave you w/ 1 Peter, (you know, the whiny, immature one :) ):

NIV

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.

Talk to you soon.

Similarly, let’s look at the Mark verse once again:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe will be condemned.”

I can’t reproduce all my posts above but Jesus clearly said here that both belief and baptism are required.

inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 AM

You are conveniently ignoring the rest of the verse. Clearly the exclusionary part of the verse is the most important. Yes, he who believes will be baptized, and he will be saved. But he who believes not shall be condemned. Ah, so the ONLY thing that condemns you is believing not! It DOES NOT SAY “he who believes not and is not baptized shall be condemned.” You’re fond of using context, yet you ignore the context INSIDE THE SAME VERSE!

Belief and baptism are required. If an adult believes and is baptized but then apostasizes, he cannot expect to gain Heaven even if baptized, right? I think we agree.

I think you’d be wrong that we agree on this. There is no loss of salvation. However, it could be argued that the person never converted in the first place. Remember, at the Judgment, Jesus says in Matthew 7:23, “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. .”

Never means never.

In the case of very young children or infants (remember the several “whole households” in Acts?) God gives grace, as He always has, to children based on the faith of their parents. (I know you and I don’t agree here, but all through the OT and NT, including the application of the Jewish covenant itself, God does saving things for children based on the faith of the parents, since the children are too young to have faith of their own yet. If those baptized children grow up and reject Jesus, despite having been baptized as children, they cannot expect to go to Heaven. That’s all I meant.

inviolet on April 26, 2008 at 7:42 AM

This represents very muddled thinking. First children are saved because of their parents? Please show any verse that specifically states this. Moreover, there is no indication that the households mentioned in those verses had infant children. This is ASSUMED by the Catholic clergy, which is awfully convenient because it supports their beliefs that are otherwise refuted by Scripture. This is the same fallacious thinking that states that the reference to Jesus’ brethren was figurative but the eating of the body and blood of Christ was literal. Nice to pick and choose our figurativeness to fit our beliefs, yes?

Furthermore, you are saying that children are saved UNTIL they have an opportunity to reject Jesus, which would be at the age of accountability or the ability to know right from wrong; i.e. realize that they need to repent of their sins. In other words, they are saved for a few years and then they become unsaved again. This is ludicrous and is contrary to Scripture. Again, read the above quote by Jesus.

The Bible is full of examples of God giving grace to children based on the faith of their parents; it’s of course assumed that they will grow up to believe in Christ themselves (this is in fact implied in Mark 16:15-16: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe [implied: even if he is baptized] will be condemned.”)

inviolet on April 25, 2008 at 12:28 PM

This is a clear admission that infant baptism does not save a person.

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 2:11 PM

No, not at all. :) I could just as easily say that the end of your post

1 PETER 3:21 — “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

fossten on April 25, 2008 at 2:48 PM

is a “clear admission that “baptism saves us.” But that isn’t what you meant, and I understand that, since I read the very end of your post in context.

Similarly, let’s look at the Mark verse once again:

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved, he who does not believe will be condemned.”

I can’t reproduce all my posts above but Jesus clearly said here that both belief and baptism are required. Just because Paul didn’t baptize people himself doesn’t mean he didn’t think Jesus wanted it done, nor that he didn’t think it necessary. (Quoting Romans 10:13 at me out of the context of the rest of Scripture, including the universal Christian practice in Acts of baptizing everyone, and Jesus’ clear link of baptism – more than once- with salvation (John 3 also) and Peter’s same link, is like someone saying, “Twice in the gospels Jesus is directly asked “what must I do to gain eternal life?” And both times His first response is merely (close paraphrase) ‘Keep the commandments.’ Why then, no acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior is needed, right?” Ridiculous, you and I both say. So, we both want to understand the Bible in context.)

So. Back to our verse. In the case of adults, here’s how Catholics understand Mark 16:15-16: Belief and baptism are required. If an adult believes and is baptized but then apostasizes, he cannot expect to gain Heaven even if baptized, right? I think we agree.

In the case of very young children or infants (remember the several “whole households” in Acts?) God gives grace, as He always has, to children based on the faith of their parents. (I know you and I don’t agree here, but all through the OT and NT, including the application of the Jewish covenant itself, God does saving things for children based on the faith of the parents, since the children are too young to have faith of their own yet. If those baptized children grow up and reject Jesus, despite having been baptized as children, they cannot expect to go to Heaven. That’s all I meant.

Does anyone really understand that to mean that Jesus was offering her literal water? Or that the water would be a literal well in her?
theregoestheneighborhood on April 26, 2008 at 2:41 AM

My point about Jesus’ words in John 6 vs. John 4 (or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter) is that no one left Him in droves, even those who had been following Him for a while, and He didn’t have to say even to His own disciples, “are you going to leave me too?” Tellingly, Peter answers, “where else are we going to go? You have the words of everlasting life?” (IOW “we don’t get it either, but we know you are the Christ.”) Not “Sure, we knew you only meant a symbol and we’ll explain it to everybody. Hey, all you guys, come baaacck!”

His disciples, in other words, never left at His other “metaphors” (which really were metaphors). This wasn’t, and they knew it, hence the difference.

Here’s a good explanation of how Catholics understand that passage (read especially why Catholics understand John 6:63)

Christ in the Eucharist

One taste:

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

and

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12)…there was no effort by Jesus [here] to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14). (

(read at the link for a more complete explanation of the Catholic understanding of John 6:63)

The text at the link describes your views pretty accurately I think, from what you’ve said, and responds to them, as well as to the fundamentalist/evangelical interpretation of John 6:63.

Not expecting you to immediately agree with me (it’d be nice; I think it’s true and I think Jesus wants you to have this gift too :) ) but at least you can see for now where Catholics are coming from, and aren’t pulling our understanding of this gift Jesus gives us out of thin air.

P.S. here’s what some prominent very early Christians thought about this:
The Real Presence – Church Fathers