Is it ever right for Christians to take one another to court? What is the meaning of “word of wisdom” and “word of knowledge” in the New Testament? Is the church using modern explanations for homosexuality rather than biblical ones? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is turmoil around us. There is moral insanity around us, which means be sober, be vigilant, and keep your eyes fixed on the Lord.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Righteousness shines! Righteousness cannot be defeated, and truth will never be overcome!
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
This week, we’re offering two important resources from Dr. Brown, his brand new book, Can You Be Gay and Christian?, and his DVD debate with gay activist (and professing born-again Christian) Harry Knox. You can get both of these key resources for the super low price of just $25! Postage Paid! That’s a $15 savings!
Order Online!
Other Resources:
Mike,
If you have time on today’s show, maybe you could discuss in particular Acts 15:21 and it’s meaning in light of the surrounding verses dealing with Gentiles and the Law.
(AV)
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
It seems there are at least two camps viewing this verse very differently.
First I will share the view I ‘disagree’ with.
“Christians generally ignore this verse in the passage because the ramifications are obvious: What has Torah being taught each week in synagogues have to do with Gentile believers? Why is it being mentioned here along with the ‘four laws’? Because the Gentiles were to *learn Torah* each week in the synagogues! They are being started off on these four laws so they would have the bare basics to begin fellowshiping with their Jewish brethren and they would learn the rest of Torah each shabbat at synagogue. Only after pointing out the Gentiles would learn Torah weekly “did it please the apostles and elders” (vs 22) to send this letter out to the various churches.”
This understanding seems very twisted and dismissive of the grammar of the passage.
The other view, which makes much more sense and is what I got from the passage when I read it is this:
“Concerning Moses: Acts 15:21
For Moses from generations of old has in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.
James’ second conclusion concerned Moses, because in every city there were Jewish synagogues where rabbis proclaimed these matters. Gentile believers who continued to practice these things would offend unbelieving Jewish people, as well as believing Jews, because Moses is read in their synagogues every Sabbath. But as for Gentile believers, since they are not adherents of Judaism anyway, there was no need to impose upon them the requirements of the Law.”
***End of Question segment***
I may post more about the four laws mentioned by James later.
Benjamin,
I think what they mean by Moses being read in the synagogues every Sabbath was most likely referring to the reading of one of the first five books of the First Testament. These have come to be known as Torah portion, or commonly the Book of Moses. We know them too, as the Pentateuch.
I understand what they’re saying is that gentile converts to “Judaism” (it wasn’t yet called that) were quite familiar with the Torah, having attended synagogue and in order to convert to Judaism there would have been requirements to meet, such as circumcision. With the advent of Messiah, the Gentiles no longer need to go through the establishment but directly to and through Messiah, Jesus. Hence their saying what they did. They’re saying only that many Gentiles were familiar with the law and it was probably a little confusing at first to win them over too. But, not that we should all now keep Torah! No. That’s wrong although Bo will tell you otherwise.
Oh no, I hope we didn’t start something.
Benjamin and Sheila,
I do not even know if this thread will be an acceptable venue for this discussion. You both probably know something of my stance. Just about every time I bring the topic up, Dr. Brown says something like, “You have had thousands of posts regarding this topic and it should be dropped.” It is yet to be seen if we are permitted to have this discussion here.
I will not likely convince either of you toward my side, because of your prior assumptions. I used to have those prior assumptions, but after investigating the matter starting from Genesis instead of starting in Galatians, I am convinced that we are grafted into Israel and that there is one law for both the stranger and the home born and not two separate sets of rules. The Israelites are not grafted into us.
The issue is one of obedience to the faith once delivered to the Saints. I think that if we honestly take every word in scripture on the subject, instead of using a few to make void the others, that we will see clearly that the only thing wrong with the commitment to keep YHWH’s perfect law is if one is trying to gain salvation by works. But there is much wrong with exempting one’s self from YHWH’s revelation of what actions are righteous and holy. Once salvation has been granted by grace through faith, we work out our own salvation by gaining in knowledge of YHWH’s word and putting it into practice. Thus, at the time of Acts 15, the controversy was salvation by works/keeping the law compared to salvation by grace. This was settled with the concluding remarks that the only scripture available at the time was to be heard by the new converts in the only place that they could hear it read.
The conclusion was that the whole word of YHWH was important for correctly living as holy and righteous children of YHWH who had been grafted into Israel by grace instead of the law must be learned first and circumcision completed before being made part of YHWH’s chosen people. The latter was a Jewish idea. The former was the Biblical idea as evidenced in the law and the prophets.
So one could become a Pharisaic Jew via circumcision and the law, that included thousands of humanly added rulings, or one could be grafted into Israel via grace and have the necessary time to learn and grow into law abiding citizens of the kingdom of heaven like Abraham did. The latter should produce gratitude to YHWH and more and more righteous and holy actions out of that gratitude as one knows more. The former will produce more and more a prideful attitude of entitlement or a feeling of hopelessness.
This said, many Christians have fallen into the the Pharisaic attitude of pride and entitlement thinking that they have done the work of believing properly, not knowing that faith without works is dead or they have fallen into the hopelessness that they will ever live up other Christian’s lives. Others are still trying to work for their salvation via obeying what they think Paul commanded. (And one could twist Paul’s words to mean that we do not have to pay attention to 3.5 out of the 4 things that the apostles commanded, not to mention vast quantities of the words from YHWH’s mouth.) Others think that grace is covering their intentional sin though they have not repented of it. All these are errors and they are surely abounding in modern Christianity.
O, the simplicity of accepting YHWH’s gracious gift and then showing our gratitude by living out every word that He has spoken as we are made aware of them…like Abraham did.
Shalom
Only the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, that it is a true and real sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, made present again, not repeated, but “re-presented,” this theology is the only way in which we can make sense of the concept of the Third Temple in prophesy. The body of Christ in the sacrifice on Calvary was offered “once and for all.” Yet, the prophets speak of future sacrifices. Dr. Brown rightly points out that these will “point back” to the cross. But the “future sacrifices” are already here: they are offered upon the Christian altar (spoken of in the book of Hebrews). The offering is the Christian liturgy.
This is a very touchy subject, especially since the rejection of the Mass and the Real Presence is the pivotal issue which prompted the Reformation. But I would like to encourage my Evangelical friends to take a closer look at this understanding, which is very ancient. John Chrysostom gave an entire treatise on this very subject. I invite anyone to read his excellent work, “On the Priesthood.” The Eastern Orthodox, and all pre-Reformation churches, believe as Catholics do on the matter, so it’s not just wacky “Romanism.”
Nicholas,
I can’t agree that “rejection of the Mass and the Real Presence [was] the pivotal issue which prompted the Reformation.”
Salvation without literal payment for sins and having a mediator other than Christ our Only Mediator with the Father in Heaven is the chief dispute that I can see.
There are other issues, although I’m short on time right now, that we could discuss.
Sheila,
Martin Luther’s theology about the Mass and predestination got him excommunicated, not his valid concerns about the abuses which were occurring in the selling of indulgences. On this point the Church agreed and banned the practice. An internal reformation of the Church followed (the Catholic Reformation). In a certain sense the Catholic Church has to be grateful that Luther was courageous enough to take a stand on this issue, but we would say that he used his new platform to start preaching his own views about salvation, which were opposed to historical Christianity. Christ is the only Mediator between God and man. On this point we agree. However, we disagree on whether or not Christ set up a tangible institution to minister in the process of that mediation. The sacramental system of the Catholic Church follows from the belief that grace needs to be continuously administered to the soul, which is always in danger of becoming separated from God by way of concupiscence, the constant tendency to sin. Like Arminians, we believe in free will. Luther’s views on predestination forced him to abandon the notion that the sacraments were efficacious or necessary at all, hence his rejection of the Mass. This really is the pivotal issue of the Reformation. Calvin took it ever further.
Sheila, you caught me. I would be a liar if I said that I wasn’t thinking about Bo when I thought of my question due to going over that verse and thinking about what it was conveying. In my study I came across the view I posted first above and wanted to hear Mike’s take on the verse in relation to the context.
But I think Mike usually reads questions that people asked from weeks ago, so maybe he will touch on it in a couple weeks.
Bo and I have discussed the Law at length previously (as a side issue), so at the present time I was more curious to hear Mike look at the verse on-air. Bo and I could go for another 200 or more posts I’m sure, and I think he knows that I do not “start in Galatians” but “start from Genesis” as he does. I have a lot of respect for Bo as a result of our discussions, and you Sheila. I think our discussions have been wonderful and enriching.
Sure, Benjamin, I hope Dr. Brown answers you. Don’t feel bad if he doesn’t check in though. I’ve had at least a few questions go unanswered so I gave up asking him personally. 🙂
Thanks for the kind words–you’re quite the gentle-man! And I owe you for way back…when…
I really enjoy our discussions too. You’re a very kind person and a worthy advocate for Christ! I’m honored to call you a brother.
Thanks!
Hi Nicholas,
I think it was probably Martin Luther’s quest for learning and understanding the Word of God as stated in the Bible that ultimately got him excommunicated. That’s what I took away from it. I don’t read his writings anymore after running across those from his later years. Left a bad taste in my mouth and I don’t understand why he turned like he did. What are your thoughts on his anti-Semitic rants?
Are you saying the Catholic Church no longer believes the foundation of the Eucharist as they once did? Because I had no idea that was the case.
The parents that raised me were Lutheran but I guess you could say I was a pagan until about, what’s it been, maybe 7, give or take years ago that I came to the knowledge of the Truth! I have a terrible memory for “time.”
I’ve got to buckle down and prepare an answer for another blog forum. I’m way behind but will check in regularly on the conversation.
Thanks Fellas! You’ve bolstered my resolve to begin “again” to answer with only the truth as I know it to be. What else do we have?
@Bo, I always find myself exasperated when someone uses unequal weights and measures and in inconsistent hermeneutics.
When Dr. Brown contends with replacement theology, and quotes Jeremiah 31:35-36,
And goes on to explain as long as heaven and earth exist, ethnic Israel will remain the covenant people of God. As he does this, I salute him as an elder in the Lord who rightly interprets scripture according to the peshaṭ.
But then when it comes to Matthew 5:18-21 and Revelation 21, suddenly out of left field another hermeneutic, other than our beloved peshaṭ, comes and pushes the plain meaning of the text out the window, and it always deeply grieves my spirit.
He’s half way there, he just needs to use the same herminutics he applies on Jeremiah 31:35-36 to Matthew 5:18-21 and Revelation 21, and things will be awesome!
Or to make this really simple.
Till 1) Israel ceases being a nation before YHWH, not one תג nor י will be removed from the Torah till 2) everything which has been spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began is fulfilled.
And there is so much prophesy yet to be fulfilled. Zechariah 14 for example.
Nicholas,
To insist that the Catholic Church is doing the sacrifices of the third temple that Ezekiel portrays does extreme damage to the text. This esoteric view was not held by any apostle or writer of the newer testimony. For Paul to participate in the physical temple sacrifices to prove that he continued to keep and teach the Torah instead of doing the falsified sacrifices that the Roman Church says were in place, which were not invented for hundreds of years, proves your concept to be false. The Roman priesthood is a counterfeit. The Roman sacrifices are abominations as are their idols that they call icons and their worship of Mary and the Pope. I know that Catholics have explanations as to how this is not the case, but the facts are the facts. John Chrysostom wrote 350 years after Messiah. He was by no means accustomed to what the early Church did or thought or taught since he was immersed in apostate Catholic dogma instead of in the Word of YHWH.
I am not a fan of Martin Luther or John Calvin, but like everybody, they got some things right. I appreciate the the pro-life stance and some other things of the Catholics, but I find most of the church, both priesthood and laity, to be far from being truly regenerate believers in Messiah. And I know some deeply devout Catholics that I would suspect would be found in the kingdom of heaven. The Catholic system is simply not the Kingdom of Heaven, though some of the people that are in it are kingdom people.
Messiah, in Revelation calls His people to come out of the false harlot system so as not to be a partaker of Her plagues. Much of protestantism are just daughters of the mother of harlots. I do not say these things as insults to you or any well meaning person. It is just time for YHWH’s people to repent and leave the apostate harlot of Revelation and be truly Holy to YHWH in body and spirit.
The third temple will have the sons of Zadok as its priests that offer offerings on the Biblical feast days, new moons and Sabbaths, and any nation that does not come to worship YHWH in Jerusalem on those days will find drought and curses coming upon their country according to the prophets. The restoration of the Jewish people to the land is just the beginning of YHWH gathering all of Israel back to the land and Messiah will return bodily to the mount of Olives to execute judgment upon the ungodly and to begin His literal thousand year reign very soon. We would do well to be found as obedient commandment keepers, keeping the testimony and faith of Y’shua when he returns.
None of this is meant as an offense, but provoke us to love and good works, living by every word that has come from YHWH’s mouth, so that we be ready for Messiah’s return.
Shalom
Nicholas said,
>>Only the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, that it is …
When someone says, “Only my church has the true understanding of [whatever]” I assume that the person has his brain turned off.
Hi Sheila,
No, the Catholic Church still believes what it always believed.
Regarding selling indulgences, this was a practice that developed over time and, due primarily to unchecked corruption in various regions, fell into considerable abuse. Luther was a major force in rooting it out. The Church had no quarrel with him over this and took the necessary action. My point was that the Church did not disagree with Luther on everything. Not all of his theses were rejected.
For instance, if today there was a priest who courageously spoke out against a case of sexual abuse in a particular diocese, then the Church would acknowledge the scandal and take the necessary measures to put an end to the problem, as per the priest’s recommendations. But if the priest were then to go ahead and use his new platform to teach against the Church’s dogmas, then the Church would have to censure him.
Hi Greg,
If my brain is turned off, would you care to turn it on?
>> No, the Catholic Church still believes what it always believed.
It took 350, but the Catholic Church changed what it believes about Galileo.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/31/world/after-350-years-vatican-says-galileo-was-right-it-moves.html
Better (very, very) late than never!
Now we just have to get the Pentecostals on board with science! 😉
Nicholas,
>>If my brain is turned off, would you care to turn it on?
Only you can have an open mind about other church traditions.
For starters – communion is a ritual, not a doctrine.
Any doctrine your church has about communion is an “add on” to scripture.
This is fine. Every church does it. It’s no bother to me… unless you claim the my church is wrong and yours is right.
Hi Bo,
I’m not offended. I appreciate the depth of your response.
Ezekiel experiences a mystical vision of the physical body of the Lord upon the cross, especially of the point at which blood and water stream from the wound of his pierced side. Christ himself identifies his own body as the Third Temple in John 2:19. The physical body of Christ transcends itself to become the church. We both believe this, hence our use of the term “body of Christ.”
The issue the caller raises refers to prophecies of future sacrifices in a Third Temple. Malachi also makes reference to this. We believe this refers to the Eucharistic Celebration (the Mass). I think it is dangerous to presume that there will be a physical Third Temple in Jerusalem with animal sacrifices. If such a thing were to occur, this would be in complete derogation of the sacrifice of Christ. If the Levitical system returns, we must be prepared to recognize that it is reactionary, that it denies the cross, that it is anti-Christ.
The Catholic perspective is only one which can logically harmonize the three concepts which we have before us: that Christ died for our sins once for all, that there are other sacrifices, and that there is a Third Temple. The Eucharist has as its one and only source the atoning death of Christ.
Greg,
Galileo has nothing to do with Church dogma. The Catholic Church never mandated by dogma that everyone must believe that the earth is the center of the universe.
For us, communion is not just a ritual, it is a dogmatic issue. On this point I believe that you are wrong and that I am right. If I did not believe this, why on earth would I be a Catholic? I’d be a non-denominational something or other, or I’d just stay at home and read the Bible.
No disrespect to you, of course.
In the fundamentalist church, of my youth, our understanding of communion was fairly simple — mostly remembrance and unity.
The stronger emphasis seemed to be on unity. We were often reminded to not take communion if we had any grievance with another church member.
Nicholas,
I guess I have to say this a different way:
It’s fine that you make communion into a dogma. But that is for _your_ church… not for all churches.
This dogma is not from the bible but from your own tradition.
From the bible, communion is a ritual of thanksgiving and remembrance. From Acts, it seems hardly a ritual — just an attitude to have at the church potluck.
Your own dogmas is not a problem until you claim that you have the only true understanding of communion.
Paul speaks of people getting sick and dying when receiving the Eucharist while not discerning the body and blood of Christ, so he took it pretty seriously.
In almost every church I’ve attended, communion was treated like a club — you had to be baptized (often in a certain way or by a certain church) or had to be a certain age or had been “received” or whatnot.
This has always seemed at odds with the gospel accounts of communion which was about inclusion, not exclusion.
Nicholas,
>>Paul speaks of people getting sick and dying when receiving the Eucharist while not discerning the body and blood of Christ, so he took it pretty seriously.
Taking it seriously is very different than saying that your church has the only true understanding of the ritual.
Nicholas,
By the way — if your church is the only one that understands communion properly, shouldn’t you be able to prove that with a lower mortality rate?
After all, you should be getting less sick and dying less frequently! 😉
Nicholas,
I’ll quit teasing you and offer you an olive branch.
My Episcopalian church is right next to the big Catholic cathedral. Fairly regularly, we get Catholic priest coming over and “breaking bread” with us.
While they remain in the Catholic church, they tell me they appreciate our Episcopalian inclusiveness.
I forget… didn’t, a few years ago, the RC church start allowing Episcopalian priests so officiate at their Eucharists?
It’s fine, Greg, I don’t mind a little harmless teasing. We both do it.
There is nothing wrong with inclusiveness. I would rather see sinners in the pews then out in the world sinning. When it comes to the Eucharist, however, it is a closed club. At least it is in our church. This is how we do things. One has to be in a state of grace to receive the Lord in communion.
Regarding Episcopalian priests officiating at Catholic masses, they are not supposed to, but it may happen. We do not consider the Episcopal Church to have valid ordinations. Nothing personal, of course.
I don’t believe that the hosts in the Holy Communion become the physical flesh and blood of Christ, but I do believe that after the Holy Spirit is asked to fill them with the life giving power of Christ, that they no longer remain common bread and wine, but become most holy, and that the same power that came out of Christ into the woman with the issue of blood, now resides within the consecrated gifts.
It is not just symbolic. You don’t get sick and die eating something symbolic. And if you read all the earliest Christian writings, the Didache, what the Apostle Paul wrote, Ireneaus and others, they all clearly believed it was a SACRAMENT, not just some bread you passed around.
The idea that Holy Communion is “just bread” is actually quite a recent phenomenon. I have heard of some congregations that actually throw the remaining bread out to the birds after services. The Reformers believed in a spiritual presence of Christ, at the very least.
Nicholas—“The Catholic perspective is only one which can logically harmonize the three concepts which we have before us: that Christ died for our sins once for all, that there are other sacrifices, and that there is a Third Temple. The Eucharist has as its one and only source the atoning death of Christ.”
Could you elaborate on that please? I’d like to hear more on how your perspective harmonizes the last two, the sacrifices and the third temple. I take the communion very seriously in mentally reaching back to the Cross.
Thanks!
Hi Sheila. I’ll come back tomorrow. Going to bed now. Sorry. But I’ll have a response for you tomorrow. Thank you.
Re The caller Mark on the program.
There was much compassion to this caller to be what he was born a child of a king. God wants Mark to be in the glory of the most holy. The way Mark was dealt with was just like in the books that have been written on this subject with much love,care, and compassion. My heart reached out to Mark and I will pray that Gods presence will be over him for Mark to find himself in the direct love of our creator. I am so happy to be part of this ministry to see the direct fruits of the love of God on the radio. You can see it, feel it and hear it on the airwaves.
I believe the scripture teaches us not to take one another before a worldly court. (I Cor 6)
Did you ever notice that in a worldly court, it always seems to be about money, or taking away something of value from one person and awarding it to another, rather than about reconciliation to God first? And if there be restitution to be made, shouldn’t it be something the party who has done the wrong would want to do and be blessed by the Lord as he does it willingly, rather than be forced by a court to do?
In this world, laws intervene because of wrongs done, and things are put on people to do or to pay back.
Likewise the law of God entered because of sin.
Fulfilling the righteousness of the law by grace through faith is wonderful.
I believe it’s certainly possible that while men seek to fulfil the law by it’s written commands, they might find themselves one day to have not even been in the faith of God while they were about doing all that.
God has a higher way than taking a brother to court, and a better way than living in legality by the letter of whatever law we choose.
Nicholas,
>>When it comes to the Eucharist, however, it is a closed club. At least it is in our church. This is how we do things. One has to be in a state of grace to receive the Lord in communion.
It’s the “closed club” thing that bothers me. You aren’t alone in this, of course. Lots of churches use communion as a club.
It strikes me as counter to Christ’s invitation for all sinners to accept his sacrifice on the cross.
And this is why “dogma” matters.
If one believes that communion is fundamentally about the saving sacrifice of Jesus, then who better to accept it than sinners?
Communion, then, becomes a kind of ‘Billy Graham style” alter call opportunity.
But, if one believes that communion is fundamentally about church fellowship, then one most join the church first.
And, if one believes their sect of Christianity is the only legitimate church, communion becomes divisive and exclusionary.
This, I believe is counter to the spirit of Christ.
Nicholas, take your time.
Since it’s such a beautiful day in South Carolina I’ll check in after sunset! Don’t get many perfect days like this one!
Ray,
I agree with you in spirit — Christians should avoid suing each other.
By a “worldly court” do you mean a civil court.
If two Christians are acting like good Christians, they should be able to come to a fair, peaceful resolution.
But what if they can’t? What if two sincere Christians see an issue so very differently they can’t resolve it?
I have never attended a church that has any sort of function/person/committee that would replace a civil court.
Does yours?
Greg, anyone can take communion, as long as they’ve first repented (normally through confession with a priest, although perfect contrition with the intent to confess as soon as possible is acceptable). I think the club is closed for our benefit, not for haughtiness. We believe the unrepentant sinner eats and drinks his own condemnation if he receives communion unworthily (as per Paul). Normally, only Catholics can take communion in a Catholic church, but permission from the bishop can be granted for non-Catholic Christians in exceptional circumstances.
Nicholas,
Discussing this issue with you makes me think I have to go back and refresh myself on this issue.
I suspect that I am drawing more from the Gospels/Acts and you are drawing more from Paul — and that there is a significant difference between the two.
By the way — I am not accusing your church of haughtiness. But, by your own account, it does seem like you have turned it into a tool of exclusion.
How can it be seen any other way?
And, as a liberal, I tend to favor inclusion.
As Christian, I believe that grace favors inclusion as well.
That’s one reason I’m a liberal Christian!
In the old days, it would have looked even more exclusive. Taking communion in the hand was forbidden and you had to be kneeling.
Hi Sheila,
My response, as promised:
We agree that Christ’s atoning death is the ultimate sacrifice, and that to which the Passover and the Levitical cult pointed. The question is, why does the Old Testament describe a “Third Temple” and how does this accompany the prophecies of the atoning death of the Messiah? Is there an inherent contradiction here, or not? This was the caller’s question in the first place. How do we understand Ezekiel’s vision in light of the reality of the cross, after which no further work of atonement can occur? Furthermore, why does Malachi make reference to a “pure offering,” as well as to sacrifices upon altars in the future age (“from the rising of the sun to its setting”)? Also, we must not forget this crucial passage in the Book of Hebrews: “And, according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Consider that this passage, which introduces a pivotal discussion about the work of Christ on the cross, makes reference to multiple sacrifices. It is worth noting that there are no known variants of this verse. Copyists have been very careful in maintaining the inspired author’s intention to refer to sacrifices in the plural. But we also know that Hebrews famously speaks of Christ having died “once for all.” We have to take all of these things into consideration and arrive at a synthesis to understand what is being revealed to us.
The Catholic position (and, in point of fact, the historical view, that which is held by all pre-Reformation churches) understands the Eucharistic liturgy (what the Roman church calls “the Mass”) to be the act by which the eternal reality of Calvary is made present in perpetuity. Christ does not suffer and die a second time, a third time, etc. He died once, once and for all. Yet, the Mystery of his Passover is sustained until the end the world, being continuously re-presented (not repeated but re-presented) before the Father. This takes place upon the altar (Hebrews 13:10), and it is a true sacrifice of propitiation. It IS really the sacrifice of Christ, but the sacrifice of Christ IS NOT occurring again. Therefore, the altar of God’s people, the Church, is the altar of the Third Temple, the Eucharistic Oblations are the sacrifices, and the fruits of Christ’s singular work of atonement are being applied to the faithful. Christ is the only priest of the New Covenant. The Catholic priest is only the minister of Christ. The work of the Mass is entirely the work of Christ, who did not relinquish his priesthood upon entering the heavenly tabernacle. He is a priest forever, his work of intercession does not cease.
Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the papacy, primarily, and Catholics and Protestants disagree on the Eucharist. At least, this is how it was in the beginning, at the outset of the Reformation. Selling indulgences, and all that, that is all just a distraction. In the schism within Western Christianity (that is, between Catholics and Protestants), all divisions flow from this one issue: what is the Mass? What is it supposed to be? Is Christian worship supposed to be liturgical? For many peoples, Luther’s ideas were a revelation, but not necessarily because of his theology. More so, because his views created an opportunity whereby nations could challenge the authority of the pope, who was, essentially, the supreme leader of Europe, having the power to crown and depose kings. If someone could prove the Catholic hierarchy wrong, especially from the Bible, then kings would have every excuse to implement total autonomy in their realms. The best example of this is what happened in England in the time of Henry VIII. Although I do not doubt Luther’s sincerity, even as I firmly believe he was severely misguided, his movement became very political, which is why it became so popular. But it all started with a challenge to the Catholic position on the Eucharist and the Mass. The other things came later, once the flood-gates were opened, as it were.
I imagine that this is a sensitive subject for many here, and, especially for the benefit of others who will read this, I want to be clear that I truly appreciate that a Catholic is able to share his opinions and reflect upon the teachings of his religion on an Evangelical blog. I recognize that I am in the company of charitable and gracious minds, true brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks to everyone.
Greg, It seems to me that Churches tend to have a board and the board will determine if someone should leave because they don’t agree with something concerning the leadership or anyone else for that matter, rather than do the work of reconciliation, or determine if that “something” is something they must agree with.
Then the board will find a way to tell the person that he’s either not welcome there anymore or will find some “reason” to tell him he’s not to come around anymore, without hearing any more from him.
I don’t believe that’s always the right way to handle things. I believe there may be a better way.
It takes people wanting to do reconciliation work by the gospel, and walking through things, finding out what is right, looking at actions other people have taken which have affected others in a way that is the cause of any present trouble or distress, verifying facts concerning those things, not being willing to hear anything evil for the sake of evil, willing to plead the cause of anyone being treated unjustly, doing the same for one person as for another, regardless of who it is, seeking earnestly to do what’s right, being willing to repent of their own sins should they happen, and being willing to ask for mercy when mercy is due, on the behalf of another, when it is the right thing to do, doing the best they can on these matters, seeking the Lord’s help, and following up if necessary, to see if any problem is still there.
Again, the focus should be reconciliation ministry.
I believe there may be times when one or more people involved will refuse to repent of their sins, and will continue to walk in a way that is contrary to God, and it is then that they may be told to not come around for that reason, having the reason clearly explained to them, answering all their reasonable questions about such things, showing them their sins and what the scripture teaches concerning them, asking them to come back to the cross, asking them to bear the burden of their own sins, and ask forgiveness from others when they do find acknowledgment of them.
And even as one might not be ready to attend a Church meeting, there may be room for continued ministry of reconciliation work to be done outside of the Church meetings, as long as the person is willing to walk through some of these things that do affect others in negative ways.
But if the person is not open to such work, then he is willingly staying away from the group, and things I believe are as they should be in such situations, the sheep chasing out the goats, goats being the ones who refuse to hear the word of reconciliation.
I think of this kind of work as being a part of helps and government type of gifts.
Where Dr. White is pressing the “high priest” function of the atonement (in the Predestination Debate on Revelation TV–e.g.: minute 50:33 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTU4j3ZeGUw), isn’t it the case that the high priest intercedes for the “nation”, while the “nation” herself is in “flux”–both “expanding” and/or “contracting”, in accordance with people being “grafted in” or “cut off” [Ro 11:17-23] (for entering or breaking the New Covenant “terms and conditions”: “faith” [the definition of which is a-whole-nother discussion]) in just the same way as was the case under the Old Covenant (breakers of Covenant were at times “cut off from their people”; foreigners who wanted to join Israel were “grafted in” so to speak–e.g.: Ruth)?
This reminds me of Daniel 4: the rock cut out of the mountain fills the earth. Is the “rock” not “the Israel of God” (which in the future will be unified with the Israel of the flesh)? “All other nations will be brought to a full end, but the nation of Israel is eternal” (para.) [Jr 30:11]–but the definition of “the eternal state of Israel” is “a state in flux–growing as she absorbs/inherits people”.
Israel was to be a light to the nation–those who are “Israel” (those qualifying to be considered a part of the “election of grace” [Ro 9:6; 11:2-7]–different people have different views of this [I believe it includes those who exhibit “obedience of faith in the Good News”])
If a person wants to be “in the land of the living” on earth in the future, that person will HAVE to be a citizen of Israel–the state which has absorbed “as many as would”.
On another level, isn’t Christ Himself called “Israel”? So of course there are people being grafted in and cut off from Christ [Ro 11:17-23; Gal 1:6, 3:1-3, 5:4; Hb 3:12,13; 10:38+11:6,39].
In other words: yes, the High Priest is fulfilling his role for Israel; but “Israel” is not a “static” entity.
IOW,
Those for whom Christ is “especially” performing “high priestly intercession” is in flux–and He, the King of Israel, mandates His subjects to go and be a Light to all the nations of the world (“and then the end will come”); and to cause them to be integrated into Israel.
Ray,
I think I followed your post.
I agree — especially if the issue involves sin, then the church is a much better place to resolve it instead of the “worldly courts” as you call them.
But the little experience I have with civil courts didn’t seem like anything a church board would have the time or expertise to resolve.
For example, a law suit when a sub-contractor in a building matter. Both were Christians, although not from the same church. It had to do with delay of service making the main contractor go over budget. How would a deacon board ever begin to resolve such a thing? And then enforce it?
Seems to me… the “worldly court” is in a much better place to make a fair judgment.
Nicholas,
Do you confess to the priest?
I have seen it done in the movies, many times, but none of my Catholic friends ever talk about it.
I see some value in the Catholic way.
Obviously, the bible says, “confess your sins, one to another” and not “confess our sins to a priest” but at least you Catholics are confessing to somebody!
In the Protestant churches I’m familiar with, very little confession takes place at all.
We Episcopalians confess our sins, every week, but it’s a blanket group confessions. I think it is valuable but not as powerful as naming our specific sins to a fellow believer.
Do I understand correctly that the priest then grants absolution? I would have a problem with that aspect of it. I think absolution comes from God, not man. But, I may be wrong on who does the absolving in Catholicism. Please correct me if I am.
Greg,
I try to go to confession about once every two weeks or so. We’re obligated to confess our sins only if we’re conscious of grave matter. But we’re encouraged to go to confession in any event, since it’s a sacrament and a channel of grace. At the start of every mass, there’s a penitential rite, during which we call to mind our sins, after which there’s a general absolution. I suppose this is similar to your blanket confessions.
We do not believe that the priest himself absolves our sins. He acts for Christ and absolves us “in persona Christie,” through the ministry of the Church, which ties in to the idea that the Church is the minister of salvation. In the confessional, we understand that we are confessing to Christ, as it were, through his agent.
>>We do not believe that the priest himself absolves our sins. He acts for Christ and absolves us “in persona Christie,” through the ministry of the Church, which ties in to the idea that the Church is the minister of salvation. In the confessional, we understand that we are confessing to Christ, as it were, through his agent.
I guess I am just too much of an Evangelical to want a middle man! 😉
In my church tradition — and my own heart — I ask for forgiveness, directly from God though personal prayer.
Importantly, we are supposed to confess our sins as soon as we are aware of it — no saving it up for Sunday.
We didn’t have ritualized confession on Sunday that I remember although I see value in that since many of our sins are collective or unwitting.
I should add… thanks for explaining about the priest not doing the absolving.
In the absolving pronouncement in our Book of Prayer, it’s a little ambiguous. It reads like this:
>> The Bishop, when present, or the Priest, stands and says
>> Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you all your sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen you in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep you in eternal life. Amen.
My own church has changed it so that it is pretty clear that the priest is not doing the granting. We join him in this prayer: :
>>>Almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us all our sins through our Lord Jesus Christ, strengthen us in all goodness, and by the power of the Holy Spirit keep us in eternal life.
I like the way our church says it better.
The penitential rite in the Catholic mass has similar wording. The priest says, “May Almighty God have mercy on you,” emphasizing that the priest is not just the presider of the congregation but also the agent of Christ (the alter Christus), through whom Christ works, but some liberal priests will substitute “us” instead, although they are not supposed to.