Convo with ICOC Teacher
A while ago, I had a conversation with a guy. We both commented on a mutual friends Facebook post, and this friend was from the ICOC. I initiated conversation with him because his profile picture looked like something you would see an Orthodox person put up, and people from the ICOC tend to be isolated from that kind of stuff, so I was intrigued. The man's name is Joey Harris, and I have his permission to make this public. I have cleaned up some of the grammar and spelling errors, but the substance is faithful to the original.
I've decided to put this up for a few reasons. One, it's probably the best attempt by a member of the ICOC to stop me from being Catholic. Or at least, it's the more informed attempt. Two, there's a certain intellectual humility in the conversation, which I think other members of the ICOC should follow. I've talked to many of my friends from this group, and they simply don't know how to approach me about this, and I briefly give an example to Mr. Harris of how that happened to me. Three, I just want my friends from the ICOC, however many are left, to be aware of some of the issues and how one of their own teachers deal with it. I am honestly surprised at some of the things that were said, and I say as much in the conversation. Why do I care about the ICOC? Well, I still have friends, so, this is just something to read that might have relevance to them, and I think it's good for them to see one of thier teachers, other than Jacoby, in action.
Conversation started July 28, 2014
Adrian Urias
Hey. I noticed the Angel on your profile pic when you commented on Chad's post. Looks old. Are you Catholic? Orthodox?
Joey Harris
I am very familiar with both smile :-) These days I try only to be a simple follower of Christ.
Adrian Urias
Oh! Cool! Yeah, that's a rare breed of intellect.
Yeah, I try to follow Christ too. That's why I'm Catholic. You should go to mass sometime.
Joey Harris
I wasn't aware that Christ was Catholic ;-) I do go to mass sometimes :-) as I said, I'm not unfamiliar...
Adrian Urias
Haha, I like your Facebook address "bibleteacher" are you a pastor or something?
Joey Harris
Closer to the "something" lol
Adrian Urias
Do you do church at all? Did you used to be Catholic?
Joey Harris
Yes, we meet in homes (ecclesiae domus)...and yes, as you already felt I was.
Adrian Urias
Oh, so you're non denominational?
Joey Harris
Nope
Adrian Urias
Huh. Yeah, I've always had difficulty trying to understand that movement. So different each one, ya know? Well, we gotta bring you back home. Mother Mary and the saints miss you.
Why did you leave, if you don't mind me asking?
Joey Harris
Which movement?
Adrian Urias
Non denominational. It's like, what are you exactly? It's not a united front like Catholic or Baptist or Calvinist. You can describe those groups and what they believe. But not so with non denominational. They refuse allegiance, which is bizarre for a Catholic to hear, yet that's how we identify this very loosely related people.
Joey Harris
I don't mind...as I read Scripture, I developed some theological areas of difference (I refer you to the Catholic theologian Hans Küng for a few of those differences) which ultimately led to my leaving.
You can describe what I believe very easily...I believe the Rule of Faith...I believe everything in the Credo which you recite each week
Adrian Urias
Yeah, that's strange. Hey, listen, you've piqued my interest, but I have to get ready for work. Can we continue later tonight?
Joey Harris
Of course...looking forward to it..."work as if working for The Lord."
Adrian Urias
Parting thought, Kung is not Catholic. Sure, he talks about Catholic stuff, but dudes a heretic.
Ttyl
Joey Harris
ttyl
July 28, 2014
Adrian Urias
So you read the bible and decided you didn't agree with certain doctrines. Which were those?
Joey Harris
Papal Infallibility, mandatory priestly celibacy, the immaculate conception, perpetual virginity and assumption of Mary
Adrian Urias
I'm curious what you understand "mandatory" priestly celibacy to be. For one, it is not doctrine, it is discipline and subject to change. Secondly, it isn't really mandatory. Priest can and do get married. Further, married priests who convert from Anglicanism or orthodoxy still remain married priests, so that demonstrates celibacy isn't really mandatory. Lastly, even if it is granted that you're right and you disagree with church discipline, it's a stretch to say this is grounds for leaving. Even Küng, whom you referenced, denied papal infallibility and priestly celibacy, yet he wasn't so erroneous to think it was grounds for schism. So, I think we can talk about the other issues you mentioned, but this one stood out to me as an especially egregious error.
That said, what in the bible lead you believe that the Catholic position on these issues were false?
Joey Harris
I agree that "mandatory" was a poor choice of words...and I'm familiar with the issue...not arguing with any of your points re "mandatory"
1 Tim 4:1-5, Matt 1-23-25, Matt 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, Acts 1:12-14, 1 Cor 9:3-6, papal infallibility does not naturally follow from Petrine keys and authority, immaculate conception/perpetual virginity/assumption all have very little to no biblical basis but grew out of popular (in some cases early) traditions surrounding Mary. I am familiar with the early Patristic debates about Jesus' siblings...nearly all of which on the "relatives but not siblings" side begin with an a priori assumption of perpetual virginity which leads them to want to dismiss the most natural readings of most of the relevant biblical texts in favor of more elaborate scenarios and assumptions with little to no proof or evidence. If you can show me any who do not do so, I would be most interested.
By the way, you recently denounced Küng as a heretic, when to my knowledge he remains a validly ordained (ie, not "defrocked" nor excommunicated) Catholic priest. He was censured as an official theologian of the Church but remained on the teaching faculty of his Catholic university.
Adrian Urias
I'm off work in a few hours, so let me just say something about Küng, and I'll say something to the rest when I get home. So, like the word "mandatory", my choice of words may have been a bit polemical :-) Yes, he was never officially denounced as a heretic, and yes he was never defrocked or ex communicated. But one, I personally think he's a heretic for denying church dogma, particularly on the issue of the deity of Christ, which he had problems with. Two, one can be a heretic and still remain a priest. This is because of the nature and grace of priesthood. The saying is, once a priest always a priest. It imprints upon you a permanent mark on the soul. The same goes with baptism. You can't possibly be baptized more than once. Three, excommunication is a very serious matter which should not be taken lightly. Excommunication is used as a type of punishment to encourage the sinner to repent. It is probably the most severe punishment the church can give. Küng, while a rabble rouser and trouble maker, did not, according to the wisdom of the church in all her graciousness, merit that severe of a punishment. He was disciplined no doubt, he is no longer allowed to be a representative of church teaching, but the church has a high tolerance for these people, for better or for worse.
Just for clarification, did you mean Matthew 1:23-25 or chapters one, twenty three, and twenty five? Also, I can see the relevance with each passage to each topic you mentioned except for the last one. The relevance of that one isn't clear.
Joey Harris
I meant Matt 1:23-25
1 Cor 9:5 was the relevant verse, I just posted 9:3-6 for context
I understand re Küng, and I think that the church's tolerance for people like Kung are a manifestation of God's grace to all of us
Adrian Urias
So, granting all that, for now, why did you not remain Lutheran or some kind of high Anglo Catholic? You're not one of those, you're a non denominational Christian. Protestants, and I assume you're protestant but you never know with non denominational, generally don't say that the Pope is not infallible or Marian doctrine is false, therefore, evangelicalism. Rather, they maintain some resemblance of the church, as Lutherans and Anglicans do, with keeping of the priesthood and sacrament of baptism. It's only in further dissent, in my opinion, that one devolves into your more common protestant strains, like Presbyterian, Baptist, Anabaptist, and non denominational way at the bottom of the pedigree totem pole.
As for 1st Timothy, I wrote a blog about this last night, so here's what I have to say about that. The idea is that the Catholic Church is that which is being described here. This is incorrect. First, as it already has been shown, the Catholic Church in fact does not forbid anyone from marrying. Secondly, we don't order people to abstain from certain foods, unless it is a sort of fast, which I think any congregation can understand. Because we don't do that, the Catholic Church is not that being described in 1st Timothy. Thirdly, the text gives you insight as to why these things were banned by looking at the justification for their use. It says, in contradiction to those who would have these things banned, that they are good. So, those who forbade these things thought they were not good. But does the Catholic Church teach that marriage is not good? Or that we ought to abstain from certain foods because they are not good? No, those were the Gnostics who said that. The Church believes marriage is so good, it's a sacrament. So for those three reasons, this passage simply doesn't apply or affect anything concerning Catholicism.
Yet the charge persists. Why? It's because the Church asks those who take holy orders to also take vows of chastity. But since when is that the same as forbidding people to get married? Take a similar example, freedom of speech. The government is not allowed to stifle anyone's free speech. However, if you wanted to work with the government, and the government said to you there are certain things you are not allowed to say (like anything critical of the president if you wanted to work on the president's security detail) if you choose to work with them, would that be a stifling of free speech? Obviously not. Sure, in any other cases, that would have been, but in this case it is not. If, however, the government said everyone, against their will, was a federal agent and therefore, no one could be critical of the president, then that would be a violation. But because no one is forced to be a federal agent no one is being forced or forbidden to do anything. In the same way, no one is forced to be a priest, no one is forced to take vows of chastity (some even take vows of silence and poverty, so are these orders thus forbidding one to speak their mind or be rich?)
Joey Harris
I'm not Protestant. I believe in the priesthood, and hold a high view of the church, the Eucharist, baptism, the Trinity, marriage, etc. As I told you, I believe in everything contained in the Credo (though many who recite it every week not only don't believe it, they don't even understand what they are claiming to believe). I never said that the passage in 1 Tim referred to the Catholic Church; I don't believe that it does.
Adrian Urias
Hmm. Well it might beneficial if you maybe explained your views a bit more, so I can adjust some of my reactions. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say and your views.
So, you're not protestant. Good! Start there.
Concerning the creed, I'm a convert, first from atheism and from an Anabaptist group (similar to the Mennonites and Amish) so I feel I have a good sense of what I'm saying in the creeds.
Joey Harris
The lack of knowledge comment wasn't directed at you personally; it was a general comment. I've found you to be quite aware and knowledgable about what you believe, which I like and respect very much.
Adrian Urias
Well look, I don't want to beat around the bush, when I say we gotta bring you back home, I'm serious. We both think the other is in error, and so it's our duty, I think, to persuade the other to move to or away from the Catholic Church. I think we can have an intelligent and civil conversation about it. I don't mean to be an instigator, but I'm serious about my faith and evangelism so I think we should elevate the discussion there, yeah?
Joey Harris
So what are the reasons you went to Catholicism? So far, you've not been presenting me with a positive and biblical case for me to return.
Adrian Urias
That's true, because I've been trying to get a feel of where you're at. I don't want to say stuff you already agree with, which I think is understandable. There are three reasons: authority, forgiveness of sins, and Eucharist. You say you have a high view of the church. Good. How high? I would like to see what common ground we have to springboard off of. Forgiveness of sins, I would like to know what you think you should do, if anything at all, to receive that. And you have a high view of the Eucharist. Good. How high? A mere symbol? Something more? What do we have in common so as to not waste time and energy.
Joey Harris
I believe that the Eucharist is much more than symbolic...it is true koinonia between the participants, including God, especially in the person of the Son of whom we partake. By mindfully and humbly sharing together and uniting in the Eucharist, we actively proclaim Jesus' death until he returns. We are to recognize in the Eucharist the body and blood of the Lord and also we are to recognize by our behavior the presence of The Lord in the assembled community, His body (1 Cor 11:17-34 and 1 Cor 12). What do you believe?
Regarding forgiveness of sins, one must repent and be baptized (Acts 2:36-42) to receive forgiveness of sins and after baptism one must confess ones sins in order to continue to be forgiven (James 5:13-20 which is actually referring to the Annointing of the Sick but is related and I John 1:8-10).
Adrian Urias
Eucharist is what it is what you say it is, though I would emphasize that Jesus is real in the Eucharist in relation to me as real as I am my body in relation to you. This is important because Jesus said that if you don't eat his flesh and drink his blood, you have no life. Therefore, what you believe about the Eucharist is vitally important and cannot afford error.
Forgiveness of sins, baptism is just but one part, as you note, and confession is the second. James is referring to the anointing of the sick, but not solely that. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Why? Because he confessed them to the elder. Elder, translated/transliterated is bishop. So we confess to the bishop, who are the successors to the apostles, the apostles whom were given that authority (John 20:19-23). Now, logistically, I can't see my bishop. Los Angeles is huge (where are you located btw, maybe we can meet up). So the bishop deputizes priests. They are much easier to talk to, so for my sins committed after my baptism I confess them to my bishop or his priests. This too is important because this necessitates properly identifying that unbroken chain or at least the original church. If you confess to someone who does not have the pedigree, you don't have that assurance of the forgiveness of sins post baptism. Being a grace of God, one directly relevant to salvation, this too cannot afford error.
Finally, authority. I mentioned I was a convert from atheism. In my studies, I concluded, through reason and evidence, that Christianity was true due to the event of the resurrection. I read the bible and concluded it was true, as far as history went, but I never found justification for the doctrine of inspiration (and by extension, inerrancy). Saying 2+2=4 is true, but you'll be hard pressed to say this was a message from God. But practically, this had little impact. My faith was rooted in a person, not a book. This was liberal ish, but was as far as my knowledge would allow me to go. Then, upon studying the claims of the Catholic church, I realized it too was true that Jesus promised to build his church on Peter and it would never cease to exist. Aquinas (shoot, or was it Augustine?) argued cleverly that a proof for the truth of Christianity was the mere existence of the church. So, in order to even know the proper set of scriptures, you need an extra scriptural authority. One just has to look at the history of councils to figure out what they are. In no other group do you even have people daring to have such authority. Only Catholicism. Hence, Catholicism and Catholicism only can justifiably use scripture.
Joey Harris
I was with you on parts of that, but in other parts you lost me, either from faulty logic and/or lack of scripture. I'll respond more fully when I can type better (using phone at the moment)
Adrian Urias
Yeah I think my paragraph on authority was pretty sloppy myself. I rushed it. Which is unfortunate seeing how I think this the biggest divide and the strongest point. I'll amend it according to your response. I feel good about the other paragraphs though.
Joey Harris
It sounds like we're on the same page regarding the Eucharist.
It also sounds like we're on the same page regarding the essentials of forgiveness of sins, baptism, and confession. Almost. That's where you started to go off into stuff on authority.
You wrote: "Why? Because he confessed them to the elder. Elder, translated/transliterated is bishop. So we confess to the bishop, who are the successors to the apostles, the apostles whom were given that authority (John 20:19-23)." There are a number of things wrong with those statements on a factual basis. First, "elder" when translated/transliterated is NOT bishop in this passage. The passage in the original Greek literally reads, "the elders of the church" which refers to the leaders later known as "priests" in the Catholic Church and does NOT mention "bishops" or overseers at all. In the New Testament, the terms "elder", "bishop", "shepherd", and "pastor" appear to have been synonymous and referred to the same office of church leadership. Churches seem to have been led in every case mentioned by a body or group of such leaders. Sometimes, as in the book of Acts, we see one person presiding over the group as James, the brother of the Lord (as Luke refers to him) seemed to have presided over the Jerusalem church which had both elders and apostles leading by then or as Peter seems to have presided over the group of the 12 apostles after Jesus ascended. Second, the mono episcopate church structure which you refer to is a later development (very early....2nd century) which was spearheaded successfully by Ignatius of Antioch but which doesn't appear to have been the case in the New Testament itself. At any rate, the Greek word used in James 5 is "elder" and NOT bishop, so even if bishops were already separate from presbyters at the time James wrote, he was not referring to bishops, but to presbyters. Furthermore, as you are well aware, all priests (i.e., presbyters) have the power to forgive sins. Third, the passage you used to support your clam to apostolic authority to forgive sins (John 20:19-23) simply says "disciples" and a few verses later makes a point of mentioning the Twelve in particular because Thomas happened not to be among the group of disciples (presumably larger than just the apostles, but including the other apostles besides Thomas) who were present when Jesus said what he did about forgiveness. Later, when Thomas does show up, the group is referred to as simply the disciples, again implying that it was a larger group of followers which included the apostles among them (similar or maybe even identical to the group of 120 disciples meeting in the same room a few weeks later during the festival of Pentecost, a very large group of disciples which nevertheless included the Twelve apostles among them). Your whole argument (in the neutral sense of the word) in the rest of the paragraph thus rests on nothing in the case of James and on ambiguous grounds in the case of John which may or may not refer to only the apostles. Furthermore, the rest of your paragraph about the bishop deputizing the priests, etc. rests on nothing biblical but on church practice and tradition. Nothing wrong with that per se, but that gives it no biblical tie to salvation at all in those two instances.
Regarding the last paragraph on authority, I found it confusing and difficult to follow your train of thought. At no point have I ever even mentioned, let alone claim, a doctrine of inerrancy. I do believe in a doctrine of inspiration for the Bible, and so should you as this is a central and basic Catholic dogma. I strongly agree with your statement about faith being rooted in a person, not a book. I don't consider that to be liberal, but I can see why you said it was liberal-ish. I don't know what your current belief is about the Bible, but the Catholic belief is exactly that is IS "a message from God" and that the writers were inspired by God in their writing of it and that the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in her discernment, collection and preservation of Scripture. If you don't believe that, I refer you to your bishop for further teaching (I say that partially tongue-in-cheek and partially seriously). I think I understand (and if so, also agree with as my statement above should have made clear) what you were trying to say regarding the role of the Church in discerning/determining, collecting, and preserving Scripture. However, I strongly disagree with your last three sentences. They are simply false. Lots of people can and have and do dare to have such authority. In fact, there reason the church began to exercise its authority was in response to heretics attempting to do so first...beginning with Marcion. Also, you seem to be (understandably from your perspective and beliefs) identifying the early church with the Catholic Church of today. Catholicism is one of several groups (some orthodox in belief and others heterodox) which emerged from the original, truly catholic church of the first few centuries. And before you react, I'm not talking about schismatic groups. Even if I were only talking about groups in communion with the current Catholic church, that is a larger group of churches than "the Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholicism" if that is in fact what you mean by Catholicism. If you simply mean the universal (catholic) church in continuity with the apostles, then I agree. If you mean the Roman Catholic church, then I would say that there was no such thing at the time. The Roman Catholic church, like the Orthodox Churches and and the Coptic Churches and the Church of the East, and many others, developed and grew directly from that early, universal (i.e., catholic) church. All of those churches and others thus can claim apostolic succession and authority. All of the churches I just mentioned took part in the first councils you referred to, the so-called Ecumenical Councils of the Church (which is precisely why they are so called). While they disagree on theological grounds in some cases and on ecclesiastic political grounds in other cases, all of these churches agree on on the primary canon of Scripture (with some minor differences on deuterocanonical scriptures) and on the fact that Scripture is inspired.
I hope what I wrote makes sense and that you think about my responses and respond accordingly. I'm not arguing so much with your statements as I am with the way you presented them and with some of the specific, aforementioned logical and factual errors and weaknesses. I look forward to continuing to discuss these things and more with you. We are not as far apart as you seem to believe. :-)
Adrian Urias
Concerning the translation. Yeah, my Douay-Rheims says priests. Nonetheless, it is still true that all bishops are priests, and so, according to James, I must confess my sins to the priest. Hence it is false when you say, "the passage...does not mention bishops or overseer at all." (A Venn diagram would be beneficial here, but quickly, All B's are P. P. Therefore, ~B is invalid). So granting the correction in translation, the formula is still the same. One confesses to a priest. Where then are your priests?
Granting for the sake of argument that the government of the church has varied, what follows? Whether Los Angeles has one or ten bishops seems to have no significance on the issue of confession and forgiveness of sins, and to my knowledge, that aspect isn't dogma, so I'm calling this one a red herring.
You've misunderstood my point on John 20. I wrote, "so we confess to the bishop, who are the successors of the apostles, the apostles who were given that authority (John 20:19-23)." So, there are three parts. The first and third parts being the same train of thought, with a qualifier in the middle indicated by the commas. So, "that authority" is defined as the authority to forgive sins, as followed by the citation. So you've misunderstood me, perhaps understandably so, by inferring my citation was to be attached to my middle qualifier. It was not. It was just to show that the apostles were granted that authority.
You object that the word "disciples" is too ambiguous. I have two responses. First, it is sufficient for my point. When in John 20:24-25, Thomas is described as 1) one of the twelve, and 2) not being there, we infer from this that the other ten were there, or else 1) and 2) would not be distinct, and it would have otherwise read, "one of the twelve who was not there" (no comma) for more logical accuracy. Sure, more than the twelve may have been there, but that's not a defeater for the proposition, "the apostles were granted that authority." And upon rereading your statements, it looks like you actually grant this.
Secondly, the distinction of Thomas is hardly relevant because the other gospels record the eleven being in that room (Mark 16:14, Luke 24:33-36) so, it's just one of those generalizations of addressing a group. Thomas may not have been there, but the generalization of granting a group particular rights still applies, and so Thomas is still granted that authority.
So I do believe everything you have described the Catholic position to be in your second to last paragraph. No need for me to talk to my bishop :-P Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, because I'm very surprised to read this. You actually do believe the church has the authority to INFALLIBLY recognize scripture, and do so because of the Holy Spirit? I mean, I know you said you weren't protestant, but you weren't kidding. I confess I didn't take that statement too seriously. Lol.
Okay then, it just seems like we disagree on whether or not the Roman Catholic church is the same as the early church. I agree some other religious societies like the Orthodox and the Anglicans have apostolic succession, and the juridical authority that comes that, but they can't make any infallible declaration if it is not in union with the Pope, which is the classic Roman position. So, to test the case then, how many centuries are you considering "early"?
On a more personal note, I've skimmed your profile, and it looks like you're part of the ICOC. Cool. So was I. For four years. It's strange I've never heard of you (but then again, I can really only name three teachers of the icoc). It's sad. Too bad we didn't meet when I talked to my elders about leaving to Catholicism. I might have stayed a bit longer. Oh well.
You might be interested in some of my blog posts. http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2014/02/eye-of-tiber-epic-conclusion.html
I've been meaning to go back and heavily edit down my tone, but I've not had possession of the book since, and I tend to get lazy. http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2013/07/prepared-to-answer-gordon-ferguson.html
Joey Harris
Your priests evolved from the biblical presbyters, that is, elders...which we do have. And we both agree that we should confess our sins to one another as well as to our presbyters (my elders, your priests...same word in original).
I definitely agree that the apostles were given that authority by our Lord.
I do believe that the church is given the authority and power to recognize Scripture through the agency of the Holy Spirit, you read that correctly...Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and written through Him and recognized as such by the communities of God's people (Israel and we who were later grafted into Israel under the New Covenant).
I'll definitely get back to you after I've checked out your blog
The classic Roman position re papal primacy has not always been the Roman position...
Roman bishops didn't start claiming that until the late 4th century
Adrian Urias
While I wait, do you know of Rob Sungenis? He used to be part of the Boston ICOC and now he's a pretty brutal Catholic apologist (he's got some weird views though, not relating to Catholicism, but that's neither here nor there).
Joey Harris
No, I don't know Rob Sungenis. A "brutal apologist"...that sounds intense lol
I read the two posts you linked me to...I appreciate you sharing your journey to Catholicism with me. I really do wish we had known each other back in those days.
I can't comment much on the Ferguson article as I haven't yet read all of the linked subparts where you actually critique the book (which he's revised since then, btw).
On a different subject, please explain why buying a weapon is more important/urgent than getting a car? (Editor Note: Joey had looked at my Facebook profile, and saw that I had mentioned these subjects)
I just read several of your newer posts. Let me know if you get any comments on the gender no gender post lol. I read the one on priestly marriage (btw...I have taught essentially what you posted about priestly to ICOC churches for many years...I wanted to become a priest when I was a kid and I also wanted to be married, so I researched the topic very well from a young age ;-) ).
I just read your post on pacifism since you mentioned it in another post on FB. You seemed to be talking about an extreme form of radical pacifism (which some, but not all Anabaptists do adhere to). How do you understand our Lord's commands regarding violence and self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount? and yes, he also instructed his disciples on one occasion to buy a sword only to later rebuke Peter for actually using it lol. I'd call that one a wash lol.
Adrian Urias
I recommend Sungenis when you have free time. Pay no attention to his geocentric views though.
Has Ferguson revised it? Good. If he just replaced all the Gibbons quotations with citations from the Catechism, it'd be much better. It's funny though. I was in the library Thursday, and I bumped into a friend from the ICOC. He tries to get me to come back, God bless his heart, but he has naive views of Catholicism and has no idea what we actually teach. But he told me he learned a lot this past month reading his book and he repeated the same arguments. After telling him he wasn't attacking anything Catholics believe, he told me to confront Ferguson himself. I told him I didn't feel like it, to which he shook his head and told me that showed him my heart. Like I said, naive.
Buying a weapon is of great importance to me. I believe everyone ought to have weapons, or has a moral right to them. The argument goes as follows: I have the right to life. If I have the right to life, I have the right to means of preserving my life. Denying me tools to that end is to deny me my right to life. Weapons are a means to that end. Therefore, I have the right to a weapon. There is a strong presupposition here for a firearm because they discriminate. I point, and it will go where pointed. Things like bombs don't discriminate and will harm innocents in the area. So there is no presumption for grenades or anything like that. But there are for fire arms.
I'm also aware of threats to the country. ISIS is collaborating with the drug cartels and photographs released by them show that. It's important to be prepared. I have MREs, water filtration systems, boxes of ammo, etc. These things don't typically depreciate. Cars do. I have to pay for gas, mandatory insurance, among other fees for car maintenance. It's a financial burden for me, and if it hits the fan, cars won't be too important.
I've been meaning to write a feature length post on pacifism and biblical data. So, in the beatitudes in particular, he's setting up a pattern. "You have heard it said...But I tell you..." he repeats the phrase and talks about an issue, like adultery and hatred. In each of these cases, he is explaining how a particular passage in the Old Testament had been abused. With adultery, one thinks that so long as he refrains from physically having sex, one has not broken the command. But Jesus says that's a wrong application. He then ups the ante and clarified the meaning. Same with murder. So, he isn't abolishing these old testament commands, rather he is correcting the people's misunderstanding of it. So, continuing the pattern or flow, we come to the turn the other cheek. Apparently, what is happening is that the people were taking a sound judicial principle and applying it to minor social situations, things in private. They were retaliating for minor things, like an insult. If I'm facing you, and you strike me on my right cheek, that's a backhanded strike, if I wanted to do real damage, I'd have hit your left side, as I'm right handed. So, the principle of lex talonis still applies, but as it was originally meant, as a macro judicial principle, not one on one insults.
Jesus did tell the disciples to buy swords, but what did he tell Peter? He told him to put it back in its place. Weapons have a place, but in that situation, that was not the place. He didn't tell him to throw it away. It would be meaningless if Jesus told Peter to buy a sword, know they already had swords actually, and then tell them to toss it aside for just using it. No. There is nothing wrong with weapons per se, but their use must be limited. To advance the kingdom, that is not appropriate.
It's a hasty generalization to say that because he was against it in one case, he must therefore be against it in all cases
I remembered I did actually write a bit more on the issue. http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2012/12/what-does-bible-say-about-self-defense.html
This is relevant too. http://christianvanguard.blogspot.com/2012/10/what-does-bible-say-about-capital.html
Btw, I wondered if you might have written work online, so I googled you. This you? http://classic.athensinstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&Itemid=138
Joey Harris
Hi Adrian. Sorry I haven't gotten back to you...I haven't forgotten...just busy with traveling, work and family stuff. I'm actually traveling right now. Yes, that's me you found working with AIM.
Regarding CP, I believe that God leaves that to the State. I do not support it as a State policy because I don't believe it's justly and fairly applied in practice, but I do believe it is the biblical right of the State as established by God (any valid government or State, not just theocratic states).
In other words, I do not believe it to be inherently immoral for a government to institute a death penalty
Adrian Urias
Okay, no problem. I've been busy myself, since my semester just started. I'll be free mostly Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Well, CP is an interesting tangent. I'm glad we agree on most of that, minus the application, and I can say stuff about it, but, I'd rather not. Not that big of a deal at this point.
I'll dig up some sources concerning Papal primacy.
While you wait though, I think we can demonstrate papal primacy from scripture.
The relevant sections are 4.2 and 4.3
(A while later)
There are tons of historical sources that agree with the exegesis put forth in my previous link, many from the early church. So, if that's the case, then since Peter, we've had an understanding of his primacy. That ought to suffice. But there are many other sources who maintained this view.
St. Cyprian writes, "(P)rimacy is given to Peter and one church and one chair is shown; and they are all shepherds, but one flock is exhibited which is fed by all the apostles with unanimous consent. And he who does not hold this unity of the church , does he think he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the church was founded, does he trust himself to be in the church? The episcopate is one, part of which is held by each one in solidity."
He also writes, "(T)hey dare...sail and carry letters from schismatic and profane men, to the chair of Peter, and to the principal church whence unity of the priesthood took its rise. Nor do they consider that the Romans (whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle) to whom faithlessness cannot have access."
And "There is one baptism, and one Holy Ghost, and one church, founded by Christ our Lord upon Peter, for (or from) an original and principle of unity."
Eusebius records, "The providence of the universal ruler led as it were by the hand of Rome, that most powerful and great one of the apostles, and, on account of his virtue, the mouthpiece of the rest, Peter, against that sad destroyer of the human race, Simon Malgus. He, as a noble general of God, armed with heavenly weapons, brought the precious merchandise of intellectual light from the east to the dwellers of the west."
And Pope St. Julius wrote a letter to Alexandria from Rome to Eusebian asserting his authority to resolve doctrinal conflicts. Its too long for me to copy down, but it's there. These three sources, include a primate of Rome, all adhere to the primacy of Rome, and they're all before 350 A.D.
So, that's pretty early, but most consider early to be the first eight centuries. And that's because of the seven ecumenical councils: First Council of Nicaea, 325 A.D. First Council of Constantinople, 381 A.D. Council of Ephesus, 431 A.D. Council of Chalcedon, 451 A.D. Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. Third Council of Constantinople, 680-81 A.D. Second Council of Nicaea, 787 A.D. so let me ask you, do you accept these councils as valid?
Since then, we've both been busy and haven't been able to dedicate time to this conversation, but hopefully someone will have enjoyed this. Let me know what you think in the comments.
Comments
Post a Comment