Is there anything appropriate anyone could have possibly uttered upon the event of your father's untimely passing-away, that could have brought comfort and security to the spirit of a child undergoing such heart-shattering, unimaginable loss ?
"It was God's will" would have fell short perhaps just as much as anything else that could have been said to you at the time.
It appears to many of us as theologically disgusting.
And yet such an expression is not unique to Christianity- or Catholicism.
A recent earthquake victim in Indonesia - one of the Muslim religion - upon experiencing the deaths of his wife and other family members - could only utter in seeming resignation "It must have been the will of [Allah]."
It's as a cry of despair, a mechanism of trying to deal and make sense of a senseless situation, perhaps intended to affix one's attention upon one's own of purpose in life, that as random and violent and unpredictable that life may appear, there's a reason for me still being here and continuing on, and getting through all this horrible crap.
I wonder if we're not being overcritical of this expression - such that now appears to me more a saying arising more out of unspeakable anguish, than a saying that should be dissected beneath a theological microscope.
What if, instead of the priest saying "It was God's will", he said to you rather affirmatively, "God is love"?
Would that had left you with any less distasteful impression in your memory?
As a never-miss-a-Sunday, go-to-daily-Mass-when-I-can, Catholic who has attended my share of funerals and worked my share of funerals, I will never cease to be amazed when I hear of these "It was God's will" statements by clergy in the wake of a funeral. I will also say that I have never heard that statement being made in person. It's funny, though: the only time I've ever heard of that statement being made was when I've heard ex-Catholics make the statement as being the rationale for them leaving Catholicism.
A more incredibly insensitive thing to say I can't think of.
A couple of comments on your post, having said the above:
You cite the primacy of love. I think you have some valid points. However you use scripture to justify that conviction. In order for scripture to have validity in your thesis, you need to have faith in that scripture.
Having said that, I think what you are complaining about is "Word-Faith" theology...what is used by a number of televangelists and espoused by VPW. I agree with you fully that this is a horribly dangerous theology that is leading many, many Christians astray.
As far as your assertion of no hierarchy, I agree that there are too many who are in authority who think that their position is one of being served, rather than one who serves. I would point out for your attention the following scriptures:
Matt 16:17-19
Eph 4:11-12
Ph 1:1
Tit 1:5
1 Tim 3
And one that I'll quote (as it supports my statement above about having an attitude of service) John 21:15-17 -- When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
[*]There are far too many people who call themselves bishops, reverends, ministers, pastors, "brothers", or whatever, who seem to have forgotten the above section.
Come come Mark...it is a 'catholic calling card' at a funeral or whatever. Thank God VP shouted out the imbicility of statements like that. What I've never heard a priest say is the devil stole that persons' life.
And before you call me on that one, my high school years were spent at Sacred heart College, a school run by Marist brothers.
Come come Mark...it is a 'catholic calling card' at a funeral or whatever. Thank God VP shouted out the imbicility of statements like that. What I've never heard a priest say is the devil stole that persons' life.
And before you call me on that one, my high school years were spent at Sacred heart College, a school run by Marist brothers.
Allan,
Seriously, I have never-ever heard that...including at my first wife's funeral...
Most frequently, I have heard: "God finally called _______ home."
I have heard other statements that, using the twi theology, could be twisted around. But I certainly have not heard the one listed by free2love. I am not saying it wasn't said. Frankly, it sounds like something said by a person who was grasping at something comforting to say but didn't know what that comforting thing was.
You need to remember, since you were educated by Marists, that Catholics have a slightly different attitude toward death than TWI taught. Since we don't practice the "soul sleep" doctrine, like as taught by TWI, we can have the attitude expressed by St. Paul, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)." Even the attitude toward physical suffering is different: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Col 1:24)." Rather than cursing the darkness, we try to see God's light illuminated in that darkness.
So I could see how a priest (whether a papal chaplain or not), heartbroken at the loss of a good father to a family and concerned for that family's survival, could be grasping for something to share to help soften the blow of the loss of the father to that family. Fortunately, I haven't run into that circumstance. As there are a thousand things one could say that would be in accord with the Magesterium (since you were educated by the Marists, I'm sure you're familiar with that term) that don't require that statement to be said.
As I'm sure you know, Hosea says that God's own "are destroyed for lack of knowledge". It was a real breakthrough for me the day I first read that. It's absolutely true.
See, I'm the firstborn son of a devout Irish Catholic father who died when I was only 12yrs old. We'd never missed Sunday mass and naturally us kids all got our daily dose of mass and catechism in Catholic school which is all to say we were fully instructed and faithful (brainwashed) to the church because we loved and followed our dad. At the funeral the monsignor (head-honcho priest) came up to me and, looked down at me, put his hand on my shoulder and said "Son, it was God's will". The bad thing, the really sad thing is that I believed him. I bought it, hook line and sinker and, because I did, my response was to walk out of that church and never go back and to hate God and anyone who tried to talk to me about God. I guess you could say that was my first experience being misled by a cult. It also showed me a pattern, at least in hindsight. When a cult misleads you the true desired end is to turn you away from and, if possible, against God. It may look like they're after money or sex or power but pay it no mind for they "know not what they do". The true intent of the spirit that controls them is to turn your heart away from God.
(Lots of hairy stuff came after that, sex, drugs, rock and roll, blah, blah, blah and then…) When I first joined twi, 18 daredevil years later, I read that verse, among many others, including the first chapter of Job, and the answer came clear. a) I found out that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all and found out who really causes death and destruction and b) I found the reason my Catholic father died at the age of 41 was ignorance of the word of God because his church left him ignorant and defenseless.
Sorry about your dad. I have heard the "it was God's will thing" before, but it was from Protestants rather than Catholics, and then from individuals and not necessarily representatives of the Church itself. I don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff and didn't before, even as a kid. But I can see how it could make someone feel when coming from a priest. I lost my Dad to suicide when I was 19, and he was 49. It wasn't said, but I know that certain of his friends and relatives believed he was going to hell for it. One even paid a priest for a special prayer for him to keep him from going to hell. But I doubt there was anything that could been said that would have eased the pain for me then.
Anyway, it seems you are holding the church somewhat accountable for your father's death ...("the Church left him ignorant and defenseless"). I fail to see your reasoning here. If as you say, that we are all the church and there is no hierarchy, then how can you hold the RCC accountable? By holding the RCC accountable, you are implying that the RCC had the power and responsibililty to not leave him ignorant, which then suggest an hierarchy. Maybe you could share your reasoning on that.
Since I left twi God has taught me many more things they kind of skipped over or didn't know. One of the biggest things is as follows: First, you have to realize the basis of all paganism is all about benefiting yourself. Likewise, in the OT when the spiritless Israelites followed our Father, God, it was all about faith in what God would do for them and faithfulness to obey Him. i.e.: Faith was the issue.
As Mark pointed out in his post, What TWI taught and still teaches is what is known as Word-faith theology. This is the name it and claim it kind of faith (believing) that is supposed to get you fire engine red drapes, and a good parking spot at the mall.
I would draw a sharp distinction between "faith" and "word-faith theology". Faith is necessary and still a huge part of becoming and being a Christian.
Now, since Pentecost, things are different and all these faith-teaching churches like the ones many of us grew up in, twi, Joyce Meyer and that scary kid, Joel Osteen are all barking up the wrong tree because faith is no longer the issue. The spirit-filled believer has "the mind of Christ" and all the faith anyone could ever need and we don't need anyone to tell us how to believe, what to believe, that we're not believing or that we're believing wrongly. Another thing that's really important is that it's not all about getting stuff for your self. The main issue is this: Love. God is love and only those born of His spirit are capable of love because He dwells in them and works in them to will and to do of His good pleasure. Twi gave us a lot of the parts and pieces but then they soured the whole thing (made God's word of none effect) by teaching and making the main point out to be the "law of believing". They are wrong and, at least IMO, this is the first and foremost issue wherein they have led us wrong.
Again, I wouldn't write "faith" off completely. Although love is the greatest commandment and will never pass away, faith is also still neccesary. However, I will wholeheartedy agree that "word-faith theology" as taught by TWI, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland and a slew of others is dead wrong. It is leaven that leavens the whole lump IMO.
But something else to consider: Yes, they did lead us wrong, but we followed them didn't we?. We put our trust in them and what they taught didn't we? Didn't we choose to believe what they taught us? Yet the Bible and the Holy Spirit were right there with us all the time.
Also, you are saying that we don't need anyone to tell us what to believe or that we are believing wrongly, yet isn't that kind of what you are doing in this post? -- telling TWI, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc and those that subscribe to their teachings that they are wrong? Just an observation. Personally, I see no problem with pointing out certain errors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor the other apostles had a problem with it.
God is not about making people rich. God is about teaching His people to love. Remember the teaching on "renewed mind"? Well, they talked about it in the context of 'metamorphing' into a being of enormous faith… e.g.: "the athlete of the spirit". They taught that if you renewed your mind you would see all the 'abundant life' results they said were available. That's just scripture-twisting, that's all. In the first place we do not renew our own mind, God does it! …and the true metamorphosis that takes place is changing from the hard-hearted, dog-eat-dog, watchin' out for #1 babe to 'perfect', (mature) loving, soft-hearted, grown children, walking with our Father in love, carrying out the ministry of reconciliation.
Pretty much agreed.
It's amazing how wonderful the word of God becomes when you take off the rose-colored twi "God wants you rich – positive thinking" glasses and read it for what it really says. There is no guarantee of financial success. All those verses they pointed out that they said were promising us anything and everything were either talking about reimbursing the resources we gave out in our walk of love or the tremendous miracle results God will bring to bare when we are ministering to His people in His name. This might be in a prestige job with a six-figure income or flipping burgers, on skid row or in prison. God will send you where He sends you. It makes no difference. The true treasure we have in these earthen vessels is love. Another little point twi neglected to teach us, well, me at least, is that little clause Jesus taught; To pray for "Thy will be done…". No, twi taught us all about focusing our camera, etc., so we could get what WE want. What about God's plan? What about what He wants?
Yup, as a result of our acceptance of the erroneous "law of believing" and the God wants your rich stuff -- many of us went to God with the solutions and answers instead of the questions. Many times, we were less than humble.
Loving your neighbor as yourself or loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength have both been cited as the new and/or greatest commandment but in John 15, a tremendous chapter containing Jesus' last instructions to His apostles, most of which they wouldn't even understand until Pentecost, we find this, the true new and greatest commandment:
"9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another."
One of my favorite sections of scripture.
People get freaked out when I say "God works in me" or "God told me". I get freaked out that they don't. As I said in another thread, there is no hierarchy in the body of Christ. There is one Lord and then you. No other Lord over you, no 'father in the word'. That goes for all of us. Nothing more or less special about any of us. That stuff went out with the OT when only the prophets had the spirit and had to tell people what God had to say because he/she was the only one that could hear God. Now, of course, He is in all of us so hierarchy is no longer needed. He can move in or speak to any of us who are indwelt by His spirit.
This is the lack of knowledge I was talking about. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
I don't get "freaked out" when people tell me "God told me". I just usually take it with a grain of salt. I seldom give any weight to something when someone says "God told me". It seems to be quite common these days, with all the wannabe prophets going around contradicting each other with all the "God told me" stuff.
Some folks seem to use the "God told me" line when they want to close the discussion or when they want ot refuse any input or feedback from others. Personally, I think it sabotages the conversation most of the time when someone says that. If God truly told them something, passing it on is enough. If it is truly from God, those that have ears will hear. His sheep hear his voice and don't need to be told whose voice it is.
In the first place we do not renew our own mind, God does it! …and the true metamorphosis that takes place is changing from the hard-hearted, dog-eat-dog, watchin’ out for #1 babe to ‘perfect’, (mature) loving, soft-hearted, grown children, walking with our Father in love, carrying out the ministry of reconciliation.
Ain't that the truth!
Got to love the message of God's never failing grace! Walkin in the spirit's the only way. To think we/I could ever discipline the flesh by our own minds (works)!
Priest said the same thing when my father died. Told him to get out of my home, and don't expect a cash handout for his mumbo jumbo (Dad was catholic and Mom was taught their phobus). The priest foamed at the mouth mumbling something out the door. Never saw the jackass again.
Is there anything appropriate anyone could have possibly uttered upon the event of your father's untimely passing-away, that could have brought comfort and security to the spirit of a child undergoing such heart-shattering, unimaginable loss?
Yes, actually there is; words specified for this exact purpose: 1 Thess 4: "13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent F10 them which are asleep. 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort F11 one another with these words."
It's as a cry of despair, a mechanism of trying to deal and make sense of a senseless situation, perhaps intended to affix one's attention upon one's own of purpose in life, that as random and violent and unpredictable that life may appear, there's a reason for me still being here and continuing on, and getting through all this horrible crap.
I can appreciate your attempt to ‘make sense of it all’ but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth.
I wonder if we're not being overcritical of this expression - such that now appears to me more a saying arising more out of unspeakable anguish, than a saying that should be dissected beneath a theological microscope.
I can see the theological wheels turning, but no, this requires painstaking analysis. According to God it is the knowledge of the resurrection from the dead that will comfort the anguish of losing our loved one to death, even to the end that we “sorrow not, even as others which have no hope”. BTW, the reason those ‘others’ have no hope is because they’ve been taught instead to believe in life after death, which is a lie.
What if, instead of the priest saying "It was God's will", he said to you rather affirmatively, "God is love"?
Would that had left you with any less distasteful impression in your memory?
Yes, that, at least, wouldn’t have left me insane with anger and hatred. Face it, this was a spiritual ambush.
It would still hurt.
You got that right brother.
Thanks for posting Danny
BTW, I’d like to make it clear; I was only using my personal experience to illustrate the need for accurate knowledge and the vulnerability one is exposed to when that knowledge isn’t there and we are led astray by men. …like the leaders of twi.
Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position.
The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism. I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say <i>but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth</i>, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestantsl on this board, as well.
If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though.
Oh, and I assume you accept the scriptural evidence I made about a hierarchy being legitimate, since you didn't bother to refute it.
Though I wasn't really offended by Free2Love's post.
Actually, I had hoped that my initial reflections on Free's post
didn't strike as equally offensive to him/her.
We all speak the truth as we see it, whatever it be; I/you/he'she can't be wrong (lol).
We perhaps come to expect to some degree - though we may not desire such - that people may encounter something in our "truth" as personally offensive to them.
I'm not put off by the "soul sleep" idea (having believed such in a previous life) but I'm no longer "turned on" by such either. I have found the prospect of being truly "dead" without any conscious existence for an indeterminate period of eons to not be as comforting as it had been promoted to us. Oh, "Jesus will come back to raise us up!" we were told, but when? It's like the "gap" in Genesis 1:2 -"It could be a couple years from now, a thousand years; it could be a million years!"
That's a long time to be dead, non-existent. Little wonder (in my opinion) the Way leaders lived like devils.
As a never-miss-a-Sunday, go-to-daily-Mass-when-I-can, Catholic who has attended my share of funerals and worked my share of funerals, I will never cease to be amazed when I hear of these "It was God's will" statements by clergy in the wake of a funeral. I will also say that I have never heard that statement being made in person. It's funny, though: the only time I've ever heard of that statement being made was when I've heard ex-Catholics make the statement as being the rationale for them leaving Catholicism.
As I mentioned to Danny, I do/did not necessarily mean to tear down the Catholic church by my statements, just to use an example from my own life to illustrate my point regarding the ignorance of scripture and it’s damage and, as someone else pointed out, I’d be likely to hear the same statement, “It was God’s will”, from the Protestant or other religions.
As far as that goes, I know that religion, at its best, is still man-made. The word in the bible chosen by God for religion in Greek is threskia which means “the outward show of piety” as opposed to the Greek word eusebeia, translated godliness and defined as “a real, true, vital, spiritual relation(ship) with God”
I know that it says:
Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
And then, on the other hand, when some were trying to influence the jailers to give lashes to Paul in addition to the chains they’d already bound him with by pretending to preach his message in the streets, but doing so as obnoxiously as they could, he said:
Philippians 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.
That’s pretty much how I feel now about Christian religions. Christ is preached; far out. …but I also know that the doctrines and traditions of men make God’s word “of none effect”. There is no perfect church. All of them have some wrong doctrine and, likewise, to varying degrees, all of them have some truth. If ‘Christ is preached’ people can be saved and receive the holy spirit and eternal life… ‘and I therein do rejoice.
A more incredibly insensitive thing to say I can't think of.
I agree. Let’s not forget destructive as well. I don’t think I can adequately express how much but, as one who was victim to it I’ll say this: No one in the position of a minister of any kind has any right telling such a bald-faced LIE. Whether they are ignorant or knowingly “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”, either way it’s just as evil.
A couple of comments on your post, having said the above:
* You cite the primacy of love. I think you have some valid points. However you use scripture to justify that conviction. In order for scripture to have validity in your thesis, you need to have faith in that scripture.
I see what you mean. I didn’t say we don’t need to have faith, just that faith was the MAIN ISSUE in the time prior to the outpouring of the holy spirit on Pentecost and nowadays the MAIN ISSUE is love.
* Having said that, I think what you are complaining about is "Word-Faith" theology...what is used by a number of televangelists and espoused by VPW. I agree with you fully that this is a horribly dangerous theology that is leading many, many Christians astray.
Right on.
* As far as your assertion of no hierarchy, I agree that there are too many who are in authority who think that their position is one of being served, rather than one who serves. I would point out for your attention the following scriptures:
o Matt 16:17-19
o Eph 4:11-12
o Ph 1:1
o Tit 1:5
o 1 Tim 3
Here they are:
Matt 16:17-19: 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Eph 4:11-12: 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Phil 1:1: 1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons
Tit 1:5: 5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, F2 and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
1 Tim 3: 1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; 3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) 6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; 9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. 10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. 11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. 13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground F4 of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
o And one that I'll quote (as it supports my statement above about having an attitude of service) John 21:15-17 -- When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."
* There are far too many people who call themselves bishops, reverends, ministers, pastors, "brothers", or whatever, who seem to have forgotten the above section.
Very well put. Certainly there are leaders and ministries in the body of Christ. But just look at the word itself: It’s *leaders*, not bossers. It’s so obvious yet we don’t see it and we get bamboozled. A leader is one who goes ahead, leading the way. Then he/she comes back and serves what they have found to the others. As you point out, the role of a Christian leader is to serve. That is because what he is leading in happens to be love. God is love and the knowledge of Him is love. When Jesus washed the feet of the apostles what was He teaching them but the humble service of love?
As far as this all applies to Christians and the aspect of hierarchy, I can think of no better example than I saw in a very early “Sower” article from CES I read called “Pattern for Fellowship” which was, in part, a study of 1 Cor 14. In it they pointed out that after all the reproof regarding the improper conduct in their fellowship meetings, in verse 26, couched as an almost minor, deceptively simple statement is God’s solution to the whole mess. He doesn’t say “Well, what you need to do is get some strong, charismatic men and women to take charge” or “You need to believe for some gift-ministries in your area”. (sound familiar?) What He said was: “26How is it then, brethren? When ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying” the context of this wonderful truth is not a leadership epistle, in fact this is set smack in the middle of what is considered the “milk” or basic principles to the believer. Stated another way, this is not addressed to leaders but to every believer in the body! I remember when I used to teach fellowship in my apartment and I would spend hours praying for God to help me by showing me what to teach, what to sing, who to call on, mostly, just focusing on how I could best bless God’s people, (and of course He always did) studying, doing word studies, etc. and When I read that article, years later, He brought those times back to my mind. Of course when all this was happening my understanding was firmly entrenched in the attitude of twi’s hierarchy. Reading that study was like taking off blinders. God’s instruction to “Let all things be done unto edifying” (love) is not to leaders.but to everyone. All the believers praying to know how to bless God’s people, preparing their minds in the word, looking to the needs of each other. That is what was wrong at their meetings. Their hearts were filled with one kind of self concern or another rather than looking to how to edify one another and all this probably confused by a super-imposed hierarchy. There is no need for a tiered hierarchy because if all set their hearts in love to edify one another, God will work in them and the one who has something to teach will teach and the one who has something to sing or to prophesy or minister, they will do so and all will be decent and in order as God is not the author of confusion.
We all have a leader, the best leader who is able to speak to us and work in us to love. His name is Jesus Christ.
It's interesting that you almost verbatim quoted a teaching promulgated by Wierwille in your argument.
You said,
As far as that goes, I know that religion, at its best, is still man-made. The word in the bible chosen by God for religion in Greek is threskia which means “the outward show of piety” as opposed to the Greek word eusebeia, translated godliness and defined as “a real, true, vital, spiritual relation(ship) with God”
That was a false dichotomy put forth by Wierwille and company: that threskeia and eusebia were opposed one to another. In addition, developing paragraphs long definitions for words that hardly require them...and putting definite spin into them...
Threskeia means ceremonial worship. Eusebeia means piety. Threskeia is definitely external: it speaks about the practices used in worship. Eusebeia is definitely internal. It refers to an attitude...
The implication given was that they are mutually exclusive. But I would submit that one would have a very difficult time with authentic threskeia without having eusebeia inside.
The epistle of James speaks extensively about genuine religion versus false religion in this regard. The word "threskeia" is used but twice, but...reading the entire epistle for what it is (not like it's horribly long)...we can see that true religion performs acts of mercy. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
You are absolutely correct that Our Lord said to the Pharisees said, Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15).
Of course, we need to understand the context of this statement. (Sorry for the length of this, but it is interesting and critical for my argument).
Mat 15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said,
Mat 15:2 "Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat."
Mat 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
Mat 15:4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.'
Mat 15:5 But you say, 'If any one tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is given to God, he need not honor his father.'
Mat 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.
Mat 15:7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
Mat 15:8 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mat 15:9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'"
The key verses that you need to focus on are verses 4 and 5.
To really understand this, though, you should look at the parallel in Mark 7:
Mar 7:5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"
Mar 7:6 And he said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;
Mar 7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'
Mar 7:8 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men."
Mar 7:9 And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!
Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die';
Mar 7:11 but you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, What you would have gained from me is Corban' (that is, given to God)--
Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,
Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."
Note verses 10 and 11 above.
An example of what the Pharisees were doing is shown there. Resources that they should have used to take care of their mother and father were declared to be "Corban" (in Hebrew, Qorban or Qurban). Qorban is sacrifice or an oblation to God. I would encourage you to take a look at the Jewish Virtual Library article on the subject of sacrifices. I would also encourage you to look at the Christian Courier article on the subject. The key paragraphs that explain what was going on are pasted here:
Some of the Jews, however, had concocted a scheme to avoid parental responsibility. They would designate certain of their financial resources as “corban.” The Greek word korban is related to the term korbanas, signifying the “temple treasury.” In Jewish practice, therefore, the word “corban” had been coined as a sort of “vow” term. According to the prevailing tradition, one could designate his financial resources as “corban,” which, practically speaking, was a way of “tagging” them, suggesting, “this belongs to God,” and thus was not to be used for personal interests.
There is a passage in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus, that illustrates the fact that funds from the temple treasury were “corban,” hence could not be used for secular purposes, e.g., city improvements, as in the building of an aqueduct for water supply (Wars 2.9.4).
Thus, in the manner just described, the covetous, ungrateful Jews callously neglected parental responsibility by an appeal to this perverted human tradition. In so doing, they flouted the law of God.
And yet, on this occasion, they had the unconscionable nerve to accuse the Lord and his disciples of a breach of spirituality because they ignored uninspired rabbinical tradition. This was the epitome of inconsistency.
Understanding the context, it is pretty clear (to me, at least) that a blanket condemnation of tradition is not being made. Rather a condemnation of traditions that end up making void the Word of God.
Consider this verse in regards to that:
1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions (note: KJV=ordinances) even as I have delivered them to you.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
2 Thes 3:8 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.
You'll note that St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to live in accord with the tradition they received from them (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy).
Again, words that are basically neutral in nature have been shown to be in opposition to other words. Tradition=bad. God's Word=Good.
The word, paradosis (tradition) is a neutral word. It literally means that which was delivered by word or in writing. It is derived from the word paradidomi (a verb), meaning to deliver, to impart verbally. It's origin is from para (from, by) and didomi (to give).
Some of the interesting verses using this verb are:
Rom 6:17 (darby) But thanks [be] to God, that ye were bondmen of sin, but have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which ye were instructed (paradidomi).
1 Cor 11:23 (rsv) For I received from the Lord what I also delivered (paradidomi) to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed (paradidomi) took bread,
1 Cor 15:3 (rsv) For I delivered (paradidomi) to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
Jude 3 (rsv) Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered (paradidomi) to the saints.
There are also a number of verses that use paradidomi for Jesus being handed over for Crucifixion.
The point is that the words are neutral...the concept is that authentic traditions are not at odds with God's Word...and, in fact, Christians are commended to follow them. False tradition, those that are not in harmony with God's Word, are not a good thing.
Your statement, though,
That’s pretty much how I feel now about Christian religions. Christ is preached; far out. …but I also know that the doctrines and traditions of men make God’s word “of none effect”.
has a lot of truth in it. When ecclesiastical communities go off in their own direction without regard for God's Word, they mess up and do much to hurt the people that choose to follow them. I won't say all are that way. I won't say that ANY of them are perfect. But I think that many of them have much to offer...some more than others...
As to the "Sower" article you cite, I understand the references within 1 Cor 14. I understand that everything should be done for building up (cf v 26). Of course, this is done since He is not the God of disorder, but of Peace (cf v33). I, frankly, am not sure how these verses that you cited have anything to do with any type of hierarchy one way or the other. Of course, I am not able to look at this issue of "the Sower," so there might be something else that I might have missed.
I still go back to the fact that had bishops, priests, and deacons not been needed, their offices wouldn't have had been established in the New Testament.
Sorry about your dad. I have heard the "it was God's will" thing before, but it was from Protestants rather than Catholics, and then from individuals and not necessarily representatives of the Church itself. I don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff and didn't before, even as a kid. But I can see how it could make someone feel when coming from a priest. I lost my Dad to suicide when I was 19, and he was 49. It wasn't said, but I know that certain of his friends and relatives believed he was going to hell for it. One even paid a priest for a special prayer for him to keep him from going to hell. But I doubt there was anything that could been said that would have eased the pain for me then.
It amazes me the strange, devilish doctrines religions come up with. As your sharing illustrates, going to hell for committing suicide is a widespread belief, fostered by many religions, yet, there is absolutely no scriptural basis for it that I know of. Nothing but thin air, maybe invented to prevent suicides, but fabricated nonetheless. This is a very good comparison as I’m sure your experience was as devastating as mine. Regarding what “could been said that would have eased the pain”, as I wrote to Danny, the words of 1 Thess 4:13-18 end with “Wherefore comfort one another with these words.” That’s pretty plainly stated, don’t you think? God says the knowledge contained there is to be shared with those who lose a loved one. He says He doesn’t want us to be ignorant of those things.
Anyway, it seems you are holding the church somewhat accountable for your father's death ...("the Church left him ignorant and defenseless"). I fail to see your reasoning here. If as you say, that we are all the church and there is no hierarchy, then how can you hold the RCC accountable? By holding the RCC accountable, you are implying that the RCC had the power and responsibility to not leave him ignorant, which then suggest an hierarchy. Maybe you could share your reasoning on that.
I’m sorry; I don’t really get your question or your point. …or as you put it, “I fail to see your reasoning here”. “Somewhat responsible"? You’re kidding, right? Of course I hold them responsible. They lied. What’s your point? Bottom line? God's own people are destroyed "for lack of knowledge". Thanks to his religion he lacked much knowledge and he was destroyed.
Of course there was/is a hierarchy in the “RCC”. There *should be* no hierarchy imposed but, unfortunately, in most churches this is what we have, hence this is how most of us were raised and/or all we can find. The only one that rejects such a structure that I have heard of is the Quaker church. Apparently, while they have a healthy respect for their elders, when they meet for worship they sit silently and wait for God to move someone to speak… (rather than a minister) and it can be anyone, young or old… anyone. If no one speaks, they go home and that’s it. No man has the right to act as the “head”. You can make some kind of theological argument out of this but do you really think there should be some person to lord over you other than the true Lord, Jesus Christ?
This is in Heb 8: “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 2A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.” And this in Heb 9: “11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.”
In the OT when people didn’t have holy spirit and could not understand spiritual things God most definitely worked within the framework of a hierarchy which He Himself set forth in His word. Now we don’t need one and should reject it out of hand.
Finally, this is what is says in Heb 8: “10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
As Mark pointed out in his post, What TWI taught and still teaches is what is known as Word-faith theology. This is the name it and claim it kind of faith (believing) that is supposed to get you fire engine red drapes, and a good parking spot at the mall.
I would draw a sharp distinction between "faith" and "word-faith theology". Faith is necessary and still a huge part of becoming and being a Christian. Again, I wouldn't write "faith" off completely. Although love is the greatest commandment and will never pass away, faith is also still necessary. However, I will wholeheartedly agree that "word-faith theology" as taught by TWI, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland and a slew of others is dead wrong. It is leaven that leavens the whole lump IMO.
More importantly, those “word-faith” churches as well as many others who aren’t but still focus on faith rather than love in their teachings have the overall practical effect of hindering the spiritual growth and maturing of God’s people.
I’m not writing faith off. Faith is a result of the spirit. (Gal 5:22) So is love. You have faith because you have spirit. You have love because you have spirit. (or you don’t because you don’t) What the bible tells me in 1 Cor 13:13 is “13And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love”. You won’t find a statement like that in the OT.
Something else to consider: Yes, they did lead us wrong, but we followed them didn't we? We put our trust in them and what they taught didn't we? Didn't we choose to believe what they taught us? Yet the Bible and the Holy Spirit were right there with us all the time.
Yes we did and ya know something? Most of us did so out of a real desire to know God and to serve Him. That’s why it’s so heartbreaking and their lies are so evil.
Also, you are saying that we don't need anyone to tell us what to believe or that we are believing wrongly, yet isn't that kind of what you are doing in this post? -- telling TWI, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc and those that subscribe to their teachings that they are wrong? Just an observation. Personally, I see no problem with pointing out certain errors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor the other apostles had a problem with it.
I said those things in the context of talking about hierarchy. We don’t need a hierarchy of ministers to ‘pass down’ the word to us because God lives in all of us.
Yup, as a result of our acceptance of the erroneous "law of believing" and the God wants your rich stuff -- many of us went to God with the solutions and answers instead of the questions. Many times, we were less than humble.
One thing that became apparent when I first realized all of this was how twi was glorifying people instead of God. I remember one of the songs on the country music outreach tapes that went something like: “he’s a good ol’ twig leader, runs a twig in his home…”. If you got positive results by believing right, it was to your glory. If you didn’t it was your fault for not renewing your mind and your negative believing. According to the teaching of twi, God didn't have a blessed thing to do with it. The part that hierarchy played in all this should be obvious, In this section of Colossians 2 we find a direct parallel and the end result of building and holding to a hierarchical structure. It’s called “not holding the head”…
16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, F10 or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. 18 Let no man beguile F11 you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, 19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. 20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments F12 of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, 21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? 23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting F13 of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
We did as we were taught. Hierarchy is really what nailed us with twi…. (And that dumb ol’ law of believing, word-faith stuff of course) Imagine. They really did teach a good, empirical method of bible research and then turned right around and got us all scraping and bowing to “The Man of God” or our “Father In The Word” under the “Way Tree” with the whole thing so well organized in trunk, limb, branch, twig, etc.. I remember how they explained the way tree as being the opposite of hierarchy because it went up instead of down and they said leaders were the servants but it never actually worked that way. Every organization of any kind in the world, school, church, gov’t, business, everything is hierarchical, so we don’t really know any other way; hence, we were deceived.
I don't get "freaked out" when people tell me "God told me". I just usually take it with a grain of salt. I seldom give any weight to something when someone says "God told me". It seems to be quite common these days, with all the wannabe prophets going around contradicting each other with all the "God told me" stuff.
Some folks seem to use the "God told me" line when they want to close the discussion or when they want ot refuse any input or feedback from others. Personally, I think it sabotages the conversation most of the time when someone says that. If God truly told them something, passing it on is enough. If it is truly from God, those that have ears will hear. His sheep hear his voice and don't need to be told whose voice it is.
Hey look, it is assumedly the same God, right? So if someone says "God told me", *ASK GOD*! He can speak you too or to whomever, however He wants. He just may be speaking to you. :)
Got to love the message of God's never failing grace! Walkin in the spirit's the only way. To think we/I could ever discipline the flesh by our own minds (works)!
Priest said the same thing when my father died. Told him to get out of my home, and don't expect a cash handout for his mumbo jumbo (Dad was catholic and Mom was taught their phobus). The priest foamed at the mouth mumbling something out the door. Never saw the jackass again.
I'm sorry; I don't really get your question or your point. …or as you put it, "I fail to see your reasoning here". "Somewhat responsible? You're kidding, right? Of course I hold them responsible. They lied. What's your point?
Nope, wasn't kidding at all. I'll try to help you get it.
Your dad died ( you didn't say how) and you hold the RCC responsible for his death. If not "somewhat" responsible, then you imply total responsibility. Because they "lied"?
It might be helpful if you said how your father died and what the lie or lies were that directly caused his death.
Of course there was/is a hierarchy in the "RCC". There *should be* no hierarchy imposed but, unfortunately, in most churches this is what we have, hence this is how most of us were raised and/or all we can find. The only one that rejects such a structure that I have heard of is the Quaker church. Apparently, while they have a healthy respect for their elders, when they meet for worship they sit silently and wait for God to move someone to speak… (rather than a minister) and it can be anyone, young or old… anyone. If no one speaks, they go home and that's it. No man has the right to act as the "head". You can make some kind of theological argument out of this but do you really think there should be some person to lord over you other than the true Lord, Jesus Christ?
I agree with you in principle on the hierarchy issue. I disagree with any kind of clergy/laity division within the "church". I have been studying that for quite a few years and have my own take on that. But I never said the RCC did not have an hierachy. IMO they have one of strictest and potentially abusive hierarchys in Christendom. But that was not my point at all.
You hold them (RCC) responsible for his death, because as you said,
"...the reason my Catholic father died at the age of 41 was ignorance of the word of God because his church left him ignorant and defenseless.
This implies that the church, in this case the RCC, must repsonsibile for teaching the word of God perfectly and inerrantly, and that if they did, your father would have not have been "ignorant and defensless", and therefore would not have died.
If an organized church is to be responsible for teaching the Word perfectly, they must know it perfectly (no one does) and must also have the authority to teach it. For the church to have the authority, there must be an hierachy of some kind. But you say there is and should be no hierarchy.
Even if a church did teach the word perfectly, there is no guarantee that any particular person would accept and follow it unless obedience to that hierarchal authoruity was demanded and somehow guaranteed.
You also said,
"The spirit-filled believer has "the mind of Christ" and all the faith anyone could ever need and
we don't need anyone to tell us how to believe, what to believe, that we're not believing or that we're believing wrongly."
If this is the case, then it cannot not the responsibility of any church or organized religious group to teach people out of their ignorance, but instead the responsibility of the believer himself. Does this not also apply to your father? -- (and to mine who commited suicide ?)
Which is it? Is a church or it's leaders ultimately responsible for what a person believes, or is it the believer himself? In regards to you dad you seem to be putting 100 percent of the onus upon the church, and for everyone else upon the beleiver himself.
Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position.
Whoa! Hold on there. I don’t recall attacking Danny nor did I intend to. I don’t know anything about any “position of ‘soul-sleep’”. (What is that?) I just read what the bible says because it says the truth. Did you read 1 Thes 4:13-18? What does it say? Is that the truth? Why do you think I want to attack someone?
The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism.
You’re dead wrong on this. Many Catholics are born again and are my brothers and sisters. Do I disagree with much of Catholic doctrine? Yes I do but they teach about Jesus Christ and I think that's keen.
I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say <i>but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth</i>, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestants on this board, as well.
Sorry ‘bout that but if you’re a priest, a pastor, a preacher, a bishop or whatever and you actually think that it’s God’s will in any way shape or fashion for His people to die, you are really ignorant of what the word of God says. BTW, ignorant means you don’t know certain facts. I didn’t say they were stupid.
If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
Well, ya know, I’ve never been all that impressed with numbers. The word of God is not established by majority vote. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though.
That’s ok. 1 Thes 4:13-18 is plain enough. The dead are dead and they will be resurrected when Jesus Christ returns.
Oh, and I assume you accept the scriptural evidence I made about a hierarchy being legitimate, since you didn't bother to refute it.
Well, I talked about that a lot in my last few posts… Actually, I’d really love to get back to the subject of the thread if that’s ok…
Thanks.
God Bless
ps - Mark, I just went and re-read my reply to Dan and I gotta say, I think your response to me was a little over the top. Are you ok? Are you angry at me? Did I do something wrong to you? Pls send me a pm and let's talk about it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's heart. :(
I may be one bun short of a hot dog here, but I think - ? - the term "soul sleep" is being referred to as something that The Way taught...am I getting that right?
"Soul sleep" is a new term to me, so I had to do some checking on what it meant. As far as the Way goes, the term itself wasn't used up to 1989, after that I can't say.
I don't think "soul sleep" would be the same as what The Way taught, although it's sounds similar in some ways. In "Are the Dead Alive Now" and other teachings VPW did, he maintained that when a person died, they died. Their spirit, the pneuma hagion if they were "born again", returned to God" at that time, leaving the body. However the soul, the individual personality, awareness and consciousness ended at death. So for all practical purposes a person is gone and life is over at that time. They don't "go to heaven" or continue in any extended dormant state.
The comparison to sleep was that death was "like" sleep in that a person is no longer conscious or aware of what's going on. They're "out". But of course when we're asleep it's not the same as being dead. The comparison of sleep/death was a limited one.
There's a lot of unknowns in that, and there's a lot of unknowns in the whole topic of course. But that's the way I understood the Way's teaching at one time. It was taught, death is final and complete and uniterrupted until and unless a resurrection takes place, which was taught would occur at some future time in the return of Jesus Christ.
I may be one bun short of a hot dog here, but I think - ? - the term "soul sleep" is being referred to as something that The Way taught...am I getting that right?
"Soul sleep" is a new term to me, so I had to do some checking on what it meant. As far as the Way goes, the term itself wasn't used up to 1989, after that I can't say.
I don't think "soul sleep" would be the same as what The Way taught, although it's sounds similar in some ways. In "Are the Dead Alive Now" and other teachings VPW did, he maintained that when a person died, they died. Their spirit, the pneuma hagion if they were "born again", returned to God" at that time, leaving the body. However the soul, the individual personality, awareness and consciousness ended at death. So for all practical purposes a person is gone and life is over at that time. They don't "go to heaven" or continue in any extended dormant state.
The comparison to sleep was that death was "like" sleep in that a person is no longer conscious or aware of what's going on. They're "out". But of course when we're asleep it's not the same as being dead. The comparison of sleep/death was a limited one.
There's a lot of unknowns in that, and there's a lot of unknowns in the whole topic of course. But that's the way I understood the Way's teaching at one time. It was taught, death is final and complete and uniterrupted until and unless a resurrection takes place, which was taught would occur at some future time in the return of Jesus Christ.
"Soul Sleep" is a term used to describe the theology taught by TWI, the JWs, and the Seventh Day Adventists on the subject. Yeah, Wierwille called it "Are the Dead Alive Now." The doctrine is also referred to, by some, as "Conditional Imortality."
The vast majority of Christianity rejects this concept.
Quotes are in highlighted blocks. My words or other peoples' words from previous posts are in plain text. Free2Love's words are bolded.
Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position.
Whoa! Hold on there. I don’t recall attacking Danny nor did I intend to. I don’t know anything about any “position of ‘soul-sleep’”. (What is that?) I just read what the bible says because it says the truth. Did you read 1 Thes 4:13-18? What does it say? Is that the truth? Why do you think I want to attack someone?
Down here in the "Doctrinal Basement," we discuss various Christian and non-Christian doctrines. There are a extremely wide variety of belief systems represented here, some of them very articulately. We have people who are Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Fundamentalist Protestant, Calvanist (where is Cynic, anyway?), Jewish, and some who subscribe to TWI/post TWI systems. Some folks come down here to ask questions (which can then turn into drawn out discussions), etc.
One sort-of unwritten rule down here and why we keep from ripping each other apart, despite the disparity of cult, is that we have a respect for each other's beliefs (even if we don't agree with those beliefs).
Danny was commiserating with you for the loss of your Father. Your response to him was, "Had this *#$& Catholic Priest taught me TWI theology on the subject rather than Catholic theology, it would have been alright."
I don't know how much you've lurked down here, but it doesn't appear to me that you actually know what Danny believes on the subject. It appeared (and appears) that you have your mind closed on the subject (I could be wrong) and anybody who doesn't agree with you is plain wrong.
I say the above, based upon your statement where you say, I can appreciate your attempt to ‘make sense of it all’ but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth.
The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism.
You’re dead wrong on this. Many Catholics are born again and are my brothers and sisters. Do I disagree with much of Catholic doctrine? Yes I do but they teach about Jesus Christ and I think that's keen.
I'm glad that you think that it's keen. But my observations still stand, even more so since I made that post.
CWF said,
Ain't that the truth!
Got to love the message of God's never failing grace! Walkin in the spirit's the only way. To think we/I could ever discipline the flesh by our own minds (works)!
Priest said the same thing when my father died. Told him to get out of my home, and don't expect a cash handout for his mumbo jumbo (Dad was catholic and Mom was taught their phobus). The priest foamed at the mouth mumbling something out the door. Never saw the jackass again.
Great Post!
Free2Love said,
What can I say? Great response! Amen!
Thank you!
God Bless!
Continuing on,
I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestants on this board, as well.
Sorry ‘bout that but if you’re a priest, a pastor, a preacher, a bishop or whatever and you actually think that it’s God’s will in any way shape or fashion for His people to die, you are really ignorant of what the word of God says. BTW, ignorant means you don’t know certain facts. I didn’t say they were stupid.
I agree, ignorance is a terrible thing. And I have run into ignorant priests, pastors, preachers, bishops, etc., in my own life, as well. But one thing that I'd caution you on is the error of being arrogant. You may not have been taught the scriptures as well as you think. That's why a discussion format in a diverse group such as this is valuable...rather than simply asserting your position as the truth and closing your mind to honest evaluation of others' beliefs as being wrong.
You might end up better able to defend your beliefs in the end or you may find that you were in error on some subjects. Regardless, you may be able to learn something.
If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
Well, ya know, I’ve never been all that impressed with numbers. The word of God is not established by majority vote. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
I'm glad that you're not impressed with numbers. Nor should you be. But you should continue to read that passage from Matthew:
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
The whole passage is far more revealing.
That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though.
That’s ok. 1 Thes 4:13-18 is plain enough. The dead are dead and they will be resurrected when Jesus Christ returns.
That saddens me that you are so convinced of your position that you don't care to attempt to discuss it. But it's your business, I guess.
ps - Mark, I just went and re-read my reply to Dan and I gotta say, I think your response to me was a little over the top. Are you ok? Are you angry at me? Did I do something wrong to you? Pls send me a pm and let's talk about it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's heart.
No, I am hardly angry with you. If I were, I wouldn't bother responding to you. This response may have been a bit strong, but all-in-all, I find that it is fairly accurate and on the spot.
Well, the more I read about "soul sleep" Mark, the more I'm unclear on what it actually means, but if this defiition is what it means, as Adventists define it, it definitely isn't what The Way taught. Here's a fairly succinct definition of soul sleep I found online-
Termed "conditional immortality" by the SDA church and "Annihilations" by others, it is the teaching that at death the soul (life essence) of a person enters a state of unconsciousness until resurrection day when God will once again breath the breath of life into their body. The soul is thus considered to be conditionally immortal.
This isn't what The Way taught. Go back to PFAL and the section dealing with body/soul/spirit, "formed, made, created". VPW sets his idea forth that soul life ("breath life") either passes on to the person's children and continues or if there's no children it dies at death, ceases to be.
Soul life was presented as basically the life force of any living person, animal. In his view it held no special significance in relation to "spiritual" matters, other than it was "made whole" at the time of the new birth by the receiving/presence of "holy spirit". He taught, if there's life, there's a "soul" of some kind. In his view it would come to the same end as the body, which "returns to dust". He stated when a person dies his own soul life "terminates" and "is no more".
Psychopannychy, or soul sleep, is the doctrine that the soul sleeps between death and resurrection. It has been held sporadically in the church. It is not a heresy in the narrower sense, due to the paucity of Scripture teaching on the intermediate state, but it may be called a doctrinal aberration. Some Anabaptists endorsed it. In the Forty-two Articles of Edward VI, which preceded the Thirty-nine Articles, the following statement, as the Fortieth Article, was included: "They which say that the souls of those who depart hence do sleep being without all sense, feeling or perceiving till the Day of Judgment, do utterly dissent from the right belief disclosed to us in Holy Scripture."
The case for soul sleep rests principally on these considerations: (1) Human existence demands the unity of soul and body. If the body ceases to function, so must the soul. (2) The use of the term "sleep" in Scripture for death is alleged to point to the cessation of consciousness. (3) A state of consciousness between death and resurrection, characterized by bliss or woe, unwarrantably anticipates the judgment of the last day, when the basis for these experiences provided.
Please pay special note to the second paragraph. I understand what you're saying that word-for-word Wierwille did not teach exactly the same thing as the Seventh Day Adventists, just as I'm sure he didn't teach the exact same thing as the JW's or the WWCG or other groups. But TWI's beliefs on the subject are classified in with this because they contain the essential elements of that doctrine.
"Soul Sleep" is a term used to describe the theology taught by TWI, the JWs, and the Seventh Day Adventists on the subject. Yeah, Wierwille called it "Are the Dead Alive Now." The doctrine is also referred to, by some, as "Conditional Imortality."
The vast majority of Christianity rejects this concept.
Greetings Mark, I'm an exwaybe. Most of my adult life I accepted without question "soul sleep." No longer. I wish I had a couple more life-times to study this. I mean anthropologically. (is that a word?). I skimmed this thread. My response to Mark, I think, is but I'm jumping in. God Bless & "Isn't that special?"
What Free2Love posted on "Patterns of Fellowship" is POTENT, to say the least. In fact, I'd gladly sandblast off all holy scripture save the Church Epistles. The unquestioned uncontested core would be: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon.
It took some time for the "Pattern" to sink in. In fact mostly now it may be more what it is NOT. But I recognize the "leadership" epistles as something added that cannot be ignored. The winners (orthodox) said this is canon and this is leadership. The Apostle-to-the-Gentiles mentions leaders but in I Corinthians 14 he doesn't tell them to get leaders, he says seek that you may excel to edify.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
11
12
9
Popular Days
Jul 18
16
Jun 12
6
Jul 13
6
Jun 5
5
Top Posters In This Topic
free2love 9 posts
markomalley 11 posts
Carl Smuda 12 posts
dancing 9 posts
Popular Days
Jul 18 2006
16 posts
Jun 12 2006
6 posts
Jul 13 2006
6 posts
Jun 5 2006
5 posts
year2027
God first
Beloved Beloved free2love
God loves you my dear friend
WOW I enjoy that loving words from your heart
thank you my dear friend
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
FreetoLove,
Is there anything appropriate anyone could have possibly uttered upon the event of your father's untimely passing-away, that could have brought comfort and security to the spirit of a child undergoing such heart-shattering, unimaginable loss ?
"It was God's will" would have fell short perhaps just as much as anything else that could have been said to you at the time.
It appears to many of us as theologically disgusting.
And yet such an expression is not unique to Christianity- or Catholicism.
A recent earthquake victim in Indonesia - one of the Muslim religion - upon experiencing the deaths of his wife and other family members - could only utter in seeming resignation "It must have been the will of [Allah]."
It's as a cry of despair, a mechanism of trying to deal and make sense of a senseless situation, perhaps intended to affix one's attention upon one's own of purpose in life, that as random and violent and unpredictable that life may appear, there's a reason for me still being here and continuing on, and getting through all this horrible crap.
I wonder if we're not being overcritical of this expression - such that now appears to me more a saying arising more out of unspeakable anguish, than a saying that should be dissected beneath a theological microscope.
What if, instead of the priest saying "It was God's will", he said to you rather affirmatively, "God is love"?
Would that had left you with any less distasteful impression in your memory?
It would still hurt.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
As a never-miss-a-Sunday, go-to-daily-Mass-when-I-can, Catholic who has attended my share of funerals and worked my share of funerals, I will never cease to be amazed when I hear of these "It was God's will" statements by clergy in the wake of a funeral. I will also say that I have never heard that statement being made in person. It's funny, though: the only time I've ever heard of that statement being made was when I've heard ex-Catholics make the statement as being the rationale for them leaving Catholicism.
A more incredibly insensitive thing to say I can't think of.
A couple of comments on your post, having said the above:
[*]There are far too many people who call themselves bishops, reverends, ministers, pastors, "brothers", or whatever, who seem to have forgotten the above section.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Come come Mark...it is a 'catholic calling card' at a funeral or whatever. Thank God VP shouted out the imbicility of statements like that. What I've never heard a priest say is the devil stole that persons' life.
And before you call me on that one, my high school years were spent at Sacred heart College, a school run by Marist brothers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Allan,
Seriously, I have never-ever heard that...including at my first wife's funeral...
Most frequently, I have heard: "God finally called _______ home."
I have heard other statements that, using the twi theology, could be twisted around. But I certainly have not heard the one listed by free2love. I am not saying it wasn't said. Frankly, it sounds like something said by a person who was grasping at something comforting to say but didn't know what that comforting thing was.
You need to remember, since you were educated by Marists, that Catholics have a slightly different attitude toward death than TWI taught. Since we don't practice the "soul sleep" doctrine, like as taught by TWI, we can have the attitude expressed by St. Paul, "For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. (Phil 1:21)." Even the attitude toward physical suffering is different: "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church (Col 1:24)." Rather than cursing the darkness, we try to see God's light illuminated in that darkness.
So I could see how a priest (whether a papal chaplain or not), heartbroken at the loss of a good father to a family and concerned for that family's survival, could be grasping for something to share to help soften the blow of the loss of the father to that family. Fortunately, I haven't run into that circumstance. As there are a thousand things one could say that would be in accord with the Magesterium (since you were educated by the Marists, I'm sure you're familiar with that term) that don't require that statement to be said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Yes! God first!
What a blessing you are!
God bless you richly in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ
and may the love of God abound in you always! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved free2love
God loves you my dear friend
you are a blessing too my friend
thank you
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Anyway, it seems you are holding the church somewhat accountable for your father's death ...("the Church left him ignorant and defenseless"). I fail to see your reasoning here. If as you say, that we are all the church and there is no hierarchy, then how can you hold the RCC accountable? By holding the RCC accountable, you are implying that the RCC had the power and responsibililty to not leave him ignorant, which then suggest an hierarchy. Maybe you could share your reasoning on that.
As Mark pointed out in his post, What TWI taught and still teaches is what is known as Word-faith theology. This is the name it and claim it kind of faith (believing) that is supposed to get you fire engine red drapes, and a good parking spot at the mall.I would draw a sharp distinction between "faith" and "word-faith theology". Faith is necessary and still a huge part of becoming and being a Christian.
Again, I wouldn't write "faith" off completely. Although love is the greatest commandment and will never pass away, faith is also still neccesary. However, I will wholeheartedy agree that "word-faith theology" as taught by TWI, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland and a slew of others is dead wrong. It is leaven that leavens the whole lump IMO.But something else to consider: Yes, they did lead us wrong, but we followed them didn't we?. We put our trust in them and what they taught didn't we? Didn't we choose to believe what they taught us? Yet the Bible and the Holy Spirit were right there with us all the time.
Also, you are saying that we don't need anyone to tell us what to believe or that we are believing wrongly, yet isn't that kind of what you are doing in this post? -- telling TWI, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc and those that subscribe to their teachings that they are wrong? Just an observation. Personally, I see no problem with pointing out certain errors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor the other apostles had a problem with it.
Pretty much agreed. Yup, as a result of our acceptance of the erroneous "law of believing" and the God wants your rich stuff -- many of us went to God with the solutions and answers instead of the questions. Many times, we were less than humble. One of my favorite sections of scripture.I don't get "freaked out" when people tell me "God told me". I just usually take it with a grain of salt. I seldom give any weight to something when someone says "God told me". It seems to be quite common these days, with all the wannabe prophets going around contradicting each other with all the "God told me" stuff.Some folks seem to use the "God told me" line when they want to close the discussion or when they want ot refuse any input or feedback from others. Personally, I think it sabotages the conversation most of the time when someone says that. If God truly told them something, passing it on is enough. If it is truly from God, those that have ears will hear. His sheep hear his voice and don't need to be told whose voice it is.
Nice Post
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
CWF
Ain't that the truth!
Got to love the message of God's never failing grace! Walkin in the spirit's the only way. To think we/I could ever discipline the flesh by our own minds (works)!
Priest said the same thing when my father died. Told him to get out of my home, and don't expect a cash handout for his mumbo jumbo (Dad was catholic and Mom was taught their phobus). The priest foamed at the mouth mumbling something out the door. Never saw the jackass again.
Great Post!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Thanks for posting Danny
BTW, I’d like to make it clear; I was only using my personal experience to illustrate the need for accurate knowledge and the vulnerability one is exposed to when that knowledge isn’t there and we are led astray by men. …like the leaders of twi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Free2Love,
Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position.
The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism. I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say <i>but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth</i>, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestantsl on this board, as well.
If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though.
Oh, and I assume you accept the scriptural evidence I made about a hierarchy being legitimate, since you didn't bother to refute it.
Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mark,
Thank you so much for your gracious words.
Though I wasn't really offended by Free2Love's post.
Actually, I had hoped that my initial reflections on Free's post
didn't strike as equally offensive to him/her.
We all speak the truth as we see it, whatever it be; I/you/he'she can't be wrong (lol).
We perhaps come to expect to some degree - though we may not desire such - that people may encounter something in our "truth" as personally offensive to them.
I'm not put off by the "soul sleep" idea (having believed such in a previous life) but I'm no longer "turned on" by such either. I have found the prospect of being truly "dead" without any conscious existence for an indeterminate period of eons to not be as comforting as it had been promoted to us. Oh, "Jesus will come back to raise us up!" we were told, but when? It's like the "gap" in Genesis 1:2 -"It could be a couple years from now, a thousand years; it could be a million years!"
That's a long time to be dead, non-existent. Little wonder (in my opinion) the Way leaders lived like devils.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Free2Love:
Thank you for the nice response.
It's interesting that you almost verbatim quoted a teaching promulgated by Wierwille in your argument.
You said,
As far as that goes, I know that religion, at its best, is still man-made. The word in the bible chosen by God for religion in Greek is threskia which means “the outward show of piety” as opposed to the Greek word eusebeia, translated godliness and defined as “a real, true, vital, spiritual relation(ship) with God”
That was a false dichotomy put forth by Wierwille and company: that threskeia and eusebia were opposed one to another. In addition, developing paragraphs long definitions for words that hardly require them...and putting definite spin into them...
Threskeia means ceremonial worship. Eusebeia means piety. Threskeia is definitely external: it speaks about the practices used in worship. Eusebeia is definitely internal. It refers to an attitude...
The implication given was that they are mutually exclusive. But I would submit that one would have a very difficult time with authentic threskeia without having eusebeia inside.
The epistle of James speaks extensively about genuine religion versus false religion in this regard. The word "threskeia" is used but twice, but...reading the entire epistle for what it is (not like it's horribly long)...we can see that true religion performs acts of mercy. "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead."
You are absolutely correct that Our Lord said to the Pharisees said, Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Mt 15).
Of course, we need to understand the context of this statement. (Sorry for the length of this, but it is interesting and critical for my argument).
The key verses that you need to focus on are verses 4 and 5.
To really understand this, though, you should look at the parallel in Mark 7:
Note verses 10 and 11 above.
An example of what the Pharisees were doing is shown there. Resources that they should have used to take care of their mother and father were declared to be "Corban" (in Hebrew, Qorban or Qurban). Qorban is sacrifice or an oblation to God. I would encourage you to take a look at the Jewish Virtual Library article on the subject of sacrifices. I would also encourage you to look at the Christian Courier article on the subject. The key paragraphs that explain what was going on are pasted here:
Understanding the context, it is pretty clear (to me, at least) that a blanket condemnation of tradition is not being made. Rather a condemnation of traditions that end up making void the Word of God.
Consider this verse in regards to that:
You'll note that St. Paul encouraged the Thessalonians to live in accord with the tradition they received from them (Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy).
Again, words that are basically neutral in nature have been shown to be in opposition to other words. Tradition=bad. God's Word=Good.
The word, paradosis (tradition) is a neutral word. It literally means that which was delivered by word or in writing. It is derived from the word paradidomi (a verb), meaning to deliver, to impart verbally. It's origin is from para (from, by) and didomi (to give).
Some of the interesting verses using this verb are:
There are also a number of verses that use paradidomi for Jesus being handed over for Crucifixion.
The point is that the words are neutral...the concept is that authentic traditions are not at odds with God's Word...and, in fact, Christians are commended to follow them. False tradition, those that are not in harmony with God's Word, are not a good thing.
Your statement, though,
That’s pretty much how I feel now about Christian religions. Christ is preached; far out. …but I also know that the doctrines and traditions of men make God’s word “of none effect”.
has a lot of truth in it. When ecclesiastical communities go off in their own direction without regard for God's Word, they mess up and do much to hurt the people that choose to follow them. I won't say all are that way. I won't say that ANY of them are perfect. But I think that many of them have much to offer...some more than others...
As to the "Sower" article you cite, I understand the references within 1 Cor 14. I understand that everything should be done for building up (cf v 26). Of course, this is done since He is not the God of disorder, but of Peace (cf v33). I, frankly, am not sure how these verses that you cited have anything to do with any type of hierarchy one way or the other. Of course, I am not able to look at this issue of "the Sower," so there might be something else that I might have missed.
I still go back to the fact that had bishops, priests, and deacons not been needed, their offices wouldn't have had been established in the New Testament.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
What can I say? Great response! Amen!
Thank you!
God Bless!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
By Free2love
Nope, wasn't kidding at all. I'll try to help you get it.Your dad died ( you didn't say how) and you hold the RCC responsible for his death. If not "somewhat" responsible, then you imply total responsibility. Because they "lied"?
It might be helpful if you said how your father died and what the lie or lies were that directly caused his death.
I agree with you in principle on the hierarchy issue. I disagree with any kind of clergy/laity division within the "church". I have been studying that for quite a few years and have my own take on that. But I never said the RCC did not have an hierachy. IMO they have one of strictest and potentially abusive hierarchys in Christendom. But that was not my point at all.
You hold them (RCC) responsible for his death, because as you said,
This implies that the church, in this case the RCC, must repsonsibile for teaching the word of God perfectly and inerrantly, and that if they did, your father would have not have been "ignorant and defensless", and therefore would not have died.
If an organized church is to be responsible for teaching the Word perfectly, they must know it perfectly (no one does) and must also have the authority to teach it. For the church to have the authority, there must be an hierachy of some kind. But you say there is and should be no hierarchy.
Even if a church did teach the word perfectly, there is no guarantee that any particular person would accept and follow it unless obedience to that hierarchal authoruity was demanded and somehow guaranteed.
You also said,
If this is the case, then it cannot not the responsibility of any church or organized religious group to teach people out of their ignorance, but instead the responsibility of the believer himself. Does this not also apply to your father? -- (and to mine who commited suicide ?)
Which is it? Is a church or it's leaders ultimately responsible for what a person believes, or is it the believer himself? In regards to you dad you seem to be putting 100 percent of the onus upon the church, and for everyone else upon the beleiver himself.
That's my point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
free2love
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
I may be one bun short of a hot dog here, but I think - ? - the term "soul sleep" is being referred to as something that The Way taught...am I getting that right?
"Soul sleep" is a new term to me, so I had to do some checking on what it meant. As far as the Way goes, the term itself wasn't used up to 1989, after that I can't say.
I don't think "soul sleep" would be the same as what The Way taught, although it's sounds similar in some ways. In "Are the Dead Alive Now" and other teachings VPW did, he maintained that when a person died, they died. Their spirit, the pneuma hagion if they were "born again", returned to God" at that time, leaving the body. However the soul, the individual personality, awareness and consciousness ended at death. So for all practical purposes a person is gone and life is over at that time. They don't "go to heaven" or continue in any extended dormant state.
The comparison to sleep was that death was "like" sleep in that a person is no longer conscious or aware of what's going on. They're "out". But of course when we're asleep it's not the same as being dead. The comparison of sleep/death was a limited one.
There's a lot of unknowns in that, and there's a lot of unknowns in the whole topic of course. But that's the way I understood the Way's teaching at one time. It was taught, death is final and complete and uniterrupted until and unless a resurrection takes place, which was taught would occur at some future time in the return of Jesus Christ.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
"Soul Sleep" is a term used to describe the theology taught by TWI, the JWs, and the Seventh Day Adventists on the subject. Yeah, Wierwille called it "Are the Dead Alive Now." The doctrine is also referred to, by some, as "Conditional Imortality."
The vast majority of Christianity rejects this concept.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Note:
Quotes are in highlighted blocks. My words or other peoples' words from previous posts are in plain text. Free2Love's words are bolded.
Your comments back to Danny are uncalled for. You advocate the position of "soul sleep" as the only available position. As this is not a TWI, Seventh-Day Adventist, or Jehovah's Witness only board, you shouldn't make that assumption...then attacking somebody for not subscribing to that position.
Whoa! Hold on there. I don’t recall attacking Danny nor did I intend to. I don’t know anything about any “position of ‘soul-sleep’”. (What is that?) I just read what the bible says because it says the truth. Did you read 1 Thes 4:13-18? What does it say? Is that the truth? Why do you think I want to attack someone?
Down here in the "Doctrinal Basement," we discuss various Christian and non-Christian doctrines. There are a extremely wide variety of belief systems represented here, some of them very articulately. We have people who are Catholic, Evangelical Protestant, Fundamentalist Protestant, Calvanist (where is Cynic, anyway?), Jewish, and some who subscribe to TWI/post TWI systems. Some folks come down here to ask questions (which can then turn into drawn out discussions), etc.
One sort-of unwritten rule down here and why we keep from ripping each other apart, despite the disparity of cult, is that we have a respect for each other's beliefs (even if we don't agree with those beliefs).
Danny was commiserating with you for the loss of your Father. Your response to him was, "Had this *#$& Catholic Priest taught me TWI theology on the subject rather than Catholic theology, it would have been alright."
I don't know how much you've lurked down here, but it doesn't appear to me that you actually know what Danny believes on the subject. It appeared (and appears) that you have your mind closed on the subject (I could be wrong) and anybody who doesn't agree with you is plain wrong.
I say the above, based upon your statement where you say, I can appreciate your attempt to ‘make sense of it all’ but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth.
The vast majority of Christianity outright rejects the doctrine of "soul sleep." Not just Catholicism. I recognize that you are attempting to use this as an excuse to attack Catholicism.
You’re dead wrong on this. Many Catholics are born again and are my brothers and sisters. Do I disagree with much of Catholic doctrine? Yes I do but they teach about Jesus Christ and I think that's keen.
I'm glad that you think that it's keen. But my observations still stand, even more so since I made that post.
Continuing on,
I don't know what happened to you (other than this incident) nor do I really care to any degree more than simple human charity, but you need to keep in mind that, in addition to attacking my beliefs, when you say but this is more an expression of the extreme ignorance of this priest, stating the exact opposite of the truth, you are attacking the beliefs of many well-respected Protestants on this board, as well.
Sorry ‘bout that but if you’re a priest, a pastor, a preacher, a bishop or whatever and you actually think that it’s God’s will in any way shape or fashion for His people to die, you are really ignorant of what the word of God says. BTW, ignorant means you don’t know certain facts. I didn’t say they were stupid.
I agree, ignorance is a terrible thing. And I have run into ignorant priests, pastors, preachers, bishops, etc., in my own life, as well. But one thing that I'd caution you on is the error of being arrogant. You may not have been taught the scriptures as well as you think. That's why a discussion format in a diverse group such as this is valuable...rather than simply asserting your position as the truth and closing your mind to honest evaluation of others' beliefs as being wrong.
You might end up better able to defend your beliefs in the end or you may find that you were in error on some subjects. Regardless, you may be able to learn something.
If you want to attack Catholicism, I'd suggest you start a rant about a practice that is more uniquely Catholic, rather than attacking based on a belief that is held by the vast majority of Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.
Well, ya know, I’ve never been all that impressed with numbers. The word of God is not established by majority vote. Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
I'm glad that you're not impressed with numbers. Nor should you be. But you should continue to read that passage from Matthew:
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.
The whole passage is far more revealing.
That's the only point I wanted to make. If you want to be shown the scriptural inaccuracy of the doctrine of "soul sleep," as advocated by TWI, there have already been threads on that subject in Doctrinal. I suppose we can re-engage on that subject again though.
That’s ok. 1 Thes 4:13-18 is plain enough. The dead are dead and they will be resurrected when Jesus Christ returns.
That saddens me that you are so convinced of your position that you don't care to attempt to discuss it. But it's your business, I guess.
ps - Mark, I just went and re-read my reply to Dan and I gotta say, I think your response to me was a little over the top. Are you ok? Are you angry at me? Did I do something wrong to you? Pls send me a pm and let's talk about it. I'm not here to hurt anyone's heart.
No, I am hardly angry with you. If I were, I wouldn't bother responding to you. This response may have been a bit strong, but all-in-all, I find that it is fairly accurate and on the spot.
Have a great day!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Well, the more I read about "soul sleep" Mark, the more I'm unclear on what it actually means, but if this defiition is what it means, as Adventists define it, it definitely isn't what The Way taught. Here's a fairly succinct definition of soul sleep I found online-
Termed "conditional immortality" by the SDA church and "Annihilations" by others, it is the teaching that at death the soul (life essence) of a person enters a state of unconsciousness until resurrection day when God will once again breath the breath of life into their body. The soul is thus considered to be conditionally immortal.
This isn't what The Way taught. Go back to PFAL and the section dealing with body/soul/spirit, "formed, made, created". VPW sets his idea forth that soul life ("breath life") either passes on to the person's children and continues or if there's no children it dies at death, ceases to be.
Soul life was presented as basically the life force of any living person, animal. In his view it held no special significance in relation to "spiritual" matters, other than it was "made whole" at the time of the new birth by the receiving/presence of "holy spirit". He taught, if there's life, there's a "soul" of some kind. In his view it would come to the same end as the body, which "returns to dust". He stated when a person dies his own soul life "terminates" and "is no more".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Socks,
A Calvinist view of the subject is as follows:
Source: here
Please pay special note to the second paragraph. I understand what you're saying that word-for-word Wierwille did not teach exactly the same thing as the Seventh Day Adventists, just as I'm sure he didn't teach the exact same thing as the JW's or the WWCG or other groups. But TWI's beliefs on the subject are classified in with this because they contain the essential elements of that doctrine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl Smuda
What Free2Love posted on "Patterns of Fellowship" is POTENT, to say the least. In fact, I'd gladly sandblast off all holy scripture save the Church Epistles. The unquestioned uncontested core would be: Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, First Thessalonians, and Philemon.
It took some time for the "Pattern" to sink in. In fact mostly now it may be more what it is NOT. But I recognize the "leadership" epistles as something added that cannot be ignored. The winners (orthodox) said this is canon and this is leadership. The Apostle-to-the-Gentiles mentions leaders but in I Corinthians 14 he doesn't tell them to get leaders, he says seek that you may excel to edify.
respectfully,
Carl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.