I'm debating my campus minister right now

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

My campus minister from my first college & I are in the middle of an e-mail conversation, where I'm building off of a sermon he gave over a year ago. His sermon was about the necessity of putting the Bible first in our moral decision-making; I won't go into details, but I reference it to begin the conversation, so I thought a little background would help. Also, Travis (my former campus minister) is Protestant, and I'm Catholic. We have a lot of respect for each other's devotion to God, and we get along quite well. Part of why I'm sharing this isn't just to ask others to continue the debate (he hasn't replied in quite awhile), but also to show how these things can be discussed in a very respectful way.

First and foremost, please pray for all of us; me, Travis, and everyone who will read this post. We're debating a very central issue in Christian divisions, and I think we all want everyone to be led to the most accurate understanding of Sacred Scripture. God willing, this debate will help us realize what that is!

In any case, I'll put out a post for each piece of the conversation, then leave it for any of you to follow up & keep the debate going. It's very out of character for Travis to not reply to e-mails, so I think I just gave him a lot to think about. This is part of why I want the rest of you to carry on the debate; I want to see what sort of counter-arguments can be made to what I've laid out. I'm really trying to get to the heart of how to determine what the true teaching of the Bible is, and I think this is the critical issue, but I need your help in being critical of what I've laid out. Also, please make sure to read & watch what I include in my side of the debate, as the included resources are a vital piece of explaining what I'm trying to say. This is in-depth, and maybe a little repetitive if you've seen some of my previous posts (sorry if it is), but this is a really important issue to me, and I want to make sure I understand it properly.

--------

Good evening, Travis! I remember a sermon you had at Tuesday Night Worship towards the beginning of last year, where you have the discussion of ethics, and the need to place the Bible as a solid center of moral decision making, using the analogy of a chair in a dark basement to explain why we need an unchanging, solid rule to guide our actions. It was a good sermon, and it made me think of how essential my faith is to how I should act. Still, something about the sermon bothered me, and I wanted to address it here.

As vital as it is to put the Bible at the center of our lives, there's a lot of disagreement about what the Bible teaches. Some Christians think alcohol is immoral, some think that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, some think that long hair on men is immoral, and of course, some think the opposite of all of these ideas is true. You did a great job of reminding us that we need to put the Bible at the center of our lives; the follow-up would be, how do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct? All of these aforementioned ideas are often held by people who put the Bible at the center of their decisions, but others who put the Bible at the center hold the opposite views.

This is a link to an article that I found, written by Dave Armstrong, one of my favorite Christian writers, and someone who used to be an Evangelical Protestant campus minister. I feel that this article does a great job of explaining God's placement of teaching authority throughout the Bible history; I'd really like you to read it & tell me what you think! I found it very relevant to the current state of Christianity & our need to find God's truth in a culture of confusion that has even left many Christians confused about what should be believed.

Catholic binding authority and Old Testament analogies

Thank you for all you do on campus; I like a lot of the Ministry people at my new college, but you're certainly someone that I wish was still here! God's blessings in all that you do & all whom to meet!

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

Travis' reply:

Good to hear from you and glad you are doing well at your new university. I am humbled by you remembering a teaching I gave over a year ago and in that teaching I was trying to make a point based on moral relativism which says that your truth can be different than my truth. As you know we live in a time where the bible and it's authority and absolute truth are being questioned or dismissed. I believe that Christians don't even realize that they are straying from God's Word. Media, movies and other forms of entertainment are corrupting our minds and belief systems. All that to say, that we need to read the Word, know the Word. Sure people are going to disagree with doctrinal differences and interpretation but I would rather us arguing over scripture than removing scripture from the conversation and just talk about what we think.

I agree with Dave Armstrong that it is helpful to have others who are walking with God and have studied scripture to help us interrupt God's Word. I have people I look turn to to help me understand scripture. At the same time we have the responsibility to check what they say. Much like you have done with my teachings. Because I am not infallible, and do not believe that anyone is infallible. Even the prophets were not infallible, but where used by God to speak God's word. Not to be rude but even the Pope is not infallible. As you know your Catholic Pope history better than me, I understand that there have been crooked Popes in the past. I read that even Pope Frances and Pope Benedict do not agree on moral issues. I don't know how they both can be infallible and yet disagree.

Please know that I have the great respect for your faith in God, and your dedication to following Him. Thanks for the email it is great to talk on deeper things with you.

Blessings,

Travis

 

[Unofficial Reverand Alex]

This is my reply; also, this is where the conversation left off. Please read, watch, and continue to discuss! Thank you all & may God continue to bless us all!


"Sure people are going to disagree with doctrinal differences and interpretation but I would rather us arguing over scripture than removing scripture from the conversation and just talk about what we think. ". I really like that thought ; to a point, that's what I was trying to say about your talk, but I didn't have such a good way of writing it. I suppose that, as long as it's Scripture that's being discussed, we're already in a good place.


Papal infallibility is actually very limited; it only comes into play when the Pope is speaking in the chair of Peter (as the teaching authority to the whole Church), on matters of theology & morality. Furthermore, it is considered a negative protection; that is, infallibility is only the Holy Spirit preventing the Pope from teaching something false, much more limited than the prophets & the writers of the Bible who spoke & wrote the very word of God. We don't question the possibility that the Bible could be wrong because it's written by humans; we understand that the Spirit can work through people to protect them from error (in the case of the Pope) or even to say God's very word (the inspiration of the Scriptures).

Francis & Benedict may disagree on their own; that wouldn't surprise me, as the men have different ideas of the faith. But in a teaching position, speaking to the whole Church on a matter of faith or morals, even the most corrupt Pope would be defended from error by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes infallibility as this:

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421


This is how 2 Popes can be infallible & still disagree; infallibility is limited to official statements to the whole Church, even if the people themselves can talk on their own with differing ideas.

When Jesus is sending out the 72 in Like 10, he says, " Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. "

A lot of this question comes down to the nature of the Church that Christ left behind. Is it a community? Is it an intangible creation? Is it an visible institution, fulfilling the kingdoms that God has set up in the past? I truly believe it is all of these; community is vitally important, as is beautifully played out every week at TNW. The Church is intangible is some respects; if the mystical Body of Christ was a tangible idea, we'd all look a lot weirder. And I don't see why God would leave us without a teaching authority, to make sure we know what He wants us to believe, especially as following the proper teachings is taken so seriously by the Bible: " Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you". Of course, even with the tools of everyone's share in the Holy Spirit & even Papal Infallibility, this is a process that can take a great deal of time, as even the Bible itself wasn't decided upon for a few centuries.

I know of a video that discusses more of the notion of the visible Church in the context of the Old Testament kingdoms, if you would like; even if you end up disagreeing with Fr. Mike's conclusion, it's still an interesting description of authority in Bible history:

Well, that was a much longer message than intended, but I do appreciate being able to have detailed discussions about important matters of the Faith. Peace out, God bless, watch out for sharks!

 

[DennisTate]

My campus minister from my first college & I are in the middle of an e-mail conversation, where I'm building off of a sermon he gave over a year ago. His sermon was about the necessity of putting the Bible first in our moral decision-making; I won't go into details, but I reference it to begin the conversation, so I thought a little background would help. Also, Travis (my former campus minister) is Protestant, and I'm Catholic. We have a lot of respect for each other's devotion to God, and we get along quite well. Part of why I'm sharing this isn't just to ask others to continue the debate (he hasn't replied in quite awhile), but also to show how these things can be discussed in a very respectful way.

First and foremost, please pray for all of us; me, Travis, and everyone who will read this post. We're debating a very central issue in Christian divisions, and I think we all want everyone to be led to the most accurate understanding of Sacred Scripture. God willing, this debate will help us realize what that is!

In any case, I'll put out a post for each piece of the conversation, then leave it for any of you to follow up & keep the debate going. It's very out of character for Travis to not reply to e-mails, so I think I just gave him a lot to think about. This is part of why I want the rest of you to carry on the debate; I want to see what sort of counter-arguments can be made to what I've laid out. I'm really trying to get to the heart of how to determine what the true teaching of the Bible is, and I think this is the critical issue, but I need your help in being critical of what I've laid out. Also, please make sure to read & watch what I include in my side of the debate, as the included resources are a vital piece of explaining what I'm trying to say. This is in-depth, and maybe a little repetitive if you've seen some of my previous posts (sorry if it is), but this is a really important issue to me, and I want to make sure I understand it properly.

--------

Good evening, Travis! I remember a sermon you had at Tuesday Night Worship towards the beginning of last year, where you have the discussion of ethics, and the need to place the Bible as a solid center of moral decision making, using the analogy of a chair in a dark basement to explain why we need an unchanging, solid rule to guide our actions. It was a good sermon, and it made me think of how essential my faith is to how I should act. Still, something about the sermon bothered me, and I wanted to address it here.

As vital as it is to put the Bible at the center of our lives, there's a lot of disagreement about what the Bible teaches. Some Christians think alcohol is immoral, some think that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, some think that long hair on men is immoral, and of course, some think the opposite of all of these ideas is true. You did a great job of reminding us that we need to put the Bible at the center of our lives; the follow-up would be, how do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct? All of these aforementioned ideas are often held by people who put the Bible at the center of their decisions, but others who put the Bible at the center hold the opposite views.

This is a link to an article that I found, written by Dave Armstrong, one of my favorite Christian writers, and someone who used to be an Evangelical Protestant campus minister. I feel that this article does a great job of explaining God's placement of teaching authority throughout the Bible history; I'd really like you to read it & tell me what you think! I found it very relevant to the current state of Christianity & our need to find God's truth in a culture of confusion that has even left many Christians confused about what should be believed.

Catholic binding authority and Old Testament analogies

Thank you for all you do on campus; I like a lot of the Ministry people at my new college, but you're certainly someone that I wish was still here! God's blessings in all that you do & all whom to meet!

One quick point that I think that I should make is that back in 1988 i really thought that I understood the Bible.... and within a few years I was shown that I knew very, very, very, very, very little about the Bible or anything else for that matter.

After my dad died I began to ask for wisdom..... and for correction...... and being shown that I knew nothing was what I was shown first.

This may give you an idea of what i went through because in 1988 I would have thought that Mr. Dean Braxton was halucinating or being tempted by a demon. Now I am certain that I was terribly in error back in those days.

I had read the Bible perhaps fifty times by 1988..... but I did not understand it well at all.........

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Are you saying the Pope in wisdom would consult with top Theologians and Bishops before taking the chair?

Where was the chair at the Councils?

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Travis' reply:

Not to be rude but even the Pope is not infallible. As you know your Catholic Pope history better than me, I understand that there have been crooked Popes in the past. I read that even Pope Frances and Pope Benedict do not agree on moral issues. I don't know how they both can be infallible and yet disagree.

He almost got you here, in a situation we would never have happened six years ago. You did answer it well though in your next post. Kudos.

 

[SkyWriting]

My campus minister from my first college & I are in the middle of an e-mail conversation, where I'm building off of a sermon he gave over a year ago. His sermon was about the necessity of putting the Bible first in our moral decision-making; I won't go into details, but I reference it to begin the conversation, so I thought a little background would help. Also, Travis (my former campus minister) is Protestant, and I'm Catholic. We have a lot of respect for each other's devotion to God, and we get along quite well. Part of why I'm sharing this isn't just to ask others to continue the debate (he hasn't replied in quite awhile), but also to show how these things can be discussed in a very respectful way.

First and foremost, please pray for all of us; me, Travis, and everyone who will read this post. We're debating a very central issue in Christian divisions, and I think we all want everyone to be led to the most accurate understanding of Sacred Scripture. God willing, this debate will help us realize what that is!

In any case, I'll put out a post for each piece of the conversation, then leave it for any of you to follow up & keep the debate going. It's very out of character for Travis to not reply to e-mails, so I think I just gave him a lot to think about. This is part of why I want the rest of you to carry on the debate; I want to see what sort of counter-arguments can be made to what I've laid out. I'm really trying to get to the heart of how to determine what the true teaching of the Bible is, and I think this is the critical issue, but I need your help in being critical of what I've laid out. Also, please make sure to read & watch what I include in my side of the debate, as the included resources are a vital piece of explaining what I'm trying to say. This is in-depth, and maybe a little repetitive if you've seen some of my previous posts (sorry if it is), but this is a really important issue to me, and I want to make sure I understand it properly.

--------

Good evening, Travis! I remember a sermon you had at Tuesday Night Worship towards the beginning of last year, where you have the discussion of ethics, and the need to place the Bible as a solid center of moral decision making, using the analogy of a chair in a dark basement to explain why we need an unchanging, solid rule to guide our actions. It was a good sermon, and it made me think of how essential my faith is to how I should act. Still, something about the sermon bothered me, and I wanted to address it here.

As vital as it is to put the Bible at the center of our lives, there's a lot of disagreement about what the Bible teaches. Some Christians think alcohol is immoral, some think that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, some think that long hair on men is immoral, and of course, some think the opposite of all of these ideas is true. You did a great job of reminding us that we need to put the Bible at the center of our lives; the follow-up would be, how do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct? All of these aforementioned ideas are often held by people who put the Bible at the center of their decisions, but others who put the Bible at the center hold the opposite views.

This is a link to an article that I found, written by Dave Armstrong, one of my favorite Christian writers, and someone who used to be an Evangelical Protestant campus minister. I feel that this article does a great job of explaining God's placement of teaching authority throughout the Bible history; I'd really like you to read it & tell me what you think! I found it very relevant to the current state of Christianity & our need to find God's truth in a culture of confusion that has even left many Christians confused about what should be believed.

Catholic binding authority and Old Testament analogies

Thank you for all you do on campus; I like a lot of the Ministry people at my new college, but you're certainly someone that I wish was still here! God's blessings in all that you do & all whom to meet!

Debates are usually over Paul's letters.

 

[redleghunter]

Some Christians think alcohol is immoral, some think that gay marriage is perfectly acceptable, some think that long hair on men is immoral, and of course, some think the opposite of all of these ideas is true. You did a great job of reminding us that we need to put the Bible at the center of our lives; the follow-up would be, how do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct? All of these aforementioned ideas are often held by people who put the Bible at the center of their decisions, but others who put the Bible at the center hold the opposite views.

Hi Alex. Hope he answers you.

On the above the Bible alone is not immune to people having differing views. There are some in your own church who believe same sex marriage and elective abortions should be ok. Even though your catechism points these things out clearly they (and even Pope Francis) quote other areas of the catechism to soften up the other parts.

Secondly, there are Catholics who just ignore what the CCC says and they are not different to people who just ignore what the Bible actually says.

In summary, it is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

(Former Roman Catholic here)

Alex,

Thank you for starting up this conversation. May it be a fruitful one.

I would disagree with both you and Travis. A Christian is one who finds his moral center in his union with Christ, not the Bible, or the Catholic Church.

I other words, God's Word is a means to an end, and that end is Christ. Man is incapable of fulling God's Law, which is the very reason Christ's mission. To read moral law, such as the Sermon on the Mount, or the Great Commandment, without understanding we are incapable of such, because we are morally bankrupt, is to seek to justify ourselves rather than receiving our justification as the gift it is, by faith.

God's Word *is* a "lamp unto our feet" and a "light unto our path"; however, that is only true *in Christ*. The Pharisees read scripture, yet, it blinded them rather than allowing them to see clearly.

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3)

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)​

I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20)

​

 

[Brian Mcnamee]

If the Bible and the Pope are both the authority then there should be no contradictions. So think about celibate priesthood. In the Bible the office of a Bishop the qualifications are 1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[fn] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[fn] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

 

[Lady Donna Marie]

[QUOTE="Brian Mcnamee,

Hi Brian,

Some of the 12 apostles were married. In the Orthodox Christian Church priest can marry, but bishops do not. Our bishops have different titles. We don't have a Pope, but Patriarchs of different jurisdictions. We believe that Christ is the head of the Church and that the lay people are allowed to express their like or dislikes according to what the Patriarchs do or say. The Orthodox have a round table way of doing this where Christ is the center. The Catholics from what I have understood have a Pope and that person is the head and want goes down because of him is what they believe that he is infallible. The Orthodox know that we are not infallible and all need God's salvation and mercy because we fall short of His glory.

When a man wants to become a priest in the Orthodox Church if he wants to get married he has to do so before he becomes ordained otherwise, he has to remain celibate.

 

[Albion]

The linked article misses the point the chaplain was making, so perhaps Travis has realized that you are not willing to come to grips with the real issue in his sermon (and therefore gave up responding to that particular question).