It has been a couple of weeks; surely I can get the last comment now without you or anyone else noticing.

I understand your skepticism about anyone (including myself) having whole-hearted loyalty to Christ, however, Jesus examples out, and calls us to follow with, nothing less. And where else can we go; He alone has the words of eternal life.

I do not think we bring Jesus a whole (complete, perfect, unbroken) heart of whole (complete, perfect, unblemished) loyalty. And then say, “Jesus, look at what I brought you.”

But, as we look to Him and grow in our knowledge of Him, we should find ourselves moved, with all of our heart, to Him, as the proper object of our full love and fidelity. Not a half love or split fidelity.

You said that you agreed that there is a real, actual, spiritual connection in abiding with Jesus. But you added “through Word and Sacrament.”

We should not think of “Word and Sacrament” as magical suppliers of legitimacy or favor before God. There is a reason the word “sacrament” is not used in Holy Scripture and there is a reason it very quickly begins to be found among the tradition.

I think the sacramental teaching of the Great Tradition is an extra-biblical development which obscures Christ’s teaching. But again, that is not the most fundamental problem of the Great Tradition.

By the way, I appreciate your prayerful attitude and any encouragement offered. I don’t understand how the paragraph you quoted was arrogant but I apologize if I was unduly offensive.

Intent on staying in Christ’s circle, by his grace,
Jeff

“It is not my duty as a Christian to determine what kinds of people have no access to God through Christ but rather to make an appeal to all kinds (Including the Roman Catholic, the muslim catholic,the Mormon catholic, the Watchtower catholic and even the more loosely defined Great Tradition catholic) to breach the walls of their human loyalties and come to Jesus with whole-heart love and faith.”

The arrogance of such a statement is beyond me. I’m glad that your loyalties are fully and whole-heartedly devoted to Jesus. Really? This may sound pious and such, but I doubt seriously that you or anyone else have come to Jesus with whole-heart love and faith. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus has come to us with His love and the Holy Spirit has created faith in us that we believe in Jesus, in spite of ourselves.

Your presentation of Christianity seems to be all about us and our discipleship, our bearing the right fruit, and our getting it right and our…. The catholic faith makes it all about Jesus–His incarnation, His life, His suffering and death, His resurrection, His ascension, and His coming for the final judgement–so that we might be redeemed purely by His grace. Hey, doesn’t that sound like the creeds? Or the NT witness? Now fruit and such certainly result from faith, but they are never the source of our comfort (cf. Eph 2:8-10).

And whether you realize or not, you are a catholic Christian. There is no other type of Christian than a catholic one. Those who deny Jesus came in the flesh, God and man, to suffer and die for the sins of the world and secure redemption for those who believe place themselves outside of the catholic faith. Thus, there is no such thing as a catholic that denies this Jesus. In fact, John says this is how we know antichrist. But when you are participating in the Divine Liturgy of heaven for eternity, then your catholicity will be evident.

I’ll just gloss over your “spiritual”/”physical” language with regard to church and faith and agree to disagree.

Your dismissal of “catholic” spirit does not reflect the NT witness and those who received the traditions of the apostles.

I agree that there is a real, actual, spiritual connection in abiding with Jesus through Word and Sacrament.

I thank you for your engagement. I pray for Christ’s richest blessings on your ministry and your family life. I’ll shrink back into my Evangelical Catholic (Lutheran) ghetto…
Pax et bonum,
Mason

Israel had the prophetic scriptures and had plenty of debates about the interpretation of those scriptures yet their hearts where far from God and their claim to be the people of God was empty. There is no reason the same cannot be true of the great tradition, even of the council of Nicea.

also,

It is not my duty as a Christian to determine what kinds of people have no access to God through Christ but rather to make an appeal to all kinds (Including the Roman Catholic, the muslim catholic,the Mormon catholic, the Watchtower catholic and even the more loosely defined Great Tradition catholic) to breach the walls of their human loyalties and come to Jesus with whole-heart love and faith.

What I mean when I say “Jesus” may not be finished. I am still a disciple and a maker of disciples and therefore I meet Jesus in his gospel and his teachings. By the way He actually is actually sovereign over these teachings and my access to them. And he must make himself accessible to me spiritually from Heaven or I will not know Him. I am at his mercy even today…, especially today.

Again, Jesus is the ONE with universal authority. We should allow Him this position. Even if we agree about what Jesus did NOT mean in Matthew 23:6-10, we should allow him to mean something.

“But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.”
(Matthew 23:6-10)

And the true congregation of the people of God is the one spiritually gathered to Christ and it is charitably assumed to be generally inclusive of those gathering in the various physical congregations(We should observe how the word congregation “ekklnsia” is used in N.T.). This is the congregation that is the pillar and support of the truth even as they are the salt and the light (note that in Matthew this status is contingent upon fidelity to Christ and His teachings, and in the context of 1 Timothy, Paul has a contrast and distinction in mind between those spiritually gathered to Christ over against the congregation physically gathered in Jerusalem for the Jewish feasts).

For any physically gathered congregation to claim catholic authority is unseemly and a usurpation of Christ’s authority. Even the apostles in Acts 15 subjected their understanding to the prophetic scriptures and the spiritual action of God among strangers who where receiving Jesus as Israel’s Messiah…making them Israel add-ons. By the way, the letter sent from the council is a base-line, Gospel-ethic for a people not under the base-line ethic of Israel’s old Law. It is from Christ’s authoritative Gospel of self-sacrificial love, therefore it says, “keep yourselves from the stuff of Idolatry, from sexual immorality(literally- prostitution), from violence and from killing.”

Back to Israel and authority,

With the message thru Isaiah in mind,Jesus says in Mark 7:
‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.(Mark 7:6-9)

Of Heaven or Of Men?
Do we think Israel had no traditions for which ancient authority might be claimed? They did, but these traditions were of men, not of Heaven.

By the way the prophetic scriptures of the New covenant were copied and received among the congregations during the apostles ministry and recognized as prophetic scriptures as opposed to other writings long before the onset of the catholic spirit among a multitude. So, they were ubiquitously received in the congregations, they are self-defending in their quality, and they are superintended in their availability to the saints by God.

Back to -of heaven or of men.
This is an important distinction and a valid one. It is the distinction that Jesus asked the religiously powerful to make about John’s Baptism (Mark 11:30, Luke 20:4). Get it right and they will be moved to receiving Jesus, and thus to fruit bearing as the legitimate sons of Abraham (see John 8). Get it wrong and you will proceed blissfully and blindly down the path of the first Adam, ignoring the way of Christ, bearing fruit in keeping with that nature.

If we are disciples of Jesus our knowledge will not be comprehensive, but our heart of love and personal fidelity toward him will prevail.

Notice that John the Baptist’s authority was not about his making personal claims to it, but getting about doing God’s will. When asked if he was Elijah, John said no, but Jesus said that John did come in the power of Elijah.

Will we do the will of God? Jesus said in John 7, “If anyone is willing to do His will, he shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or I speak from myself.”

There is a real, actual, spiritual connection and thats why Jesus said: “If you abide in My word, you are truly disciples of mine; and you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

yours,
Jeff

Thinking of the JW and Mormon (as well as other catholic-claiming enthusiasts)my mission is not to wall individuals off from the salvation of Israel but rather to appeal to them with the announcement that God has opened a way in the desert,so to speak, for each of them to have immediate access to the salvation of Israel through the faith of Jesus, Messiah…not by exchanging one catholic claim for another one, but by recognizing with fidelity, Jesus, able and willing to meet their greatest need…and by doing this in a whole-hearted way, recognizable, and measusrable, by Jehovah himself, whose lovingkindness is forever, the only true God who is both good and severe.

The references to those who have gone before us in the faith simply point to the reality that we do not interpret Scripture in a vacuum. The “-isms” cannot be easily dismissed. They arose out of issues over understanding Scripture. Arius, Athanasius, Joseph Smith, you and I would agree that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The question is, “What do you mean when you say Jesus Christ?” There the ecumenical councils help to form the framework for a proper biblical understanding of Jesus and His work.

We are indebted to the fidelity of the defenders of the faith who have helped us in our proclamation of Christ. The Spirit was at work in the Body of Christ as they preserved the canon and articulated the biblical faith. We cannot leap over 2,000 years of Christian faith and practice into a magical “Bible land” (I steal this from Tillich and it may be the only decent thing he ever said).

Some of your complaints miss me. I don’t think I am your target when you complain about people using the bible as a nice place to glean this weeks timeless principle. One that might stick involves what you seem to be calling “the Christian context of understanding the scriptures.” How would you define this? How does it parrallel Israel’s context of understanding scripture?

I am interested in discussing fidelity to the gospel and the message of the prophetic scriptures.

I think that can be done without engaging the writings of Luther or Zwingli or Ignatius.

I think that can be done without having to work through determining and defining a plethora of “isms”: Maybeism, Maybenotism, Redherringism, Presumptionism, Excusefor dismissingsomeoneism.

yours,
Jeff

What debate would that be? The debate between the RC “organization” (your designation) and Luther over justification? If so, then I confess that I agree with Luther.

Would it be better to adjust the content to focus on our piety? Is entrance into the Kingdom dependent upon our good works?

Should I have come up with some timeless principles for the people to follow? Or burden the people with stuff to do? I have found that the result is either self-righteousness or self-loathing, and neither are pretty.

Your comment gets to the point of the entire discussion, which is context. I argue that context is ultimately theological, thus the importance of the ecumenical councils and the history of Christian thought.

I would call the exegesis/eisegesis distinction from DTS sophomoric, but that would be an insult to…. The problem with the “gobbledygook” is that they think they can dismiss the Christian context of understanding the Scriptures and come up with something meaningful. The problem with those who think they can uncover the historical background and authorial intent is that they are not reflective on the philosophical and hermeneutical presuppositions that demands.

Back to Matthew 7- Jesus is addressing false teachers and their fruits. What is the fruit of a teacher? I would think it is the message. If it is the person, then Donatism might become a problem. From a distance, the flowers of thornbushes might be mistaken for grapes and the flowers of a thistle might be mistaken for figs, but upon close inspection they are seen for what they are. Discernment is to be applied to the teaching (fruit) of teachers. What should be the fruit of Christian teachers and preachers? I would think it would be a focus on Jesus–repentance and forgiveness of sins in His name. Those who cry out to Jesus on the day of judgment with claims of what they have done, will not be known by the Lord. Why else would they be excluded? They have not made a personal decision to accept Jesus in their heart (please find that and its accompanying prayer for me in Holy Scripture)? I think my approach is thoroughly Christian.

I don’t mean to be terse, but you really haven’t engaged any of the issues.
+Mason

It seems like your adjusting the content of matthew 7 just a bit, so that it fits onto the right side of the reformation debate.

Jeff