WEB SITE; GODWHOISGOD.COM IS A GOSPEL TRACT IN 50 LANGUAGES FOR EVANGELISM TO MUSLIMS, HINDUS AND SIKHS FOR JESUS CHRIST. THANKYOU. JAMES AND HAMSA.

I have to apologize to you for something back in September. When you told me, Mother forgives you, I thought you were talking about Mother Teresa.

No apologies necessary. You didn't misunderstand. Having been a sola scriptura Protestant myself once, I understand the communication issues well. Your first interpretation was the right one.

The cross he was referring to there is us not doing what we want to do, but doing what is right according to scripture...The sufferings referred to there are the sufferings Christians endure from non-Christians because of our faith.

I learned better theology than this from my Protestant teachers, including A.W. Tozer. To take up your cross means much more than just not doing what you want. It means to die, to die to self and to sin. St. Paul doesn't just say "suffer because of our faith." He says we must share in Jesus' sufferings. There is a mystery here you have not yet fully assayed.

Is it possible for a sola Scriptura Christian to believe in the trinity when the word, "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

Is this a rhetorical question, or are you saying you don't accept the word "Trinity"? If the latter, Esau's case against my positive valuation of your theology just went up by an order of magnitude.

Is it possible for a sola Scriptura Christian to believe in the trinity when the word, "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Bible?

SDG,
I have to apologize to you for something back in September. When you told me, Mother forgives you, I thought you were talking about Mother Teresa. It didn't occur to me until later that you were talking about Jesus' birth mother. Being, as Mary Kay called me, a sola Scriptura (which, by the way, I've been called much worse) you can understand my confusion.
"If anyone wishes to come after me, He must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." Jesus, of course, was not telling us we have to drag around a big tree with us everywhere we go. The cross he was referring to there is us not doing what we want to do, but doing what is right according to scripture.
"Now if we are children, then we are heirs - heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory" The sufferings referred to there are the sufferings Christians endure from non-Christians because of our faith.
This is a quote from an on-line magazine article that is on point: But what of redemptive suffering? Are not believers crucified with Christ? Indeed we are. And believers do experience suffering as part and parcel of our redemption(see Phil. 1:29). But what a world of difference there is between Mother Teresa's model of redemptive suffering -- that is, the Roman Catholic model of redemptive suffering -- one that would suffer not merely "with Christ" or "because of Christ," but would suffer "as Christ" -- with the spirituality described in the Bible. The apostle Paul, for instance, wrote much of fellowshiping in the suffering of Christ and of being "crucified with Christ." But Paul never thought that he was participating the in the divine work of atonement. Instead, Paul could say that Christ lived in him and worked through him, not because of what he was doing for or with Christ, because of what Christ had done for him. Paul declared himself "crucified with Christ," and yet rejoiced that "christ lives in me". Why? Because, he said, "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" (Gal.2:20). Not because of what Paul was doing for Christ or because of Paul was experiencing in mystical ecstacy, but because of what Christ had already done in love for him. Paul's light-bathed spirituality rested on the finished work of Jesus on the cross. The light that shone in his heart -- but did it shine in Mother Teresa's? -- was this great truth: He died for me. Therefore, Paul spoke of life, not death for himself ("the life I live!), since Christ had died already for him.

Esau,
To your question "WTF?" on September 25, I find the way you expressed your bewilderment hilarious. The reason I asked Bill that question is because I have read through some of the blogs on this site and it totally bewilders me why any Christian would defend his/her faith by being condescending or demeaning. Jesus called a theif a theif and a hypocrite a hypocrite, but He was never demeaning. Why some Christians on this site defend their faith in such a way is totally bewildering to me for the reason I have stated and for other obvious reasons. But, on the humorous side, let me try: One of the fruits of the Spirit is kindness, dumb asses!

SDG,
I apologize for the tone of my comments to you.
However, it's just that it's become so enervating.
I believe the source of many of the Church's problems today is because we're too often so willing to compromise all for the sake of harmony.
But the result in many cases is a compromise that, in the end, effectively damages the integrity of our Catholic beliefs.
Too many compromises in the US has led to the dire situation we find ourselves today.
Although, I agree with you that we must somehow find a certain appreciation for what remnant of truth there is in another's beliefs; that does not, however, mean that we should altogether take their beliefs to be equivalent to those that we, in fact, hold.
We must respect what others believe but not to the point where we actually compromise our own beliefs.

As previously mentioned, Esau, I think Jean has mistaken a poetic image (the Father "turning away" from the Son) for literal truth. This is literally impossible, but it is easy to make mistakes when discussing the mysteries of the Trinity.
The comments you cite establish that Jean's belief is somewhat erroneous, but this does not nullify what still seems to me to be a real Trinitarian faith. AFAICT, Jean seems to be substantially right about the essential teaching, even though she is wrong about some important particulars.
In an analogous way, I would say that Muslims (who are not Trinitarians) still worship the one true God: i.e., the creator of the Universe who made Himself known to Abraham and who revealed himself (though not as we Christians believe) in the work of Jesus Christ; the One who is omnipotent, holy, incomprehensible, merciful, just, and so on.
Muslim belief about God is clearly erroneous in many particulars, most especially in their denial of the Trinity. But I would not therefore say that they do not worship the the God, but a false God.
In an analogous was, Jean's Trinitarian belief may be mistaken about important particulars, but I would not say that she does not profess the Trinity.
If to you her false doctrine already suffices as Trinitarian; then I shudder to think that you would actually compromise your Catholic beliefs merely for the sake of diplomacy.

Esau, I can't say I'm sure what you're trying to say here, but it sounds like an ill-considered rush to judgment. I consider you a friend, but I can't say I'm surprised.

SDG,
You select only a portion of her comments, which does not at all reflect her actual beliefs as you have only nitpicked a certain of her statements that support yours.
If taken in their totality, Jean's beliefs is not at all Trinitarian.
Statements like:
"When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever 'Share in His Cross.' "
and
"When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God."
...fail to demonstrate any genuine understanding of the Trinity.
If to you her false doctrine already suffices as Trinitarian; then I shudder to think that you would actually compromise your Catholic beliefs merely for the sake of diplomacy.

I think that's way harsh, Esau. Read this bit again:
there is only one true, living sovereign, holy and eternally existent God. He exists in three co-equal persons - Father, Son, and Holy spirt - each being a distinct person … but all of one essence and all possessing the same nature, perfection and attributes.

Even though I elided a comparatively esoteric error, that's clearly Trinitarian theology. To compare Jean's theology to the unambiguously sub-Christian theology of the JWs is very unfair to Jean, I think.
As regards the Father "turning away" from the Son, I think Jean has mistaken a poetic image for literal truth. Despite the literal impossibility of any such division occurring within the Godhead, it is very easy to make mistakes when discussing the unfathomable mysteries of the Trinity, and what Jean does affirm, in my view, still qualifies as true Trinitarianism.

I think it's clear that Jean does believe in the Trinity, despite some notable errors.
But that's just it --
Can you actually call what Jean believes in the 'Trinity' given all the apparant errors in her summation?
No offense, SDG, since I know how well-read you are in some of these matters; but saying that 'Jean does believe in the Trinity despite some notable errors' is like saying that Jehovah Witnesses are truly Christians despite some notable errors.

Esau: You're absolutely correct, I didn't read far enough. I was praising the third sentence of Jean's most recent post, which sounds distinctly Athanasian (except for the errant phrase "and with a distinct function," for the Persons of the Holy Trinity differ by relationship only, not by function).
My point, of course, was that Jean is beholden to the very Catholic early Fathers for the language in which she expounds the Trinity. She is not paraphrasing the Bible, she's paraphrasing Tertullian, Gregory, Augustine and so on.
I think it's clear that Jean does believe in the Trinity, despite some notable errors.

"When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him."
You want to give me a scripture reference for that?

When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever "Share in His Cross."
...and, clearly, Jean has not read the bible in its entirety, neglected some vital parts, failed to comprehend its very integral parts, or have chosen to ignore them altogether.

Jean, how well you articulate the Trinitarian theology formulated in the early centuries by Catholic saints.
SDG,
What are you talking about?
Did you not read Jean's previous comments?
She said:
When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
Clearly, Jean does NOT believe in the Trinity!

Jean, how well you articulate the Trinitarian theology formulated in the early centuries by Catholic saints.
You say "There is no way we could ever 'Share in His Cross.'" But Jesus tells us, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily, and follow me" (Luke 9:23), and St. Paul tells us that we are children of God and fellow heirs with Christ, "provided we suffer with him" (Rom 8:17).

You say "Sharing in the cross" is rooted in Psalm 22. As far as Psalm 22:1, there is only one true, living sovereign, holy and eternally existent God. He exists in three co-equal persons - Father, Son, and Holy spirt - each being a distinct person and with a distinct function, but all of one essence and all possessing the same nature, perfection and attributes. When Jesus became sin, God had to turn his face from him. The Bible says God will never leave us or forsake us. So there is no way we could ever "Share in His Cross."
Why do you make the leap from Psalm 21:1 all the way to Psalm 21:30 and then relate the two as, "So to the darkness is a means of bringing the Gospel to a world unwilling to hear it?"
"Future generations will be told about the LOrd" in context is, All the Rich of the earth will feast and worship, all who go down to the dust will kneel before him -- those who cannot keep themselves alive. Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. They will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn, for he has done it. Psalm 22:30 has nothing to do with darkness when left in context.

"...held by the Roman Catholic Church..."
The "Roman" Catholic Church? What about the other 22 Churches that make up the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church? But I believe we covered that above.

Is this the correct definition of your use of the word, Tradition? If it is, can you tell me where it is "rooted in Scripture" -- unwritten teachings regarded as handed down from Jesus and the apostles.
Is this definition of Magisterium correct? Where is it "rooted in Scripture"? -- The authority, office, and power to teach true doctrine by divine guidance, held by the Roman Catholic Church to have been given to itself alone by divine commission.

If I told you that my last name is really Baptiste and I like to look man pretty, would you then believe I'm a French Creole Male? HAHA
If this is the definition of sola Scriptura, then count me in: the belief that the entire Bible, all 66 books of the combined Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and are inerrant in the original writings. Through the providence of God, the Word of God has been protected and preserved, and is the only infallible and authoritative rule of faith and practice. 2Tim 3:16 - All scripture is God-breathed... 2Peter 1:20-21 -Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but man spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Jean, :^) at your French Creole male. Reminds me of a different situation, different group who were puzzling over a "Jean-Marie" who they assumed was a she until I explained that Jean-Marie was a common name for French men (at least in some areas). But a male Jean interested in Mary Kay make-up would be unlikely to put forth your Scripture comments. :^)
But back on topic, the Bible/authority question usually arises for a very different question. To answer your question, Catholics believe that Scripture is the Word of God and that authority rests in Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium, the latter two being rooted in Scripture.
When I said you seemed to be a sola Scriptura Christian, it was because it seemed more accurate than simply "non-Catholic." Catholicism has the fullness of divine revelation. It's the fullness, the aspects that are rooted in, but not necessarily spelled out in Scripture, that sola Scriptura Christians miss out on. It is because of the fullness, the Real Presence of the Eucharist and sacramental graces that give Cathoics the strength for a deeper sharing of the Cross. (not that they always do so. A lot of Catholics will have a lot of explaining to do why they squandered what was given them, but I digress.)
When you ask by what authority was it that "she was sharing in His Cross?", the Word of God is part of it. Your Scripture verses are true, but what Mother Teresa was called to, and what the fullness gave her the strength to do, was to share in Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46 - "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" That's Mother Teresa's sharing in the Cross. Her darkness looked like being forsaken, but just as Jesus quoted psalm 22 which starts with "Why have you abandoned me?...I call by day but you do not answer, by night, but have no relief" and ends with "The generation to come will be told of the Lord, that they may proclaim to a people yet unbrn the deliverance you have brought." So too the darkness is a means of bringing the Gospel to a world unwilling to hear it.
I hope that helps.

"The darkness that often comes at the devoted follower of Christ."
"She was sharing in His Cross"
Obviously these blogs that I just quoted did not come from the authority of the Bible:
Galations 5:12 says that two of the fruits of the Spirit are joy and peace. The Bible doesn't say that any of the fruits of the Spirit is darkness.
John 10:10 - I have come that they may have life and have it to the full.
Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Now I understand why Mother Teresa's faith was not rooted in the Word of God, because she was not Sola Scriptura. So by what authority was it that "she was sharing in His Cross?"

"sola Scriptura"
Since you believe that the Bible is not the sole authority, what authority do you give it? What exactly do you believe are the other authorities? I'm sure your answer will not be, the Bible is not the sole authority because it says it's not the sole authority.

"At least 'she' got something right."
How do you know I'm a "she"? I could be a French Creole male who likes Mary Kay makeup.

This topic may have jumped the shark, but I wanted to respond to Jean, not for debate, but for clarification.
I find it heart-breaking. ... Then I realized her motivations for her extreme sacrafice. I learned from her life before I make any sacrafices to check the Word and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word and that I am not misled. I also check to make sure my motivations are purely unselfish.
According to this post, you
1. "realize her motivation for her extreme sacrifice" If you said what your new view of her motivation was, I missed it. But it's clear that you think that
2. her motivation was not "in line with the Word" and that
3. therefore, Mother Teresa was "misled."
4. Additionally, you make the claim that Mother Teresa's motivation was somehow selfish. Oh, I remember now, in an earlier post, you thought it was so she could get a fix of what you consider to be a mystical experience.
None of your assumptions are accurate. They are inaccurate because you, like very many others, have a different meaning than the Church for the same words. From your earlier posts, you sound more like a "sola scriptura" Christian than a Catholic and that has colored your view.
It sounds to me like you are equating "mysticism" with "ecstasy." There may be a large overlap, but they are not interchangeable.
Bill hits the mark more closely so I'll repeat his post (emphasis mine):
"Mother Teresa's spirituality was incredibly deep. I'm swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality."
I'll say the same to you as I do to some Catholics on other topics: that something is outside your personal experience does not make it false. Also, that something outside your personal experience is true does not negate in any way your own experience. God's ways are far beyond our ways.

I'm swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality.
I'm in the same boat as bill912 --
Also, keep in mind that deeper spirituality does not solely revolve around feeling the constant warmth of Christ's light and love shining through, as some folks would have people believe, disillusioned by 'kumbaya' nonsense (and, in the end, treating God not as God but as a consumer product to feel good about themselves); as the very Cross of Christ entails, it also involves a deeper sense of sacrifice as well as the darkness that often comes at the devoted follower of Christ.
This makes sense given the fact that the devil would more severely attack those who are not of this world but are of Christ since he hates those who are devoted to God (to him, to detract these from Our Lord would be a great prize), who he despises, as he considers himself supreme even over the Creator and, hence, pride being the cause of his downfall.

Mother Teresa's spirituality was incredibly deep. I'm swimming in much shallower spiritual waters, but I do realize my own lack of comprehension of deeper spirituality.

Esau doesn't have "his" interpretation. He listens to the interpretation of the Church Jesus founded, the Church to which He gave His Authority, to bind and loose in His Name.

Jean,
Just read your comments.
Why was her faith so dry and dead, as she lamented for over sixty years? One key answer seems to be that her faith was not rooted in the Word of God, but in experiential ecstacy.

One suggestion. Read the book instead of reading about the book. You couldn't be wider off the mark.

Because it's one that have existed from the very beginning.

The Bible says, Oh taste and see the the Lord he is good. I have tasted and I have seen.
Esau,
How do you know that your interpretation is the correct interpretation?

Can I ask what your motivations are? I would be curious as to why Jimmy Akin has this web site. Do you know?
WTF?

Hey Bill,
I appreciate your comments. One of the reasons for my participation in this blog is for the stimulating conversation. Can I ask what your motivations are? I would be curious as to why Jimmy Akin has this web site. Do you know?

...and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word
How do you know your interpretation of the Word is the correct one?
For all you know, you may be just as right as the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Hey Mary Kay,
On your comment that you're glad I find MT's darkness interesting, I guess you could say I find it interesting, but, more so, I find it heart-breaking. I have always had an immense amount of admiration for MT because of her total selflessness. If I could only strive to be a fraction of as selfless as she was. Then I realized her motivations for her extreme sacrafice. I learned from her life before I make any sacrafices to check the Word and make sure my motivations are in line with the Word and that I am not misled. I also check to make sure my motivations are purely unselfish.
Great make-up, BTW!

... but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
Clearly, you don't believe in the Trinity or have the foggiest notion of it.

Mr. Bill,
Comparing MT's suffering and Jesus' suffering is comparing apples to oranges. (I'm not sure who is the apple and who is the orange! Just kidding.)
When Jesus suffered on the cross he actually was separated from God. Jesus prayed, Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. He prayed to the point of sweating blood. It was not because he knew he was about to beaten to the point of not being recognizable as human, but because he knew of his pending separation from God.
God said, I will never leave you nor forsake you. God never separated Himself from Mother Teresa. She just "Felt" God had separated Himself from her.

MT should be considered not merely as a Roman Catholic
not merely Roman Catholic.... Good grief. As if Catholic and charismatic were mutually exclusive.
Her ceaseless spiritual darkness...
um, actually the darkness was lifted for the last five weeks of her life.
...will almost certainly catapult her to the highest echelons of Romish celebrity
Ack. There's that "Romish" word again. Accurately described as pejorative and against the rules and almost certainly marks the writer as someone not especially familiar with Catholicism.
Hmmm, Catholic celebrities. There's a new one. I thought Catholic celebrities referred to someone like Mel Gibson, Mike Piazza or for those of an earlier generation, Dolores Hope.
Jean, it's good that you find Mother Teresa's spiritual darkness interesting. I have to admit though, that your view of the dark night is somewhat unique from what St. John of the Cross describes.

Believe it or not, I say all these things with all due respect to Mother Teresa.

And how did you ascertain what is all the respect due to Mother Teresa? (Was it Carlin who did the definitive deconstruction on the phrase "with all due respect"?)

I would have respected Mother Teresa enough to respect her wishes that all her papers be destroyed.

I'm sure Mother forgives them too.

Bill912: Those are both very good questions that will require quite a bit of research. Especially the one about, automatically looed upon as saints" I have no idea what the word "looed" means. LOL. My typo.
To SDG, I would like to add to my response: I would have respected Mother Teresa enough to respect her wishes that all her papers be destroyed.

"And this is the ultimate goal of mystical spirituality: to achieve mystical participation on the Godhead."
If, by "mystical participation", you mean "partaking of the Divine Life", you are correct; *all* the saved will share in the Divine Life. But something tells me that you mean something else.

"Her spiritual despair is being celebrated..."
Mother Teresa no more despaired than Jesus did when He said: "My God, My God, why have You deserted Me?" She was sharing in His Cross.

"Romish celebrity." I hope that you are unaware that the word "romish" is *always* a pejorative, as well as a violation of "DA RULZ". (See the left-hand column above).

Mother Teresa said that she took her religious name in honor of St. Therese of Lisieux.

"(Top mystics are almost automoatically looed upon as "Saints").
Please define "top mystics", and show evidence for how they are almost automatically looked upon.

"A 'Roman' Catholic" as opposed to what? A Byzantine Catholic? A Ukrainian Catholic? A Greek Catholic? A Syrian Catholic? Why the use of the modifier "Roman", when the Roman Catholic Church is only one of 23 Churches wich make up the Catholic Church?

Esquire,
This is a quote from the same on-line article that is right on: This leads to the main relfections I want to offer in light of MT's new book. The first is that instead of offering a primer on the despair of works-righteousness, she really offers a primer on the perils of mystical, ecstatic Christianity. In this respect, MT should be considered not merely as a Roman Catholic but as a Charismatic. Why was her faith so dry and dead, as she lamented for over sixty years? One key answer seems to be that her faith was not rooted in the Word of God, but in experiential ecstacy. In this, parallels can be seen between Mother Teresa and Christians of many stripes -- many of them evangelicals -- whose faith is driven by spiritual experiences instead of by the truth of God's Word. How much of the frantic, sterile restlessness of the evangelical culture today is charged by the same drive.
Bill912, "Some parallels between MT and the famous mystic St. Teresa..." My reply: I am intrigued by the fact that they share the same name. Did Mother Teresa take up this name as a nun with specific reference to St. Teresa of Avila? It seems quite possible. Secondly, the Vatican's almost immediate motivation to canonize Mother Teresa is reminiscent of the earlier Teresa, who was made a saint only 30 years after her death. (Top mystics are almost automoatically looed upon as "Saints"). Also, there is the drivng theme of Christ's love in both of their writings. St Teresa's visions of rapturous divine love are almost erotic; Mother Teresa's certainly seem to be at leasat highly romantic...But here is the remarkable thing about Mother Teresa. It is already clear that her private correspondence will have the exact opposite effect within Roman Catholicism. Her ceaseless spiritual darkness will almost certainly catapult her to the highest echelons of Romish celebrity. Mother Teresa will be the new St. Teresa, a heroine of mystic redemptive suffering. After all, the editor of her collection is one of her greatest admirers -- the priest in charge of her application for saithood. Her spiritual despair is already being celebrated as one of the highest instances of true spirituality. Indeed, Mother Teresa is being accoladed for a singular achievement of mystical communion with God. And this is the ultimate goal of mystical spirituality: to achieve mystical participation in the Godhead.
To SDG: "Mother forgives you" My reply: Thank you for your kind words. Believe it or not, I say all these things with all due respect to Mother Teresa.

Best book I've read in quite some time, maybe ever -- and I willingly take my shots from John for saying that. If St. John of the Cross' works had pictures, they would all be of Mother Teresa. His description of faith alone (yes, he does use that term) can be quite shocking...until you read Come Be My Light and see quite clearly what he was talking about.

"Some parallels between Mother Teresa and the famous mystic St. Teresa are striking..."
Well, atleast she got something right, although I doubt she realizes that she complimented Mother Teresa.

Jean: Mother forgives you.

"The result of this seems to be that MT thought of her salvation primarily in terms of mystical experience."
No. Mother Teresa thought of her salvation *totally* in terms of Christ.
"The rest of her life seems to have been spent in pursuit of a repetition of this ecstatic high."
No. The rest of her life was spent in following Christ.
"Therefore, as a spiritual guide, her example should be shunned."
She shared in the Cross of Christ. That's what Christians are supposed to do.