John Pipers "The Passion of Christ"


#1

My girlfriends mother bought this book for me and wants me to read it. I believe she wants to show me the finished work of Christ, that Sacraments are not needed for Salvation, that Christ’s work on the cross eliminated all this.

Has anyone read this book? thoughts?


#2

I haven’t read it. But the question to ask, is what did Christ mean when He said “it is finished”? What was the “it” He was referring to?

He also said: Do this in memory (remembrance, memorial, Greek: anamnesis) of me.

Scott Hahn answers the question in the Fourth Cup
ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.htm

Scripture has to be read holistically – not verse by verse the way Protestants read it (I say that as a former Protestant.)

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay


#3

[quote=Katholikos].

Scott Hahn answers the question in the Fourth Cup
ewtn.com/library/answers/4thCup.htm

Scripture has to be read holistically – not verse by verse the way Protestants read it (I say that as a former Protestant.)

Ave Cor Mariae, Jay
[/quote]

hey, this is a dead link, can you re-paste it? thanks.


#4

Sorry, try this:

star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/4cp.html


#5

My girlfriends mother bought this book for me and wants me to read it. I believe she wants to show me the finished work of Christ, that Sacraments are not needed for Salvation, that Christ’s work on the cross eliminated all this.

Has anyone read this book? thoughts?

I have read John Piper’s book. I think it’s an excellent exposition of why Christ suffered and died and what it accomplished for sinners. It’s an easy read, containing 50 short 2-page chapters. The best recommendation I can give is to read it for yourself.

I would also recommend visiting his website:
www.desiringGod.org

All his sermons can be read online and many of them can be listened to for free as well. Also available are a number of his books in pdf format.


#6

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church for the salvation of the world. It would be hazardous to your spiritual health to get the answers to the questions of Why and What Was Accomplished from any other source.

Read this Protestant book, sure, but remember that it’s only OPINION. That’s all Protestantism has to offer. Thousands of conflicting and competing opinions. Christ died 2,000 years ago, and the Catholic Church is the only 2,000-year-old church (Mt 16:18). The oldest expression of Protestantism (which no longer is in existence) was only 487 years ago.

Pace e bene, Jay

JMJ Jay


#7

How about the Bible? Would you consider that a safe source? Piper’s exposition is a Biblical one. And inasmuch as the Bible is faithfully represented, then the truth is heard.

Don’t catholics have opinions? Does every roman catholic interpret the pronouncements of rome in exactly the same way? I didn’t think so. I think what you meant is that rome, claiming infallibility, has declared a so-called “perfect” understanding and pronouncement of the gospel. But even their interpretations need interpretations. Yet rome is not alone in this, since the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the very same thing.

Ah, yes, the Church claims to go back 2000 years! That surpases the Mormons and JW traditions. But the Jews claim an even longer tradition than that of Rome - more than 2000 years! I’m sure the Jews of Jesus day used some of the very same arguments against him and his aposltes as you use against protestants. Nevertheless, the roman gospel of today is nothing like the gospel preached by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church.

But once you accept rome’s claim of infallibility, what can you do? You can’t test her, because you already assume she is infallible. Something doesn’t sound right. Especially in light of all the commands in scripture to test all things.


#8

Ah, yes, the Church claims to go back 2000 years! That surpases the Mormons and JW traditions. But the Jews claim an even longer tradition than that of Rome - more than 2000 years! I’m sure the Jews of Jesus day used some of the very same arguments against him and his aposltes as you use against protestants. Nevertheless, the roman gospel of today is nothing like the gospel preached by Jesus, the apostles, or the early church.

The Jews never claimed infallible teaching charism given by God Himself, to my knowledge, so their claims carry less weight even by their own standards. Read the Gospels again and you’ll see that thr Saducees did not agree with the Pharisees in MANY things, but they were both groups of Jews who confronted Jesus. And how can you say that the “Roman” Gospel is nothing like the one preached by Jesus? It’s the only Gospel we have that dates back anywhere close to His time, and Protestant bibles are based off the “Roman” collection in the first place. The modern translations approved by the Catholic Church actually use the oldest available manuscripts as their source, and those are older than the ones used for the KJV, for example.


#9

Does every roman catholic interpret the pronouncements of rome in exactly the same way?

Inasmuch as interpreting is concerned, esp. in matters of doctrine, all the faithful catholics, whether one belongs to the Eastern tradition or Western tradition, should adhere to the interpretation of the Magisterium. You may ask why?–so that there will be no cause for divisions which in the Protestant communities is very rampant.

But even their interpretations need interpretations.

Can you quote one that needs to be interpreted so we can interpret it the way the Magisterium interprets it? Please be specefic and not be generalistic.

Yet rome is not alone in this, since the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the very same thing.

I say don’t try to single out the Catholic Church and compare it in the same way as JW or Mormons. Definitely, we have a very sharp contrast in doctrines.

What about the Protestants? You can’t see the numerous, or I may say, countless differences in doctrines and beliefs in your own circle? You must need a lense to see that. I say to you"wake up and see!"

Don’t catholics have opinions?

Catholics may vary in our own opinions to some degree, as long as it doesn’t affect our belief in general. Meaning if one is giving an opinion that is way out what the Church teaches–they needed to be rebuked and corrected with charity. We’re not saying that catholics, per se, are perfect. We, too are human beings, and that’s why we need the guidance of the Magisterium and the Pope, who are definitely guided by the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus. We are assured by this in that " the gates of hell WILL NOT PREVAIL against the Church."

Ah, yes, the Church claims to go back 2000 years! That surpases the Mormons and JW traditions. But the Jews claim an even longer tradition than that of Rome - more than 2000 years!

My friend, you are right when you say that the Catholic Church is almost 2000 years old and NO OTHER so called “christian” organizations/religions apart from Catholicism can compare with that. Don’t you agree with Jesus?–He will be with the Church until the very end–and the gates of hell will NEVER prevail against it? Scripture never lies.

As regards the Jews, they don’t cease to exist just because Christians came to be. In fact, as St. Paul tells us, they have a special role in salvation history. In the end, they too will come home to the Catholic Church before the end of times as a nation, although not every single one of them ( I mean a considerable number will see Christ Jesus in the Church and will accept Him as Saviour and be baptized). That’s how the Church Fathers view escathology.

God bless,

Pio


#10

But once you accept rome’s claim of infallibility, what can you do? You can’t test her, because you already assume she is infallible. Something doesn’t sound right. Especially in light of all the commands in scripture to test all things.

I may ask you, are you going to disagree with Jesus Himself? “He who accepts you accepts me, and accepts the One who sent Me.” This is the very word of our Lord, are you then going to say you’re going to “test” its truthfulness? I don’t disagree with “testing all things” as St. Paul says, but it means to test every person claiming to be the one who holds the truth in the light to what has been revealed in the Catholic Church who holds the deposit of faith.

You just don’t jump off the ship if you hear something which delights your ear, in which case, many Protestants jump from one denomination to the other because they “speak” the truth. And if it’s not compatible to their hearing, will join another one who has the same interpretation as theirs. Scripture has become a matter of one’s own interpretation, that’s why there are numerous sad divisions in the Protestant communities because they can’t agree with each other.

In the Catholic Church, you can’t bend the truth to your own satisfaction. If the Church, for example, doesn’t allow abortion in any way, you have to follow her or suffer the consequences of sin. Either you have to go on your own or stay in the Church, but definitely you can’t change the view or doctrine of the Church. That’s the beauty of the Catholic faith–there’s NO ROOM FOR COMPROMISE!:amen:

God bless you,

Pio


#11

This is all part of the problem. I’m going to read the book. I’m am sure that the hope from the my girlfriends mother is that I see that all the sacraments and that a visible church is not necessary for salvation, etc.

What Protestant’s don’t realize is that once you have accepted the Church Magesterium, Development of Doctrine, Biblical basis (implicit and explicit reference included), Christian Fathers writings, etc, Protestant claims crumble on the Sand they are built on.


#12

I’m well aware of the disagreements within the Jewish community in Jesus’ day. Whether or not they claimed infallibility in not the point. My point is that the Jews “claim an even longer [older] tradition than that of Rome”. With regards to infallibility, as I said before, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the very same thing. Sure, there are huge differences in doctrine between the two compared with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. But what they have in common with Rome is some sort of external authority outside of Scripture, claiming infallibility. So in essence, once someone accepts the claim of infallibility from either the Mormons, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Roman Catholic Church, then whatever that institution claims becomes gospel.

[font=Arial][size=2]

And how can you say that the “Roman” Gospel is nothing like the one preached by Jesus? It’s the only Gospel we have that dates back anywhere close to His time…

[/size][/font]I don’t recall Jesus, or any of the apostles preaching the bodily assumption, immaculate conception, and mediatory role of Mary. I don’t recall them preaching about papal infallibility, or a universal papacy, etc. As an evangelical, I do believe in the inerrancy and inspiration of Holy Scripture. But the Gospel Rome is preaching today is not the inspired gospel found in Scripture.

[font=Arial][size=2]

and Protestant bibles are based off the “Roman” collection in the first place. The modern translations approved by the Catholic Church actually use the oldest available manuscripts as their source, and those are older than the ones used for the KJV, for example.

[/size][/font]God lead the early Church to recognize Scripture. No one waited till the council of Trent to read Scripture did they? Or did they not have a Bible till the 4th century? The early church always had the Old Testament Scriptures and gradually used the gospels, epistles and so forth as they were made available.

I’ll continue my response soon…


#13

[quote=New_Life]I’m well aware of the disagreements within the Jewish community in Jesus’ day. Whether or not they claimed infallibility in not the point. My point is that the Jews “claim an even longer [older] tradition than that of Rome”. With regards to infallibility, as I said before, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim the very same thing. Sure, there are huge differences in doctrine between the two compared with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. But what they have in common with Rome is some sort of external authority outside of Scripture, claiming infallibility. So in essence, once someone accepts the claim of infallibility from either the Mormons, or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or the Roman Catholic Church, then whatever that institution claims becomes gospel.

[/quote]

What you are missing here is that we believe in Apostalic Succession, given authority was given to the Apostles, and given they appointed successors, the Church maintains the authority instituted by Christ. Simple. Do not even compare to other religions who cannot claim a connection with the Apostles.


#14

[quote=go Leafs go]My girlfriends mother bought this book for me and wants me to read it. I believe she wants to show me the finished work of Christ, that Sacraments are not needed for Salvation, that Christ’s work on the cross eliminated all this.

Has anyone read this book? thoughts?
[/quote]

Sounds like standard “faith alone” Protestant doctrine. Catholic Answers has good tracts on the subject.
James 2:24 “You must percieve that a person is justified by his works and not by faith alone.”


#15

New Life (do you belong to a baptist offshoot?),

Anyway, here’s a short story taken from a of simple minded catholic:

Regarding the role of the Church for interpretation: remember the story of the Ethiopian Eunuch. Here’s how the story goes in Acts 8:30 and ff.)

Philip: “Do you understand what you are reading?”

Eunuch: “How can I, unless someone guides me.”

(That is what the Catholic Bible says, However it seems that “New Life’s” bible also says “How can I unless someone guides me?”)

And Philip replied: “Scripture interprets itself and is the sole rule of faith, it does not need an interpreter.”

Then the Ethopian Eunuch said, “Does scripture really say that???”

Philip replied, “Yes, just look at Acts 17:11”

The Ethiopian Eunuch looked puzzled and said, “What is Acts 17:11???”

Bless You!

Pio


#16

i will be buying the dvd and watching over and over till my dvd player breaks. wont be able to get enough !


#17

[quote=hlgomez]Can you quote one that needs to be interpreted so we can interpret it the way the Magisterium interprets it? Please be specefic and not be generalistic.

[/quote]

The pronouncements of Vatican II - Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. There is great discussion today in Roman Catholic circles with regards to the nature and extent of “Sacred Tradition” according to Rome’s own pronouncements. Do you hold to the “Partim-Partim” viewpoint (i.e. ordal tradition is separate and different revelation; necessary and inspired; the Bible is materially insufficient) or the “Material Sufficiency” viewpoint (i.e. oral tradition does not contain other revelation; is necessary for proper interpretation; the Bible is materially sufficient)?

This is an example of how an interpretation of Rome on Sacred Tradition needs an interpretation!

[quote=hlgomez]I may ask you, are you going to disagree with Jesus Himself? “He who accepts you accepts me, and accepts the One who sent Me.” This is the very word of our Lord, are you then going to say you’re going to “test” its truthfulness? I don’t disagree with “testing all things” as St. Paul says, but it means to test every person claiming to be the one who holds the truth in the light to what has been revealed in the Catholic Church who holds the deposit of faith.

[/quote]

Wasn’t the apostle Paul tested by the bereans (Acts 17:11)? Wasn’t Peter tested by Paul himself and rebuked (Gal. 2:11-14)? Didn’t Paul command his readers to reject anyone, whether that person be an apostle, an angel, or even himself, if they came preaching any other gospel (Gal. 1:6-9)? I can’t seem to find any of the apostles saying “do not test what we say because Jesus gave us infallibility!” So how should I handle the claim of a visible institution claiming to be infallible? I test it according to what God has revealed in his inspired and inerrant word.

Your version of the story of Philip and Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26-40 was very interesting indeed. It goes to show you don’t know what sola scriptura means. It doesn’t mean there is no need for the Church or teachers. It means that the Bible is the sole infallible rule of faith - the ultimate source of appeal for all religious controversies. Philip did what a true protestant would do - expound the Scriptures faithfully: “The Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus” (Acts 8:35, ESV).


#18

The only thing that proves is that the OLD TESTAMENT is the sole rule of faith since the New didn’t exist, based on your analogy.

Thoughts?


#19

[quote=go Leafs go]The only thing that proves is that the OLD TESTAMENT is the sole rule of faith since the New didn’t exist, based on your analogy.

Thoughts?
[/quote]

No. “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) is the sole infallible rule of faith because it is inspired (i.e. God-breathed) and inerrant. This doesn’t restrict itself to the Old Testament alone. Scripture is God-breathed which describes its nature as the very word of God. The New Testament writtings are God-breathed as well and are therefore truly Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) - inspired and inerrant.


#20

[quote=New_Life]No. “All Scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16) is the sole infallible rule of faith because it is inspired (i.e. God-breathed) and inerrant. This doesn’t restrict itself to the Old Testament alone. Scripture is God-breathed which describes its nature as the very word of God. The New Testament writtings are God-breathed as well and are therefore truly Scripture (2 Peter 3:16) - inspired and inerrant.
[/quote]

How do you determine which scriptures are God Breathed and Inspired and which aren’t?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.