God is green

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve,

I assume you are not Catholic, right? I also assume you are not a Mormon or JW, right? Then correct me if I am wrong, you probably attend some church or church group and in doing so you do not use a Catholic, Mormon or JW Bible, right? That would mean you most likely use a Protestant texted Bible, right…one with 39 OT books and 27 NT books? That being the case, you are rightfully a “Protestant”.

Here's the thing. I was raised by atheist/agnostic parents and did not attend any type of church as a child (I once visited a church when I spent the night at a friends house, but that's about it). I became a follower of Jesus as the result of a direct encounter with the Lord when I was in my early 20's. Perhaps because of this, I've always considered my identification to be "Christian" rather than "Baptist" or "Catholic" or whatever. I have attended various fellowships since becoming a follower of Jesus. I checked out Catholicism but pretty quickly determined that I did not fit (I guess I have too egalitarian of a bent). For the last few years I have been part of two churches: One meets in a house and the other meets at a jail. In both churches there is no clergy, nor any desire for clergy.

The Bible I primarily read does not contain Aprocryphal books (so I guess you would call it a "Protestant texted Bible"), although I also have Bibles which do contain the Apocrypha. Like St. Jerome, I do not consider the Apocryphal books to be inspired scripture, but I have found them useful. This seems to have also been the position of the Catholic church prior to the Council of Trent.

As the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan wrote:

"Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage." (Cardinal Cajetan, "Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament")

This is the same Cardinal Cajetan who argued against Martin Luther at Augsburg in 1518.

I'm not ashamed of the term "Protestant", it just doesn't really mean anything to me.

If you want to call me a "Protestant" because I primarily read a "Protestant texted Bible" that would seem to be a stretch. I guess you could call me a "Protestant" because I reject the supposed authority of the Catholic church, but then it would be your label for me, not my label for myself. I think of myself in terms of my relationship to Jesus, not my relationship to the Catholic church.

If you are trying to distance yourself from the Protestant faiths/doctrines/history by telling everyone “I am not Protestant, I am Christian” is like me reading and following the US Constitution but saying I am a Republican not a US citizen

So, wait, help me out here. You are equating the statement, "I'm not a US citizen, I am a Republican" with the statement "I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Christian"? Since Republicans are a subset of U.S. Citizens, you're saying that Christians are a subset of Protestants? If that's your claim, you may want to back off on helping your daughter with her homework.

In actuality, to say, "I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Christian" is about like saying, "I'm not a Republican, I'm a U.S. Citizen" (which is a statement that every Democrat would agree with). Personally, btw, I'm neither Republican or Democrat, but I am a U.S. Citizen.

"As for the Church, Paul is talking about an authoritative Church to Timothy not a church collective."

The church is authoritative, but its authority comes directly from Jesus, not from a hierarchy of popes/cardinals/bishops/priests.

"That is why the Protestant faith collective has 20+ thousand church collective opinions/doctrines"

You say that like its a bad thing. Where did you come up with that number, btw? Hopefully not from the "World Christian Encyclopedia" which has been shown to be highly inaccurate. Anyway, although the number of 20,000 is inflated, there is still a great diversity of expressions in the body of Christ. Which is what one would expect after 2,000 years. The key thing though is that they are all part of one body. They all have one head, which is Christ. For the most part, they don't differ on core Christian doctrine. Primarily, the way they differ is in style, not substance. Also different denominations might have different areas of emphasis. But they pretty much all hold to the classic Christian creeds (Nicene, Apostles, etc.).

This really isn't all that different from they way that the Catholic church has the Charismatic faction, the Liberal faction, the Traditional "Latin Mass" faction, the Polish National faction, the Byzantine faction, the Passionist faction, the Chinese Patriotic faction, the Neo-catechumenate faction, various Independent factions, Benedictines, Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, Carmelites, Augustinians, Carthusians, Marists, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, and of course the biggest Catholic denomination of all, the Eastern Orthodox church. Or is it the Catholic church that is a denomination of Eastern Orthodox?

You can go to early Christian writings (again) and read Irenaeus AGAINST HERESIES 180AD where he states “…in fact, we can tell you the names of those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the Apostles and trace their successors to our times…[12 Pope/bishops listed by name until the time of this writing].”

I've read Irenaeus. A few times. His whole point in tracing a succession in the third book of Against Heresies is to refute the claim of the Gnostics that their teaching came from Jesus. Irenaeus is trying to prove legitimacy by providing a pedigree of sorts. He is generally credited with introducing the idea of Apostolic Succession. Although its understandable why he would use such an argument at such a time, it has no Biblical support.

Its also interesting to note that there are some fascinating inconsistencies between the early church fathers. For example, Tertullian and Irenaeus can't seem to agree on whether the first bishop of Rome was Clement or Linus and whether the first bishop was appointed by Peter or Paul.

The Bible does not teach or even imply Apostolic Succession. Matthias replaced Judas, but there is no indication that this process was meant to continue. Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. Apostolic authority came directly from the Lord. It was not passed down from man to man. What was passed down were the teachings of the Apostles, but not the office. The Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) claim of Apostolic Succession is a fraudulent invention.

"Now that’s the Church authority I am talking about. Something that has one faith, one doctrine, one voice and more historical writing and proof than one can read."

But we have all that. However, its under the authority of Christ, not a man-made, man-perpetuated, quasi-pagan organization. The Catholic church is a syncretic mixture of 4th century Christianity and Roman pagan religion. It is not pure Christianity.

The churches of the 1st century were quite autonomous. Each one was led by a plurality of elders (see Acts 14:23). The gradual centralization of the church, which evolved into the Catholic church, was antithetical to the spirit of the early church.

Regarding 2 Cor 5:20, I've already answered this. If you want a different answer, ask a different question. The "we" that Paul is speaking of is himself and his co-workers who have been maligned by the Judaizers in Corinth. The "you" are the Corinthian Christians. You're right, its not brain surgery. I don't understand what point you're trying to make by repeatedly bringing this passage up. There's not much to it.

Coming from a man that can not even quote the early Christian Church it its writings, especially when those writing are so prolific and readily available to everyone.

Over the years, I've read quite a bit of the writings of the early church fathers, from the Didache to Clement to Ignatius to Polycarp to Origen to Justin Martyr, etc., etc. Here's a good site that has many of them: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/c ... thers.html . I prefer my own hard copies. Lately, I've been struck by the beauty of the writings of Gregory of Nyssa. Would you be impressed if I quoted from early church fathers? Personally, I'd rather focus on the earliest church, as described in the New Testament.

Or are you still expecting me to defy logic and prove a negative? If so, I'm still waiting for you to disprove my "purple underwear" claim.

I am sure, per your personal knowledge of the early Christian Church, you can find buckets and buckets of facts to disprove the Catholic Christian doctrinal stance.

Well, I think that's what I've been doing here, to a small degree. Its not that difficult. There are entire ministries and a veritable plethora of websites dedicated to debunking various Catholic teachings, if one has ears to hear.

You know what, Mort? You will never look for those documents/writings because you would prefer to extol your “personal opinion” like “No, I am not a Protestant, am not, am not, am not and if you keep saying that I am going to stop playing with you!”

Must you resort to ad hominem attacks? Its unbecoming.

I will stay here and be open enough to continue to play this game and you can show me all those early Christian writings that show me the AA church, no confession, no priests/bishops…etc.

I've already provided a considerable amount of scripture, which you haven't yet responded to, so why don't we start there? Here's an easy question: where in the New Testament is the office of Catholic Priest set forth?

[Guest]

Rae and Michelle,

For what it's worth, I read most of your posts, and always enjoy them. Both of you guys (err...gals), are always edifying. Thanks for posting!

God bless you both!

Thanks Derek

[Guest]

Mort:

Paidion,

But you haven't defined forgiveness any differently than I did, only the conditions by which it is given.

Or am I missing something?

You may be missing what you previously described as the best definitions of "forgiveness" that you ever read:

1. "In fact, the power of forgiveness is in the letting go of something "owed", usually to oneself or to another, according to my etymological dictionary. In forgiving, I am neither approving or condemning, I am simply releasing a demand for tribute, or payment for a past transgression. Actually my resentments seem to be demands. I tend to fondle and stroke the hurts, real or imagined, from the past and to continue to demand that tribute be paid to me because of their having happened. And the paying of the tribute, someone's contrition, usually does not satisfy, since the hunger or craving for more persists. If I can forgive, that is to say, to release my demand for tribute, then I am the one who is freed from the hunger or craving for payment." -- Tom Hoskins

At the risk of repeating myself, I affirm that "letting go of something owed" or "releasing a demand for tribute or payment for a past transgression" is not a definition of "forgivness".

Such actions will probably accompany forgiveness, if the forgiver has been of such a mind set as to expect payment for a past transgression.
But he may not have such a mind set. He can still exercise true forgiveness.

2. "The best definition I've ever heard for forgiveness is giving up the right to hurt someone for the hurt they've done to you." -- Joyce Sams

Again, what if the forgiving person has no desire to hurt the offender, and never has had such a desire? Does that mean he cannot forgive him?
I don't think so. Joyce Sams statement is also not a definition of "forgiveness".

You say that I haven't defined "forgiveness" any differently from the way you did. However, I do not recognize these "best" definitions which you ever heard as definitions at all!

Here is the way I define forgiveness:

"A response to repentance such that a total restoration of the relationship between the offending party and the offended party takes place. This restoration is so complete, that it is just as if the offence had never taken place."

On the other hand with the "definitions" which you admire, one could "release a demand for payment for past transgression" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Similarly, one could "give up the right to hurt someone for the hurt they've done to you" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Thus neither of these actions constitute true forgiveness.

[Guest]

"A response to repentance such that a total restoration of the relationship between the offending party and the offended party takes place. This restoration is so complete, that it is just as if the offence had never taken place."

On the other hand with the "definitions" which you admire, one could "release a demand for payment for past transgression" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Similarly, one could "give up the right to hurt someone for the hurt they've done to you" and still be unwilling to have anything to do with the offender. Thus neither of these actions constitute true forgiveness.

Hi Paidion,

Ok, I see what you're saying. Thanks for filling in the blanks for me. I would look at this in two different classifications: Human forgiveness and God's forgiveness.

Human forgiveness is, like all things human, imperfect. It can only strive towards an ideal. With human forgiveness, a restoration of relationship may not be possible. A person who was sexually molested as a child by a relative may grow up to forgive the molester, and honestly wish the best for them, but still choose not to have a close relationship (and certainly not allow their children to have a close relationship) with the relative who victimized them.

God's forgiveness is, like all things of God, perfect. So, yes, I would agree whole-heartedly that God's forgiveness is all about the total restoration of relationship and is so complete that it is as if the offense never occurred.

We still disagree on the conditions of that forgiveness, however. I don't believe God's forgiveness can only be given in response to repentance. It can also precede (and bring about) repentance.

I also believe that our repentance is an ongoing process.

[Guest]

Paidion said:

"A response to repentance such that a total restoration of the relationship between the offending party and the offended party takes place. This restoration is so complete, that it is just as if the offence had never taken place."

One situation comes to my mind in which, by your definition, I would not truly forgive someone. Let's say I trust my father, brother, grandfather, whoever... to watch my little girl. Then I find out that she was molested by them. The party is completely repentant and begs forgiveness. From what I am getting from your definition (the part where you said "it is just as if the offence had never taken place"), in order for me to forgive this person, I would have to be completely comfortable with my daughter being watched by them again. Completely trusting... just as I was before the incident.

I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but that is how my brain is applying your definition.

-Rae

[Guest]

Ha... I guess I should've read Mort's reply before I posted!

[Guest]

Dear Mort,

You state “…The church is authoritative, but its authority comes directly from Jesus, not from a hierarchy of popes/cardinals/bishops/priests.” Then I assume the whole Chapter in Acts 15 is about stupid Christians who had an argument about doctrine and decided not to go directly to Jesus but rather go to the hierarchy Church in Jerusalem (250+ miles away by foot in hostile territory) and get a mandated decree from a hierarchy of Apostles and elders. If the Jerusalem Church Apostles and elders are such learned Christians and two learned Apostles hump it all the way back from Antioch (who knows how long it takes to walk 250 miles) the question begs to be asked “…why didn’t they simply go to Jesus in Antioch for an answer?”. Why do all that extra work? After that, then why rejoice over a mandated decree from a hierarchy of people 250+ miles away, again?! Jesus gave an authority to an earthly Church, just as Act 15 demonstrates.

How come you quote from a Cardinal in the 1500’s? You said you knew what the EARLY Christian church was like because you made a very strong committed statement that the AA was the closest to the early Christian Church. I dared you. I double dared you to go to all the Protestant/Christian web sites where you can pull up Christian documents/writings from the first 500 years. I actually gave you a pretty big window. Many would consider the early Church more like up to 300AD. So please go back and find me those writings that are so much against confession, priests, bishops…etc. It appears the Cardinal’s comments are about scripture which is fine, but I’d like to stay focused here for once. You have made some wild accusations about Christian doctrine which Catholic Christians follow as if the earliest Christian Church did not follow these beliefs. You still have a double-dare out there. Find those early Christian documents because I along with this forum is waiting. If you need some sites let me know I can give them to you.
Regarding the Fathers of the Church, those that help maintain and form that early Church that you relate so close to AA is well supported by a Protestant Father of the Methodist church. Here he says “Can any who spend several years in those seats of learning, be excused if they do not add to that reading of the Fathers? The most authentic commentators on Scripture, as being both nearest the fountain, eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given. It will be easily perceived, I speak chiefly of those who wrote before the council of Nicea. But who could not likewise desire to have some acquaintance with those that followed them? with St. Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and above all, the man of a broken heart, Ephraim Syrus?” [John Wesley] I think if John Wesley was talking to you directly you’d argue about his scholastic theology.
Going back for a moment about the quote you pulled up as your earliest Church text source as the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan….would you please tell me what you want to bring to the discussion regarding this excerpt? Your point is? Was it from the Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas, or from his writing during his leading role at the Fifth Lateran Council as an advocate of reform, or from his book "De religiosâ S. Ignatii” about St. Ignatius or one of the many others. You forget that a Cardinal can say what he wishes but it is the earthly authoritative head of the Church (Pope) that will maintain faith and morals (doctrine) not a Cardinal. I can bring four very big Protestant sources of today to this discussion stating that is Peter that is the leader of the Apostles but that would be a red-herring diversion to the discussion related to doctrine and the EARLY CHURCH. You not only deny you are Protestant but you also do not acknowledge an Early Church (100-300AD). By the way, grow up and the smell incense (from Rev 5:8 as a scriptural base because if I mention incense you’ll think it is something Catholic) …you’re a Protestant. Everyone reading your statements knows it except you. It is the Church of Mort, 2000AD, that matters only.

As for 20+ thousand. I have read it is more like 30+ thousand. You stated “… the "World Christian Encyclopedia" which has been shown to be highly inaccurate.” Why do you think this source is inaccurate? What reading proof do you rely upon? US Census info?

For starters, is this your source you have no faith in? “… there are "over 33,000 denominations in 238 countries" and every year there is a net increase of around 270 to 300 denominations.” (World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd edition). David Barrett, George Kurian and Todd Johnson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) Does it matter if there are 33 thousand or 10 thousand doctrinal faiths within the Protestant world? Does scripture state there is but one faith, one baptism?

As for Irenaeus, why don’t you just go to the Protestant sites for early Christian writings and forget the Catholic sites to avoid bias. Here is what Crosswalk says “….
The work of Irenaeus Against Heresies is one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity. It is devoted, on the one hand, to an account and refutation of those multiform Gnostic heresies which prevailed in the latter half of the second century; and, on the other hand, to an exposition and defense of the Catholic faith.” For you to say with the cavalier swipe of your tongue that “…Irenaeus is trying to prove legitimacy by providing a pedigree of sorts. He is generally credited with introducing the idea of Apostolic Succession. Although its understandable why he would use such an argument at such a time, it has no Biblical support.” “OF SORTS”? Heck no, he is absolutely proving it. No. “if’s”, “and’s” or “but’s” or “OF SORTS”! You are hearing the litany of apostolic succession for the EARLY CHURCH!

For everyone on the forum….you see the problem here for Protestant’s like Mort is that when there is such overwhelming evidence for a Catholic Christian Doctrinal point they retreat to “Well, its not in the Bible”. Complete absurdity. Of course it not in the Bible, because the Bible is sacred. God breathed scripture written and accepted for faith and moral in life. There is also a history here. A history of a very modern Church and a history of a very early Church. I have asked Mort to show me (forum, too) the early Christian writings that dispel Catholic Christian Doctrine. To date, he brought up a “discussion”, not Church doctrine, from a bishop/cardinal about scripture.

But, please go back to the Early Church so we can teach everyone on this forum about the writing in the earliest of the Church (100-300…500AD?). Writing of these early Christians willing to die for this faith. A faith that would confront others who dared to state otherwise/contradictory to doctrine. Heck, it has to be all over the place, Mort. Pull it up, paste it and show us. Double dare you.

Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

Interesting thread! I thought I might comment regarding contrition, repentance, forgiveness, and the necessity of confession to a "priest".

Consider Psalm 19:12, NIV:

12 Who can discern his errors?
Forgive my hidden faults.

Under the old covenent we find instruction regarding unintentional sin:

Numbers 15:27-28, NIV:

27. " 'But if just one person sins unintentionally, he must bring a year-old female goat for a sin offering. 28. The priest is to make atonement before the LORD for the one who erred by sinning unintentionally, and when atonement has been made for him, he will be forgiven.

Let us say, for example, a relatively new Christian commits a sin of ignorance. He has never learned that gossip is considered a sin; but he speaks carelessly, without thinking, about someone; words damaging to the reputation of the other person. He then dies suddenly in a accident. How is his sin forgiven?

The old covenent is greatly different than the new. A priest was needed as a go-between. A sacrifice had to be made. But the new covenent is far better. We have one mediator, one far superior to the old, and our sacrifice has already been offered, almost 2000 years ago, and the efficacy of this sacrice shall never diminish! We have no need for another! If the blood of Jesus does not cover our unconfessed, uncontrite (is that a word?), unrepented of sins of ignorance, then our trust in Jesus is of no avail and we are still in our sins.

It would seem to me a general attitude of repentance and contrition, "God forgive me, the sinner", is sufficient in those cases, which would demonstrate that repentance of a particular sin is not necessry in all cases.

Questions for CatholicSteve:

If your church is the pillar and ground of truth as you understand it, is truth mutable? How is it that it is a sin at one time (or age) and not in another to do a particular thing. It would seem moral laws never change but how is it positive laws of your church change and what was once sin now isn't and vice versa? And how does a council of fallible men become infallible, especially by what process does a mere majority of fallible men become infallible?

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

You wrote:

By the way, grow up and the smell incense (from Rev 5:8 as a scriptural base because if I mention incense you’ll think it is something Catholic) …you’re a Protestant.

And Rev. 5:8 says:

Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense which are the prayers of the saints.

Are you serious? Is this a specie of Catholic exposition of the scriptures?

And you wrote:

But, please go back to the Early Church so we can teach everyone on this forum about the writing in the earliest of the Church (100-300…500AD?). Writing of these early Christians willing to die for this faith. A faith that would confront others who dared to state otherwise/contradictory to doctrine.

And would you accept the teaching of the earliest church fathers as authoritative, especially when your church contradicts them on an important doctrine such as the innocence of infants regarding Adam's sin? Or do advocate we pick and choose from statements of these early fathers? Methinks we are are much better off when we consult the scriptures and leave fallible popes and councils out of it.

(p.s. ignore the capitols, don't know where they came from.)

[Guest]

But, please go back to the Early Church so we can teach everyone on this forum about the writing in the earliest of the Church (100-300…500AD?). Writing of these early Christians willing to die for this faith. A faith that would confront others who dared to state otherwise/contradictory to doctrine.

CatholicSteve, are you Premillennial?