God is green

[Guest]

Hi CatholicSteve,

I have no problem with your opinion/stance because you believe all that is Protestant, I Catholic.

Don't assume that just because someone isn't Catholic, they must be Protestant. The world isn't that simple.

Unfortunately, you rely on your opinion through your personal/someone’s interpretation and not the Church’s interpretation. Scripture states that the Church is the foundation of truth. It appears you believe you are the foundation of truth.

Well, the Catholic church is someone isn't it? It is an organization comprised of men. Some of these men have surely been intelligent, devout, discerning and educated. Others surely have been lacking in one or more of these traits (Augustine, for example, didn't even know Hebrew).

Yes, the church is the pillar and basis of truth in the world, as Paul wrote to Timothy. But neither I nor Paul define "the Church" as narrowly as you do. To Paul, the Church was a multi-faceted body with Christ as the head. It is so much more than the earthly hierarchical organization that calls itself the Catholic Church. The church universal (in other words, the true "catholic" church) is made up of Christians of all sorts. As a result, I can be taught and edified by the likes of Steve Gregg and Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright and Catholics Thomas 'a Kempis, Anthony deMello and Mother Teresa and house church advocate Frank Viola and Quakers George Fox or Rufus Jones, and Methodists and Baptists and Pentecostals, etc., etc. The true universal Church transcends any earthly organization.

Relying upon The Roman Catholic Church as your sole source of truth strikes me as no different than a JW relying upon The Watchtower organization. At least I know the names and credentials of those I turn to for theological input. I can listen to the various viewpoints on particular points of doctrine and pray for the Holy Spirit to lead me into all truth. That is, after all, what Jesus promised He would do.

Of course, the Catholic Church itself is not nearly as monolithic and unified as you seem to think.

Below is a passage from Cor….

“…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” 2 Cor 5:20

“…we implore you…”. Who is we? Then tell me who you is? Please relate that to the subject of this book, the Corinthians.

I'm not clear about what you're getting at here or what you're asking. This passage has absolutely nothing to do with confession of sins, but with the proclaimation of the Gospel. The underlying motivation behind 2 Corinthians in toto is that the credibility of Paul (and assumedly his companions) has been brought into question. False teachers (probably Judaizers) have come into Corinth and accused Paul of being weak (10:10), having poor speaking skills (11:6), and being a phony Apostle (12:11), as well as other lies. Paul is giving a defense for his ministry as an Apostle and that of his co-workers.

Related to your statement “Your God…”, this happens to be OUR God. That is unless you believe that we live in a pluralistic God-head, as if you were Mormon. God can be a loving God as Scripture clearly shows and God can be vengeful God as clearly as scripture shows. You seem to want to read only about one aspect of God. I think that is what gets you in trouble theologically. God don’t take no do-do. It shows His wrath in the OT and you can find it throughout the NT.

I have a friend who has been very involved in Alcoholics Anonymous for over twenty years. I've learned a lot about AA from him (as an aside, I think perhaps AA is the closest thing to the early Christian church that we have today, as far as how they function. Of course, AA has a very narrow and specific purpose, but how they function is remarkably like the early church). One of the phrases that AA uses is, "God, as we understand Him", which I think is a very honest way of putting it. As Paul wrote, currently we "see through a glass darkly". Theology professor D. Elton Trueblood puts it this way:

Every person, with any degree of theological sophistication, recognizes that, in dealing with matters of depth and moment, we are forced to employ metaphors. Because there is no other way of speaking, the person who objects to figurative language is clearly inept. The only rational alternative to the use of metaphor is, unfortunately, no language at all. When we speak of God as Father, as Christ did, we know very well that we are using a figure of speech, which, because it is a figure, is inappropriate when overpressed or literalized. We certainly do not mean that God has the limitations of human fathers or that He begets children as human fathers do. All that we mean is that fatherhood is the least inaccurate conception which is available. No thoughtful individual supposes that divine personality is identical with human personality, but that is no reason for denying divine personality, because the alternative is impersonality, which is manifestly less satisfactory. Indeed, it is probable that we are only feebly and partially personal, whereas God is wholly personal.

What we know of God is infintessimal compared to who and what He actually is. This is why I find myself continuously going back to the Gospels, since Jesus came to show us what God is like. I, in turn, endeavor to be like Jesus (with very limited success).

So, when I say, "your God...", I'm saying, "God, as you seem to understand Him." The fascinating thing is that we humans tend to become like that which we worship. After all, we were created to reflect God: to be the imago Dei. If we understand God to be angry, wrathful and cruel, we tend to reflect that. If we understand God to be kind, merciful, compassionate, patient and intent on restoration and reconciliation, we are more likely to become like that.

God's "aspects" are not in opposition to one another however. One need not eschew the wrath of God in favor of the love of God. God has chosen to reveal Himself as being the very personification of love. Love's byproducts are mercy, compassion, patience, forgiveness, etc. God's wrath, likewise, is absolutely consistent with His love and it serves His purposes of restoration and reconciliation.

You wrote “….Paul wrote to Timothy "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus..." (1 Tim 2:5) Not a priest. Not a bishop. Not an Apostle.” Wow, that is amazing especially after all the time you spent reading 2 Cor 5. Maybe you need to read it again, but I will help you here. In 2 Cor 5:20 (again) it reads “…God were pleading through us…” so it appears very plainly here that God is working through either fellow Christians or Apostles or Bishops/priests to be reconciled to God. With your interpretation we don’t need no stinkin’ Christians/Apostles/Bishops/Priests so why is God telling those in 2 Cor 5 to be mediators?

Of course God works through people. That's what the whole metaphor of the church being the Body of Christ is about. We are to build one-another up (Heb 10:23-25, 1 Cor 14:26, Eph 4:15-16, Col 3:15-17, 1 Cor 12:14-26). In the case of Apostles, they were "sent out" (the literal meaning of the word "apostle" is "sent one") to proclaim the message of the Gospel. Part of the message of the Gospel is that God has reconciled mankind to Himself through the cross of Christ so that men can now come boldly into the presence of God. This message is antithetical to the idea of a priest standing between men and God, hearing their confessions and dispensing God's forgiveness.

Thanks for the Greek lesson. While you are there please go over your Greek when Jesus says to the paralyzed man that “LK 5:20 When He saw their faith, He said to him, "Man, your sins are forgiven”. So there is no way that “their” faith, not his faith saved him, right?

You're welcome. It was the paralytic's friends who took action. Their action was the outward manifestation of their faith that Jesus could heal their friend. Here's how the event did not take place:

Jesus to the friends of the paralytic: "Hold on boys, let's get some priests..."
Peter whispers something in Jesus' ear.
Jesus: "Oh, we won't have priests for a couple hundred years? Ok, let's get some Apostles..."
Peter whispers in Jesus' ear again.
Jesus: "Oh, I haven't sent anyone out yet so we don't have Apostles. Terribly sorry."
Peter whispers in Jesus' again.
Jesus: "Ah! We do have disciples! Right, where were we? Oh yes, let's get some disciples over here to hear your confessons and if they feel that you are contrite enough, I shall forgive your paralytic friend."
Now John whispers something in Jesus' ear.
Jesus: "Oh, the paralytic man himself has to show contrition before I can forgive him? Ah, well, sorry fellas."

I hope you get the point. Luke's account of the forgiveness and healing of the paralytic doesn't mention a prior state of contrition an the part of either the paralytic or his friends. Therefore, it is a poor choice to use as a prooftext for your assertion that God will not forgive without prior repentance.

Your analogy of Cyprian to Bush is mind boggleling (sp?). Cyprian is at the near starting point of Christianity. Bush is at the end of a line of President’s. Now if you related Cyprian to Washington then that would be better. You could also talk about if Bush began to instigate a national policy outside the structure of the Constitution then you may have something to relate to Cyprian, ie, something like Cyprin preaching a doctrine outside scripture. Still the analogy is weak.

Bush took office roughly 200 years after the birth of our nation. Likewise, Cyprian was bishop in Carthage roughly 200 years after the events of the New Testament. Someone coming along 200 years after an event, regardless of where they are on the continuum, is not "early". I agree though, the analogy is weak; especially considering that at least George W. Bush lives in the same region as the founding fathers, speaks the same language and shares vestiges of the same culture.

For your sake and argument forget about Cyprian, OK? What I would like to challenge you with is this….find me the earliest Christian writing/author that states that confession to a priest is non-doctrinal, antithesis to Christian belief and practice. It has gotta be out there because there are volumes and volumes of very early Christians (what, pick the first 500 years?). I will stick to this so really pay attention to doing this, OK?

You're asking me, essentially, to prove a negative, which is a logical fallicy. I could just as easily assert that all priests must wear purple underwear beneath their vestments. No really, it's true! I challenge you to find one writing by an early Christian arguing that priest don't have to wear purple underwear. If you can't find one, then my assertion must be true! Of course, you would probably challenge me to produce the writings claiming that priests do have to wear purple undies. This would be logical. If the earliest claim to the "purple underwear doctrine" was 200 years after the founding of the church, then one would have to conclude that it was not a part of the original, earliest church.

Aside from the logical problems with your challenge, there is also the issue, pointed out earlier, that a miniscule amount of ancient Christian writings have survived. Surely, groups like the Bogamils, Paulicians, Cathars, etc. had writings, but little has survived. Most of what we now know of them comes from the writings of their persecuters, the Catholic Church.

However, I can provide these samples from writings of early Christians which seem to run counter to the whole idea of a priestly hierarchy performing specialize functions in the church:

"Jesus called them together and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." -- Matthew 20:25-28

"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." -- Matthew 23:8-12

"Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." -- Colossians 3:15-17

"Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men." (What does "he ascended" mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, [what, no priests? - MC] to prepare God's people [not priests! - MC] for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work." -- Ephesians 4:2-16

"What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church." -- 1 Corinthians 14:26

"Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching. -- Hebrews 10:19-25

Notice in this last scripture that there is only one priest mentioned.

I could continue, but hopefully you see the picture. It is of a body of "one-another's" under the headship of a single Lord. Each person uses the gifts they've received from the Lord to minister to the others. There is no special class of believer; no clergy/laity distiction; no mediators between God and man except for the Lord Himself.

I gotta go for now. My daughter is asking me to study with her for her Bio exam and as I am sure all you Dad’s out there would do the same, adios for now.

Time well spent. My son is majoring in Physics and Mathematics. The running joke in our house is when I ask him if he wants me to help with his homework. He just rolls his eyes.

[Guest]

Paidion-

now i'm confused. you wrote:

True forgiveness is a response to repentance such that the forgiver’s relationship with the person forgiven is completely restored.

You SEEM to be saying that our forgiving someone is dependent upon that person showing true repentance. I understand this from God's perspective (forgiveness follows repentance) but I never understood this to apply to us when it comes to forgiving others. I have always gathered that we are to be forgiving of people, even if they don't repent, because that is the "loving" thing to do. For example, Jesus told us to love our enemies. doesnt this imply forgiving their misdeeds? I think it does, but perhaps I am missing something.

My understanding of why Jesus taught us to forgive is along the lines of what Mort said- it is for OUR good, not the person needing forgiveness (although it wont do them any harm either). In other words, if I am not "letting go" as Mort said, then I am harboring grudges or bitterness which is going to poison my spirit.

In regard to Jesus saying to forgive someone 70 times 7 times if they ask for it, I always took this to mean for the SAME sin. i think he was using a little hyperbole, but the fact that he was telling us to forgive someone over and over for the same offense adds to the "radicalness" of the teaching. We are to have an attitude of forgiveness, whether or not the offender deserves it. why? because the "world" does just the opposite, namely harbor grudges and demand retribution.

of course it is entirely possible that I am mis-apprehending your meaning.

TK

[Guest]

Hi TK,

I understand this from God's perspective (forgiveness follows repentance) but I never understood this to apply to us when it comes to forgiving others.

Are you saying that God tells us to do something that He Himself is unable or unwilling to do?

[Guest]

Mort wrote:

Are you saying that God tells us to do something that He Himself is unable or unwilling to do?

Good question, Mort.

I might have typed before I thought about what I was typing. But it has always been my understanding that in order to be forgiven (of our sins, that is) then we need to repent, and seek forgiveness. I think of the publican praying ("lord have mercy on me, a sinner" and Jesus saying that he went home justified). But now i am thinking of the paralytic who Jesus healed; Jesus said that his sins were forgiven, although there is no mention of the man seeking forgiveness, but he may have.

Are you suggesting that God has already forgiven the entire human race, regardless of whether they have repented? if so, please clarify.

TK

[Guest]

I might have typed before I thought about what I was typing. But it has always been my understanding that in order to be forgiven (of our sins, that is) then we need to repent, and seek forgiveness. I think of the publican praying ("lord have mercy on me, a sinner" and Jesus saying that he went home justified). But now i am thinking of the paralytic who Jesus healed; Jesus said that his sins were forgiven, although there is no mention of the man seeking forgiveness, but he may have.

Are you suggesting that God has already forgiven the entire human race, regardless of whether they have repented? if so, please clarify.

This is a fascinating question to explore.

I think contrition (which is an attitude) and repentance (which is an action) are vitally important. They are both precursors to and products of growth in Christ and a changed life. I don't accept, however, the dogmatic assertion that God's forgiveness must always be preceded by man's contrition/repentence. Sometimes its the other way around. I suppose I think of it more in terms of a living relationship than a legalistic transaction. As you pointed out, there are scriptures that can be found which seem to point either way. I don't think the choice between repentance>forgiveness and forgiveness>repentance is "either/or" . It's "both/and". God works in an infinite number of ways in His relationship with mankind. We tend to want to reduce everything down to simple and fixed laws. What's really egregious is when entities then try to use those laws to hold power over people (as in, "The Bishop and his priests forgive sin only when they see a contrite heart").

Forgiveness, by its very nature and as the etymology of the word suggests, is a gift. The implication is that the receiver of forgiveness cannot earn it. This is particularly true with God's forgiveness.

Do I think God has already forgiven the entire human race? Yes. That's what the cross is all about. But your question begs this question: "Forgiven for what?" I don't believe in "original sin" but I do believe we all suffer from "chronic sin". We are all sinners. We all fall short. But God knows our frame. He created us and loves us and desires that none of us should perish. His stated intention is to reconcile the entire human race to Himself. I don't believe He will fail in doing so.

I wrote a lengthy blog entry on this topic not too long ago: http://dannycoleman.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -hell.html

[Guest]

Dear Mort,

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”.

Now, don’t ashamed for “Pete’s” sake. Stand up and be counted in the group of 20 thousand plus Protestant denominations. That is where you are. To say you are something else would be ludicrous. Unless you can actually say you are a member of some new cult then you are PROTESTANT. 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 (maybe because I did not like a newly elected President…Hillary? Ouch!). The fact is, I am a US Citizen, a republican with Czech/Yugoslav heritage. I can not separate myself from the basic fact that I am first a US citizen because I read, follow and trust in the US Constitution.

You read, follow and trust in a Protestant Bible, therefore you are first a “Protestant”. After that you can pick whatever hybrid Protestant faith you desire. Don’t contort or side-step the fact that you are a Protestant.

As for the Church, Paul is talking about an authoritative Church to Timothy not a church collective. That is why the Protestant faith collective has 20+ thousand church collective opinions/doctrines (all by men too, but with no proof of succession like Paul bestowed on Timothy or was bestowed upon Matthias). 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].”

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. Of course, you will deny Irenaeus and other early Christians like the plague because they are the complete antithesis to your Protestant foundation.

Related to my discussion of 2 Cor 5:20 I stated ......
“…we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” 2 Cor 5:20

“…we implore you…”. Who is we? Then tell me who you is? Please relate that to the subject of this book, the Corinthians.

“I'm not clear about what you're getting at here or what you're asking?” Mort, this is not brain surgery. You don’t have to be clear about anything “I” say, just answer what the Bible is saying. Heck you have such a huge opinion about everything else, this should be easy. Go read the chapter again and tell me who is Paul referring to as “we” (just the Apostles?, just thousands of Christians, just Paul and Barnabus? Who?). After that, then tell me who “you” is. This way we can actually see who Paul is talking to, especially in the framework of Corinth.

You also said about AA “….I think perhaps AA is the closest thing to the early Christian church that we have today”. Wow, that is beautiful. 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. You can go to numerous Protestant and Catholic sites for the actual documents, so why not go there right now and tell me and everyone else on this forum what Christian writing you would like to quote from.

While you are there deep in research bring up some of those finer points about confession, priests and such that you are so adamant about. 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.

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!” Regardless, Mort, 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 dare you. I double dare you. Peace out, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

TK:

You SEEM to be saying that our forgiving someone is dependent upon that person showing true repentance.

I say that, and I go further. I don't believe it is possible to forgive (in the Biblical sense) without repentance, because forgiveness is a response to repentance.

Here' a little analogy. Can you answer a person unless he asks you something? Answering is a response to being asked. Forgiveness is a response to repentance.

I understand this from God's perspective (forgiveness follows repentance) but I never understood this to apply to us when it comes to forgiving others.

As Mort has pointed out, does God require us to forgive without repentance, when, in fact He doesn't?

Of course, Mort believes both God and we can forgive without repentance, because Mort is using "forgive" in a different sense from the Biblical use of the word. He thinks "forgive" means "letting go of ill feelings" or "not demanding recompense" or some such thing. Well, of course, both God and man can do that without repentance. But that's not forgiveness.

I have always gathered that we are to be forgiving of people, even if they don't repent, because that is the "loving" thing to do. For example, Jesus told us to love our enemies. doesnt this imply forgiving their misdeeds? I think it does, but perhaps I am missing something.

You seem to be using "forgive" in a sense similar to Mort. I agree that we should stop holding something against a person whether or not he repents.
If that's what you mean by "forgive" then I agree.

My understanding of why Jesus taught us to forgive is along the lines of what Mort said- it is for OUR good, not the person needing forgiveness (although it wont do them any harm either). In other words, if I am not "letting go" as Mort said, then I am harboring grudges or bitterness which is going to poison my spirit.

I fully agree that if we harbour grudges and bitterness, we by this practice, will poison our spirits and become bitter. Actually, as disciples of Christ, we should never harbour grudges and bitterness. But letting go of these is clearly not "forgiveness." Tell me, when God forgives does HE let go of grudges and bitterness?

In regard to Jesus saying to forgive someone 70 times 7 times if they ask for it, I always took this to mean for the SAME sin. i think he was using a little hyperbole, but the fact that he was telling us to forgive someone over and over for the same offense adds to the "radicalness" of the teaching. We are to have an attitude of forgiveness, whether or not the offender deserves it. why? because the "world" does just the opposite, namely harbor grudges and demand retribution.

I understand these words of Jesus to mean that we should not limit our forgiveness. He was being asked, "How often should I forgive my brother? Seven times?" The one asking the question thought there must be some limit to forgiving a person. Jesus hyperbolic answer was to emphasize that there is no limit to forgiveness. In so answering, He was in no way suggesting that it was unnecessary for the person to repent, in order to obtain forgiveness. God does not forgive without repentance, and neither do we. Nor do we answer a person who hasn't asked us anything.

In closing I emphasize letting go of any inclination we have to "harbour grudges" and "demand retribution" is not tantamount to forgiving.

[Guest]

Mort is using "forgive" in a different sense from the Biblical use of the word. He thinks "forgive" means "letting go of ill feelings" or "not demanding recompense" or some such thing.

So Paidion, do tell...

What is the Biblical use of the word?

[Guest]

Mort:

So Paidion, do tell...

What is the Biblical use of the word?

The same use that I have just described ---- a response to repentance.

Here are the words of our Lord:

Take heed to yourselves; if your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him." Luke 17:3,4

Why did Jesus add the proviso, "If he repents"?

If Jesus made forgiveness conditional upon repentance, that's good enough for me.

[Guest]

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?