tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post6417696033986646068..comments2023-10-11T02:53:32.035-07:00Comments on Five Cent Stand: In My World Lately...Seth Wardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-55244594464254647952007-05-21T23:43:00.000-07:002007-05-21T23:43:00.000-07:00"It is exceedingly difficult to say anything meani..."It is exceedingly difficult to say anything meaningful about the entire Jewish community of first century Palestine. This is a community made up of the post-exilic pilgrims who returned from Babylonian and then Persian rule, the remnant who stayed after the fall of Jerusalem, a strong Hellenistic cultural presence, and Roman occupation. It might be easier to say something about all Christians today!"<BR/><BR/>Good call Cach. The Jewish disagreements in Jesus day were often (in my humble estimation) even deeper than Protestant/Catholic disagreements today. They didn't even agree on an afterlife and differed immensely on which books were considered Scripture. The Pharisees considered both the law and prophets to be Scripture and held to a belief in an afterlife (which is much more easily supported with later books). The Sadducees didn't believe in an afterlife and held that only the first 5 books were inspired Scripture. Talk about a deep disagreements! <BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-61657784942477479712007-05-21T23:37:00.000-07:002007-05-21T23:37:00.000-07:00"I have seen the work of the Catholic church in th..."I have seen the work of the Catholic church in third world countries (Spain & Mexico) and after being exposed to it I understand completely where John is coming from. I belive the USA Catholic church is far different from those in other countries. The Catholic church in those other countries (of which I was exposed) does not preach salvation by grace through faith."<BR/><BR/>This is patently false. There is one catechism of the Catholic Church, not many. The Catholic Church is varied with liberals and conservatives, traditionalists and progressives, but it there is only one teaching on many topics. If anybody were to claim to that salvation is not by grace, that would go against what the catechism teaches and would be false profoundly unCatholic. <BR/><BR/>I find the reference to Spain as a third world country in which the true gospel is not preached particularly odd. For one thing, it is a developed country quite firmly in the first world. For another thing, if one has any knowledge of the great Spanish Catholics of ages past and current ages, this claim is egregious. To be familiar the writings of St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis Xavier, St. Dominic, St. Vincent Ferrar and more recently St. Josemaria Escriva is to be immersed in the Gospel, for their writings are chuck full of Christ's teaching applied to our lives. To read about the history of Mexico is to read about a land where the religion of the people has been outlawed several times, their preist's run out of the country or executed and still the people of Mexico have persisted in faith. This is in sharp contrast to many communist countries like Russia where the faith virtually disappeared.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to deny that Christians in every country have problems fully integrating their faith and resisting the pull of the culture around them, but this is not a problem unique to Catholics or unique to Mexico/Spain. There are animist "Protestants" in Africa and who can but wonder at the disconnect in the lives of many church attenders when one considers the divorce/abortion rates here in the US. <BR/><BR/>http://www.religionstatistics.net/afrelen.htm<BR/>The above website seems to give a very good overview of the mixture of local superstitions with orthodox Christianity. I read criticisms of both Catholic and Protestant animist admixtures, so I tend to trust the reliability of the website. It also recognizes some local critics of the practices and has links to other sources. <BR/><BR/>To recap my points,<BR/>A) Heresy isn't a uniquely Catholic problem<BR/>A-2) If it is tolerated, I'm not excusing it.<BR/>B) One shouldn't confuse the teachings of some local heretics with the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are objective measures of true Catholic teaching.<BR/>C) I truly doubt the condition of the Catholics is as bad as it has been made out to be in Mexico and Spain. I have known very faithful, holy, orthodox Catholics from both those countries and can't imagine how such people could be produced by a Church that doesn't preach the gospel. Looking at the saints they have produced, my incredulity increases even more.<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-72920683649446114002007-05-21T23:00:00.000-07:002007-05-21T23:00:00.000-07:00"The main problem I have with Catholicism is that ..."The main problem I have with Catholicism is that there are so many things one is expected to do (rites, etc.) that many people become discouraged. Having so many rituals can take away from doing the actual work of spreading the Gospel."<BR/>- What rituals/rites are you speaking of? Baptism, confirmation, annointing of the sick, partaking of the eucharist? How do they take away from "spreading the gospel"?<BR/><BR/>"I do worry that many of my Catholic friends do not know how to pray to God themselves because they let the priest intercede for them." - It would be a pretty poor "Catholic" who did not know how to pray to God directly. Can you imagine saying the "Our Father" every single Sunday and not taking it in? I find such an idea unconscionable.<BR/><BR/>"For example, I would have a hard time converting to Catholicism because of its views on Mary that aren't biblical but have been handed down through "tradition." For instance, I can't fathom Mary remaining a virgin after marrying Joseph. It seems ridiculous to me because I don't see why consummating her marriage would make her any less amazing."<BR/>- It is not that being a perpetual virgin makes Mary more amazing, but that such an interpretation really fulfills Scripture better than any other. Two things struck me when I studied this. For one, consider the annunciation of Gabriel to Mary. Her response to you WILL bear a child is, "How can this be." You would think that if she was planning a normal life as a mother her response would be something like, "Cool, how many kids will I have?" Instead, she is dumbfounded at the prospect of having kids period. The second thing that stuck in my mind when studying this as a Protestant was that Jesus gave Mary to John at his death. If there had been other children, surely they would have taken care of her. They didn't have social security back then and it was universally considered the duty of children to take care of their parents. Lastly, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity and the accompanying interpretation of Scripture was accepted within living memory of Mary herself, as laid out in the protoevangelium of James. While not canonical, it was a book whose ideas were accepted by the early church and were not attacked as false (unlike the gnostic gospels, etc.). There are other reasons for holding to Mary's perpetual virginity and rejecting the idea that she had other kids. These are given in the references below.<BR/>http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/virgin.PDF<BR/>http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp<BR/>http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp<BR/><BR/>Regarding why Mary would be called co-redemptrix, that is beyond the scope of this conversation, requiring an understanding of several other specifically Catholic/Orthodox ideas. I will say, though, that if Protestants were to define the terms, I would most likely agree that Mary is not to be referred to as co-redemptrix. You see, Catholics view Marian doctrine the the lens of Christology. Protestants tend to view Marian doctrine through the lens of salvation without specific reference to Christology. Thus, Catholics and Orthodox often refer to Mary as Mother of God and Mother of the Creator. How often have you heard a Protestant refer to Mary as such? Even those who admit it when pressed, rarely (if ever) use the title. To give another example, Mary is called by many the "Gate of Heaven". This smacks of idolotry to most Protestants and their stomach convulses at the thought of such a title being given to a mere creature and not reserved solely for God himself. If they were to define the terms, I would undoubtedtly agree. However, Catholics view this as a simple extension of the virgin birth. As the prophet Ezekiel proclaimed of Mary, ""This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." The womb of Mary is quite simply the gate through which Christ entered this world in the incarnation. It is in this sense that she is referred to as the "Gate of Heaven." And if she is not the "Gate of Heaven" and "Mother of God", then God did not come as a man in the person of Jesus. <BR/><BR/>I could go on and on about Mary, but I probably should stop. Honestly, it wasn't until well after I became Catholic that I really started to understand Marian doctrine. At the point of my conversion and well into my journey as a Catholic I was simply convinced that it couldn't be shown from Scripture that the Catholic teaching on Mary was unBiblical. It took several years for me to get past the prejudices and misunderstandings of my Protestant days so that I could fully affirm the many of the titles which Mary has been given over the years. <BR/><BR/>If anybody is interested in learning in a brief overview about the Catholic teaching on Mary with numerous references to Scripture and the Church Fathers, Newman's writings extracted in "Mary, The Second Eve" are helpful.<BR/>http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/newman1.html<BR/><BR/>MBDouglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064119946449926285noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-61725133008507627292007-05-18T22:46:00.000-07:002007-05-18T22:46:00.000-07:00As far as Mary being a co-redemptrix with Christ.....As far as Mary being a co-redemptrix with Christ...I truly hope that the Catholic church does not proclaim something like that. That would be very disturbing because it would cause non-believers to think that salvation can be attained through someone other than Christ, which would be heresy. Scary. Do any of you guys have any idea why they would even say such a thing??Susannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09264393130711805218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-79968381647896128502007-05-18T22:34:00.000-07:002007-05-18T22:34:00.000-07:00Holy cow! Wait...I'm not saying I worship cows......Holy cow! Wait...I'm not saying I worship cows...it's just...wow, I just read a book here! :) <BR/><BR/>Most of the things that bother me about Catholicism are things that have no bearing on one's salvation. For example, I would have a hard time converting to Catholicism because of its views on Mary that aren't biblical but have been handed down through "tradition." For instance, I can't fathom Mary remaining a virgin after marrying Joseph. It seems ridiculous to me because I don't see why consummating her marriage would make her any less amazing. Seems to me that being the ONE that God chose to bring his Son into the world is more important than staying a virgin. But I don't think that my opinion on this matter is of any importance to a discussion of salvation. I think the fact that Scripture is quite vague on this issuue means that we should not spend much time debating it. Our focus should be on Jesus, not His parents. I'm sure that when I walk through the pearly gates I'll be standing among fellow Christians who believe that Mary did remain a virgin. And only God knows which of us is right.<BR/><BR/>The main problem I have with Catholicism is that there are so many things one is expected to do (rites, etc.) that many people become discouraged. Having so many rituals can take away from doing the actual work of spreading the Gospel. But do these rituals make them "less Christian?" I think not. Who knows...there might be some rituals that would do me some good. <BR/><BR/>I do worry that many of my Catholic friends do not know how to pray to God themselves because they let the priest intercede for them. They think that the priest has more of a direct line to God than they do. Scripture says that Jesus is our High Priest and we can speak directly to Him. But are you lost if you go to confession? Not necessarily. Only God knows whether we're saved or not. Many of us will be surprised to find Heaven populated with people from many different denominations of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>I do think that inclusion can be a bit dangerous. I'm not comfortable with some of the more mystic areas of Catholicism, for instance. But not all Catholics are mystics. We just need to always be discerning (not the same as judgmental). It's funny, but I've been in discussions before where I agreed more with my Catholic friends than my Protestant friends. It all comes down to God's Word...do we believe it or not?Susannehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09264393130711805218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-85141345849199600322007-05-17T17:13:00.000-07:002007-05-17T17:13:00.000-07:00Fancy, it was followed closely only by the Pharise...Fancy, it was followed closely only by the Pharisees. How much influence they actually exerted upon the larger Jewish community is debatable. Doubtless there were Jews that were not Pharisees who followed as well, but most first century Jews were akin to modern Christians: they follow to a degree, but most are not fully devoted.<BR/><BR/>It is exceedingly difficult to say anything meaningful about the entire Jewish community of first century Palestine. This is a community made up of the post-exilic pilgrims who returned from Babylonian and then Persian rule, the remnant who stayed after the fall of Jerusalem, a strong Hellenistic cultural presence, and Roman occupation. It might be easier to say something about all Christians today!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-88600663971059478062007-05-17T12:56:00.000-07:002007-05-17T12:56:00.000-07:00Question: This oral tradition or law to which Joh...Question: This oral tradition or law to which John refers....what now is recorded as the Talmud.<BR/><BR/>Was this oral tradition known and followed by only the Pharisee sect of Judaism at the time of Christ, or all Jews?FancyPantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00051762758211575101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-53983508508860761842007-05-16T20:59:00.000-07:002007-05-16T20:59:00.000-07:00First off, let me say that my comments will not be...First off, let me say that my comments will not be an exhaustive response to John or some of the other comments here. Even I don’t have the attention span for that. I’ll leave stuff like Pulp Fiction for Seth.<BR/><BR/>I do find it interesting that people characterize relativism and the elusive nature of truth with postmodernism. One might consider Pilate’s remarks in John 18:37-38 to be postmodern, but of course that would be nonsense. Postmodernism is quite a larger and more nebulous thing than people want it to be. I don’t think it suits to sling the term at anything that they think smacks of relativism. But more to the point, it makes discussion fruitless when John accuses Seth of “follow[ing] a Post-Modern Ideology that says that man can not know absolute Truth.” To do so suggests that John is enlightened and Seth is misled. Therefore no discussion could fruitfully ensue since John leaves open no door for error on his own part. <BR/><BR/>Of course we all believe in the rightness of our position, but to stick out a verbal jab like that tells me from the get-go that there can be no mutual exchange of ideas. We are human; there is always the possibility that we are in error. In saying what he did, John also suggests that not only is the truth of God entirely knowable, but that he fully knows that truth. That’s a curious position for a Christian to take when even the first followers of Christ wouldn’t have made such a claim and in fact admitted many errors and showed growth and development of their belief over time. Without belaboring the point, see Peter with regards to gentiles in full fellowship, Thomas’ belief in resurrection, and Paul’s view of gender roles in a leadership context. One does not have to define truth subjectively in order to find it elusive or difficult. That should be borne in mind by all of us at all times lest we fall into the kind of arrogance that prevents revelation, growth, and transformation.<BR/><BR/>As to the content of John’s remarks, I find it troubling that he seems to equate the small group that comprised late Pharisaic Judaism with modern Catholicism on a one-to-one basis, and that he paints all Jews with the same brush. I would certainly dispute the notion that “[t]he entire theme of the Old Testament is of a people who were given knowledge of God, but through their corruptness and interaction with surrounding pagan cultures changed that faith in God into creed's, dead outward acts and they absorbed pagan influences into their worship of God and created a man made religion that suited their corrupt minds…” There is no such unifying “theme” to the OT. It is a story of God’s relationship with his people. It takes a pretty sick and anti-Semitic view of the Jews to read the OT and only see corruption, faithlessness, idolatry, and such. It would seem that John tailored his description of the Jews to suit his opinions about Catholics. But here’s one problem among many: there isn’t a single “creed” in the Old Testament. Try to find one. But if John can set Jesus against the Jews as he describes them, he can then set Jesus against the Catholics. Absurd.<BR/><BR/>The Old Testament is surely a love story. Does it contain stories of Israel’s infidelity and wandering? Doubtless. But if it weren’t a love story, why on earth would God continue it? It’s a comedy and not a tragedy. <I>(Comedy in the sense of a happy ending, not full of laughs.)</I> One could easily say the same for Catholicism and Protestantism too. Has the Catholic Church had its failings? Of course, just as God’s people always do. Yet theirs is part of God’s love story with his people just as with Protestants. It’s a pretty cynical and unbiblical view of God that sees him sitting back while all of his followers go fatally astray rather than pursuing us to the end.<BR/><BR/>I think John’s conclusions are also tainted by his understanding of salvation. He is dead sure that he understands salvation and that his view is thoroughly biblical in contradistinction to anyone else’s. Yet salvation is not about going to heaven, nor does it always happen in a moment. Heaven is a byproduct of salvation, not its chief aim. This is where gross misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine vs. “works salvation” occurs. We are saved for today and hereafter. Therefore what we do in a day is a part of our salvation. Everything in a Christian's life is part of his/her salvation. Grace is the condition that makes it possible. Grace alone “saves” us into identity with Jesus Christ, but part of that salvation and identification is the actions that we do as lead by the Holy Spirit. Is that so difficult to understand? To say that our actions matter? Is that so radical? It isn’t; it’s thoroughly biblical. <BR/><BR/>Also, we must understand that salvation may well be a process. Ever read about C.S. Lewis’ conversion? It does not always happen in a moment. Else how could Paul instruct us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling?” None of a Christian’s acts are dead and outward. All, no matter how imperfectly, point towards Christ as a part of the ongoing journey of salvation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-5988600146384715942007-05-16T05:37:00.000-07:002007-05-16T05:37:00.000-07:00If ya'll are interestedhttp://www.reallivepreacher...If ya'll are interested<BR/><BR/>http://www.reallivepreacher.com/node/1196<BR/><BR/>Here's is a debate on "what must I do to be saved"<BR/><BR/>These are God-aware people, arguing that there is more than one way to God besides Jesus Christ.<BR/><BR/>I commented on this when I first read it, and left it after a few replys as so many people agreed with this "tolerance train" and "more than one way to Jesus"<BR/><BR/>Notice where most of these people call their church homes. (presbyterian, methodist, etc)<BR/><BR/>So my question goes back to what John addressed. If so many people, from the same "religion" are so waaaay off in their theology, what should our reaction be to that "religion"? <BR/><BR/>Should we say "it's a specific instance unrelated to the whole" ?<BR/><BR/>Or do we realise that there are fundamental errors happening within the context of that religion that are actually leading people away from the cross and empty tomb of Christ?<BR/><BR/>And if we recognize those errors as commonplace instead of exceptions, how should we react?Discontented Refugehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731062176705835880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-58801714612878091492007-05-15T09:17:00.000-07:002007-05-15T09:17:00.000-07:00DR: (sorry about using the wrong initials in my o...DR: (sorry about using the wrong initials in my other comment.)<BR/><BR/>I think you're right on. So many of us (myself included) are, or have been in the past, caught up in the second question. How do I know you're saved?<BR/><BR/>I think one reason we focus on that question so much is because somewhere deep down inside we're scared. How do I know you're saved is asking myself at the same time, how do I know I'm saved? We're scared of losing our own salvation, scared of not doing enough to keep it. And it's when we realize that salvation is not an act of our own, but an act of God, that we rest in His peace. And then we can stop casting judgments on others.<BR/><BR/>CACH: I'm up for it. I'd like to hear what you have to say. OT and the Jews, specifically.FancyPantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00051762758211575101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-53837854074650401042007-05-15T05:51:00.000-07:002007-05-15T05:51:00.000-07:00John said:... It is a simple concept of the New Te...John said:<BR/><BR/>... It is a simple concept of the New Testament... it is not sufficient that you just say you believe in Christ, that was my analogy. Because anyone can say they believe in Christ, what counts is what is in your heart when you make that declaration! That was point! If the intent is correct then the Holy Spirit will come and dwell within you and lead you to Truth."<BR/><BR/>This is like the greatest debate of all time (very close to predestination/election and followed up by the role of women in church).<BR/><BR/>What must I do to be saved?<BR/><BR/>The thing is we ALL know the answer to this. We have a word-for-wrod answer in Acts. But we want to add on to it another question which bugs us more, and is none of our business because it is a question only the Holy Spirit can answer.<BR/><BR/>How do I know you're saved?<BR/><BR/>We want to see results. And James addressed that. There SHOULD be results, someone's life SHOULD be affected when they come in contact with the GOD of the Universe. But the thing is we don't lose the bad part of us afterwards and lots of time our "sin nature" wins the battle of what is seen.<BR/><BR/>I believe if we (one finger points at you, three point at me) spent more time telling people about the answer to the first question, the second question wouldn't be a question. It would be evident.Discontented Refugehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731062176705835880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-11775294643013094792007-05-14T22:01:00.000-07:002007-05-14T22:01:00.000-07:00I have a raging headache, (not from reading the po...I have a raging headache, (not from reading the post), or else I'd leave a fuller comment tonight. As is, it will have to wait until tomorrow. But I'd like to challenge some of John's fundamental understandings and beliefs about the OT, the Jews, the Church, Scripture, etc. I think it's pretty pointless in arguing over the faulty conclusions of bad premises. He'd no doubt disagree, but since he hasn't demonstrated much willingness to admit the possibility of fallibility on his part, I probably wouldn't bother to debate him. Instead, I think we'd all benefit by talking about some of the things I mentioned above. Drawing sensible conclusions is a lot easier when you start with a solid foundation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-39897293412473161782007-05-14T12:05:00.000-07:002007-05-14T12:05:00.000-07:00CR:Thank you for trying to make clear John's state...CR:<BR/><BR/>Thank you for trying to make clear John's statement.<BR/><BR/>Seth highlights John's words to which I refer. It is very clear to me that he questions Seth's salvation, and even goes so far as to accuse him of not having it.<BR/><BR/>If John meant something different, he is more than welcome to offer an explanation.<BR/><BR/> I grew up being taught that Catholicism was a cult. It never sat right with me, and it still doesn't. The very basic of reasons being that if we as Protestants accuse Catholicism as being a cult, we are accusing the very church from which we came as cultish.<BR/><BR/>From my understanding, when Martin Luther wrote the <I>Ninety-Five Theses On the Power of Indulgences</I> he was not wishing to abolish Catholicism altogether. We <I>was</I> a Catholic, and a devout one at that. He saw problems. He was right about the problems. The Church is not perfect. But it doesn't discount the salvation of Martin Luther or all Catholics that came before him.<BR/><BR/>Can you pinpoint a date when the religion of the Apostles became a cult in which salvation is nullified? It's just not that easy.FancyPantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00051762758211575101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-1992023168302430852007-05-14T11:16:00.000-07:002007-05-14T11:16:00.000-07:00Unity can be a dangerous word. I am speaking of c...Unity can be a dangerous word. I am speaking of course of the Unity that Jesus prayed for in the Garden. For us. <BR/><BR/>I would disagree about the "great arguements" though. I think that there have been Catholics who have become quite supersticious but those supersticions are not endorsed by the Vatican, or Catholocism. At least the ones that would be considered a cancellation of one's salvation or Belief in Grace through faith, which the Catholic church has always stated as the way to forgiveness and salvation. There have been plenty of abuses in the past, for sure, as in the indulgences and such, but those cannot be used as an arguement to say the the Catholic Church is a cult or on the same page as Mormonism or JW. In fact, many protestant churches have as many heresies running around the sunday school rooms, unchecked as the Mormon church. <BR/> <BR/>I just heard one a few weeks back as a matter of fact. About the Trinity. Stunned. People nodded their heads. All agreed. Said Amen. Dead wrong.<BR/><BR/>There are plenty of supersticious protestants btw. Take a poll to see how many read horiscopes. You'll be AMAZED. <BR/><BR/>Believing Mary can inetercede on your behalf in prayer is not heresy. Just like asking you to intercede on my behalf is not heresy. <BR/><BR/>We have but one mediator, and he is Christ our Savior. But we are his body. And through Christ in us, we can intercede for each other daily just as He does for us all the time and so does the Holy Spirit. And the Catholics believe that your grandma, dead parent, or any of the long gone christians can and do intercede for you. Mary is one of them.<BR/><BR/>Now, whether I beleive the emphasis on Mary is too great or the beliefs about Mary are right or wrong, is another discussion. It does not however have anything to do with a person's salvation. You won't find one Catholic, who know the doctrines of their church, saying that you have to pray to Mary to be saved.<BR/><BR/>Whether some do that or not is also another discussion. If you went to the Pope right now, and asked him if you had to pray to Mary for the forgiveness of sins, he would probably direct you to the first three things found in the CATECHISM:<BR/><BR/>1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.<BR/><BR/>2 So that this call should resound throughout the world, Christ sent forth the apostles he had chosen, commissioning them to proclaim the gospel: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."4 Strengthened by this mission, the apostles "went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it."5<BR/><BR/>3 Those who with God's help have welcomed Christ's call and freely responded to it are urged on by love of Christ to proclaim the Good News everywhere in the world. This treasure, received from the apostles, has been faithfully guarded by their successors. All Christ's faithful are called to hand it on from generation to generation, by professing the faith, by living it in fraternal sharing, and by celebrating it in liturgy and prayer.6<BR/><BR/>Or they might direct you to a statement of belief found in the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed. Both written by Catholics. Apostle's Creed embraced by most Protestant churches today. NOT by Mormans or JW.<BR/><BR/>About the Trinity the Morman Church writes: <BR/><BR/>"Most modern Christians accept creeds developed primarily in the fourth century that teach a Trinity of one substance and one Being, without body, parts, or passions, yet having three coequal persons. Many feel that the doctrine of the Trinity is exactly what the Bible teaches, but I see that doctrine as a departure from the teachings of the Bible due to the powerful influence of Greek philosophy, where God was taught to be immaterial and of one "substance." <BR/><BR/>It goes on to say that God the Father is a man and the Holy Spirit is a man. Then it gets even more interesting... again, another blog. But not the same as Catholics.Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-78545788914658335012007-05-14T10:08:00.000-07:002007-05-14T10:08:00.000-07:00Seth!Yes Christ prayed for unity within the church...Seth!<BR/><BR/>Yes Christ prayed for unity within the church, but there is some great arguments out there that Catholicism is a cult, and therefore not part of the "church" - much like JW's or Mormons. <BR/><BR/>Unity is a dangerous word in today's culture who pushes us all to unify - Muslims, Buddhists, etc.Discontented Refugehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731062176705835880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-85517918453582046212007-05-14T09:57:00.000-07:002007-05-14T09:57:00.000-07:00D.R. I appreciate your kind tone. I agree about ...D.R. I appreciate your kind tone. <BR/><BR/>I agree about the Catholic church in America. But that does not excuse broad strokes. Baptist churches in the Deep south still preach racial hatred. I have heard it with my own ears.<BR/><BR/>Hate is hate. To attribute that to unique to a denomination is wrong. "The catholic church did this... or that..." We all know what people in the Catholic church did just as we know what people in the protestant church do. <BR/><BR/>My point has been this: Chirst prayed for our unity. I do not think that unity in the spirit will EVER come by calling any denomination evil. Especially one that has so many devoted Christians and beautiful things about it. <BR/><BR/>I have seen what Catholics have done in 3rd world countries as well. Not just third world but Ireland and other places. I have also seen what Catholics like Mother Teresa have done in 3rd world countries.<BR/><BR/> I would say that the people are evil in the name of something rather than the views of the catholic church are evil. People do horrible things in the name of good things or Christ or God all the time. It doesn't make that denomination all bad or damned. I believe this is what John is saying.<BR/><BR/>About challenging my salvation... This is where John nearly stepped over the line:<BR/><BR/>"But Jesus atonement does not cover willful sin, and sin that glories in the things that God despises especially perversion."<BR/><BR/>"So I close and leave your website with this, you cannot feed sinful flesh and say you are justified because YOU believe with all your heart in Jesus Christ, because if you believed with all your heart in Jesus Christ, the Holy spirit would be present within you and where the Holy spirit is it cannot coexist with a being who desires after perverse things."<BR/><BR/>In saying this it seems to me that he makes it pretty clear that he doesn't think that I can be saved and like Pulp fiction at the same time. Which in my opinion is total bologna, not to mention hurtful. However, I do not discount his CONCERNS as silly. I have heard them before and do understand and sympathize with the concerns. <BR/><BR/>And on a separate note, I do not understand the statement that" Jesus blood does not cover willful sin. Especially perversion." Everyon willfully sins. Every day. It happens, and we are forgiven. Where sin abounds grace superabounds. And if the blood of Christ didn't cover perversion, then I guess about every man that ever lived would be in a world of hurt. -Adultery or lustful thoughts being a perversion of God's intent as well.Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-32495799632935997362007-05-14T08:41:00.000-07:002007-05-14T08:41:00.000-07:00Ok, I started reading this about an hour ago...I t...Ok, I started reading this about an hour ago...I think there some great discussion here. To tell you the truth I agree with John about how modern Catholicism can lead people astray. I believe there are many saved Catholics, and God bless them all. I also believe there are some very lost Catholics, those who have averted their faith in Christ for a sad substitute.<BR/><BR/>Also, Fancypants, I believe John was pointing out that one should not attempt to "rightly divide the Word of Truth" when their minds are cluttered with the things of this world. I didn't read it as an attack on the validity of Seth's salvation.<BR/><BR/>I read a post the other day how Christians need to "get on the inclusion train" or something to that effect. I understand where our willingness to accept someone's word that they have had a "salvation experience" without digging into it could cause someone to misconstrue that. (from love to inclusion)<BR/><BR/>I have seen the work of the Catholic church in third world countries (Spain & Mexico) and after being exposed to it I understand completely where John is coming from. I belive the USA Catholic church is far different from those in other countries. The Catholic church in those other countries (of which I was exposed) does not preach salvation by grace through faith.Discontented Refugehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17731062176705835880noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-55249355933071667052007-05-13T19:44:00.000-07:002007-05-13T19:44:00.000-07:00I think you are on to something there Rob. Althou...I think you are on to something there Rob. Although, I tried to keep it simple. <BR/><BR/>That was a futile attempt as John posed 4 things that I feel needed correction per sentence. And I am sure he felt the same for my opinion and everyone else’s. <BR/><BR/>That is why again, I tried to simplify. And it is probably why he decided to exit the building. <BR/><BR/>It is hard for me to back down from conflict like that because I feel so strongly about extremism. But in the end, it is better to lay down the sword if there is no end in sight. <BR/><BR/>I do get tired of letting those that have the most judgment in their tone have the mic all the time. IMO it is the reason the SBC split and the reason the world views Christianity today as a bunch of self-righteous morons. <BR/><BR/>But again, that is my nature. To roll up a fist and punch. <BR/><BR/>Someday, the Christians who have a balanced and majority view of the Gospel are going to have to find an effective yet peaceful way to speak up. <BR/><BR/>A rational way to combat irrationality.Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-4720494520760963372007-05-13T18:58:00.000-07:002007-05-13T18:58:00.000-07:00I'm late to this discussion, but waded through mos...I'm late to this discussion, but waded through most of it. I confess I found it a bit troubling because of the long-winded confusion that seemed to dominate a lot of the posts. (Maybe that reflects my simple mind, I'm not sure.)<BR/><BR/>I thought at first that the discussion was about salvation, that is are members of the Roman Catholic denomination "saved," but now I'm not really sure what the discussion is about. This issue of salvation is perhaps the smallest point of division among the denominations. In my experience, we mostly (but not completely) agree on what salvation is, and how a person receives it. God intentionally didn't leave much wiggle room in that one.<BR/><BR/>In the final analysis, I can only know about the eternal state of one person. Me. I know exactly what kind of relationship I have with Jesus Christ, and I know I'll meet him one day in heaven. I believe Jesus is the son of God, that I have sinned and he has paid the price for my sins, and I freely surrender my will to his. I honestly don't know how to be sure about the rest of you, although, I'm pretty sure God has figured you out.<BR/><BR/>I also can't do much one way or the other about your relationship with God. I can tell you all about mine and what I think it all means, but when it comes to your relationship I'm afraid your pretty much on your own. I'm not saying that there is not absolute here, we're either right or wrong. :-) What I'm saying is that I'm only responsible for and able to comment on my own decision. Also, whether I think you're saved or not is pretty much meaningless anyway since I suspect God isn't going to be asking me for my opinion on the subject.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953251818466792517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-55900304551889318262007-05-12T06:29:00.000-07:002007-05-12T06:29:00.000-07:00Seth,I can't understand why you got distracted :)L...Seth,<BR/><BR/>I can't understand why you got distracted :)<BR/>Love the discussion!! <BR/><BR/>The amazing thing is that Beckwith acknowledges a belief in the Trinity and inerrancy. Maybe I could get the average protestant to acknowledge inerrancy (maybe), but I have experienced many who will not acknowledge the Trinity and really seem fine with that.<BR/><BR/>This make me very, very uncomfortable. <BR/><BR/>It is baffling that they can call themselves Christians and not not acknowledge the Christian concept of God. This at a basic level seems just as problematic as issues of salvation. That is, if salvation is built upon one's belief in God. The problem for some protestants is, again, that they don't believe in God, at least not the Christian God. <BR/><BR/>I think we protestants need to be talking about God just as much as we talk about salvation by grace through faith! Because after all it is faith rooted in the understanding of God as Trinity.<BR/><BR/>We miss you guys too.<BR/>When are you guts moving to NYC?<BR/>I am leaving for Scotland in a little over 2 months.<BR/><BR/>Not sure if we are going to be near you, but are you going to be up here anytime soon?Stephen, Haley and baby Islahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333081230645000964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-76115241254809846112007-05-12T01:17:00.000-07:002007-05-12T01:17:00.000-07:00John,For a moment, I was interested in what you ha...John,<BR/><BR/>For a moment, I was interested in what you had to say...about the Jewish tradition.<BR/><BR/>And then I read your response to Seth where you accused him of not having Jesus's atonement or the Holy Spirit. The part where you accused him of not believing in Jesus with all his heart.<BR/><BR/>And now I am no longer interested.<BR/><BR/>That's it for me. Thank you for the discussion. I'm done.FancyPantshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00051762758211575101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-55085173347294807592007-05-11T21:03:00.000-07:002007-05-11T21:03:00.000-07:00Stevie!I meant to comment a while back but got dis...Stevie!<BR/><BR/>I meant to comment a while back but got distracted. <BR/><BR/>I don't see the problem either. I think it would be a great sign of unity if they did allow him to keep his position. It's about time Protestants and Catholics made nice. <BR/><BR/>btw, when are you guys coming back this way?<BR/><BR/>Miss the heck out of ya!Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-39979675654383590232007-05-11T21:01:00.000-07:002007-05-11T21:01:00.000-07:00Alexis, thank you for stopping by and thank you fo...Alexis, thank you for stopping by and thank you for the thoughtful comment. I couldn't agree more. <BR/><BR/>Drop a line anytime!Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-23107522582766169992007-05-11T18:29:00.000-07:002007-05-11T18:29:00.000-07:00I am new to this blog... Hi! Most of this convers...I am new to this blog... Hi! Most of this conversation is way too theological for me but here are my two cents. I was raised Catholic. At 18 I ditched it, partied hard, tried other things... met my future husband and accepted the Lord into my heart at the age of 26. I was very bitter against Catholism... it was hard to get over some of what I learned... and I felt at one time that Catholics can't be Christians. I have since changed my view. NEVER if a Catholic or anyone for that matter... came up to me and told me that they have accepted Christ into their hearts... confessed and believe, never will I doubt. At that point I am judging and I don't know their hearts ( and plus, tha'ts not my job anyway!!). Can Catholics be Christians... YES are all of them Christians... NO but I'm sure praying for them. Thanks for the wealth of info here.... I'll have to go through it again to "get more!" God Bless ya.... everyone!Alexishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11221747691823249572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23306308.post-12726402757752920482007-05-11T14:03:00.000-07:002007-05-11T14:03:00.000-07:00Brother John, I’ll narrow it down further. I migh...Brother John, I’ll narrow it down further. I might not be as clear I as should be.<BR/><BR/>I am simply trying to keep it simple: <BR/><BR/>Confess, believe in the Lord Jesus.<BR/><BR/>That comes by Grace, THROUGH FAITH, a gift of God.<BR/><BR/>The rest, as far as who's in and who's out, or if it was sincere, or if they weren't concentrating when they said the prayer…that is God's territory. <BR/><BR/>As far as I'm concerned, Jesus commanded me to do 3 things. <BR/><BR/>1. Love God with my whole mind, soul, spirit, <BR/>2. Love my Neighbor, as He has loved us and <BR/>3. Go into the world, with the Good News of the Gospel, Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things He commanded. <BR/><BR/>If that is postmodern then... well. I guess that I am just as postmodern as they get. Sounds like Old-time Religion to me but shoot, who knows, I guess Old Time Religion could be labeled as Post Modern if it is convenient to slant it that way in an arguement.<BR/><BR/>I also think you are confusing postmodernism with post-structuralism which rejects claims of absolutes in the world. The post-structuralism movement also claims that truth or meaning is inseperable with culture which would explain your disdain for the Catholic Church and its influences. The term "post modern" covers a WIDE range of concepts with no definitive definition, But, if I remember correctly, one of them, in art which would be my field, is that postmodernists REJECT a sense of universality. This seems to go in the face of your accustions as I am trying to say that ALL who believe and confess will be saved. I would say that I am a bit more of a modernist than a postmodernist. <BR/><BR/>I do believe in absolutes though. Trinity, Christ, Holy Spirit, 2+2 = 4, the Bible, and that God means what He says. And when he says, "those that call upon the Lord will be saved," Or "Whosoever believeth in Him should NOT perish." I take him at his word. It is simple to me. No two sides about it. It doesn't seem to be me adding all kinds of angles and quid pro quo's. <BR/><BR/>I am getting the gist of your arguement, finally. Somehow, I guess you believe that the Catholics stepped over the line and now being a Catholic makes their confession and belief, no matter how sincere, by virtue of just "being Catholic," null and void. <BR/><BR/>If that is what you believe, in a nutshell, I am thankful that you are not God and aren't allowed to make that call. <BR/><BR/>As far as the movie goes, I do have a response, and I think a good one. I will tell you, you will find some good company here about that issue. But one thing at a time.Seth Wardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027729307468958273noreply@blogger.com