# unity



## thedeacon (Jan 28, 2009)

In Eph: 4:5 the Bible says there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Where is the oneness in this world of religion? Where is the unity?


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Not on this forum.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Not on this forum.



I don't know how to break this to you in a nice way,earl.You are one of the reasons,and there IS more unity than you know about,although Satan is chipping away at it.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Ya 'll do more arguing among yourselves than i could provoke in a year of Sundays. I lean toward pointing out discrepancies and in some cases what I consider hypocracies and holier than thou attitudes. If you are secure in your beliefs, by all means defend them aggressively. There is actually very little unity between faiths. That would make for a dull forum ,don't you think ? You give me way more power than I really have.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> In Eph: 4:5 the Bible says there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
> Where is the oneness in this world of religion? Where is the unity?



Among true Christians.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jan 28, 2009)

If everyone agreed on everything in here, it wouldn't be much of a "Debate" forum, now would it?

I don't understand why folks around here insist that we all agree on everything.  We are simply asking questions and batting back and forth thoughts and ideas.

Read the verse again...

Of the Christians on this board (denominational preferences aside), I dare say there are VERY few who would disagree that there is ONE Lord and ONE Faith (meaning whom we have faith in).  Baptism?  Well, y'all interpret what that means on your own.

Bottom line is that much of what is discussed around here is semantics.  Jesus is Lord; the savior of the world.  I think we (and by we, I mean Christians) pretty much agree on that.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Why do people equate Christian unity with agreeing on every point of doctrine?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> If everyone agreed on everything in here, it wouldn't be much of a "Debate" forum, now would it?
> 
> I don't understand why folks around here insist that we all agree on everything.  We are simply asking questions and batting back and forth thoughts and ideas.
> 
> ...



X's 2,brother!


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

five I don't think it's so much the unity. If all points of YOUR doctrine were agreed on , it would make you the one with all the right answers or the one closest to god. IMO


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> five I don't think it's so much the unity. If all points of YOUR doctrine were agreed on , it would make you the one with all the right answers or the one closest to god. IMO



Well, here is a question. Why are you thinking true Christian unity is agreement on doctrine, or the one who is correct on every point of doctrine the one closest to God? 

I am trying to understand your reasoning here. 

Let add something here. My wife and I do not agree on every little thing. However, we are very much in unity with one another. 

-five


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 28, 2009)

*Individual churches will have small differences.*

That is evident in the epistles...Paul  cautioned each one differently but didn't condemn any.

I think it's the same today.I currently go to a Southern Baptist church..That will get you a label of fundemental all by itsself.Although I don't believe everything in every churches doctrine,even my own,I don't believe other churches are unsaved.

The unity comes from the Roman Road to me..

Believe you're lost,repent,be Baptised(I don't argue over the amount of water)but I was immersed,I'm an over acheiver)Believe in Christ's sacrifice and resurection....

long as it follows those basic standards...


----------



## thedeacon (Jan 28, 2009)

Do you honestly think that we can't dissagree and still be unified?


----------



## thedeacon (Jan 28, 2009)

The lack of unity in our Christianity has a great effect on our social world. crime, elections, problems with children, marital problems, workplace problems, church separations, divorce etc. etc. etc. etc.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Perhaps I have misunderstood your definition of unity. I thought it meant in complete agreement. If that is not the case my post probably didn't make sense . When god reveals all his truths to you , wont there be some that say , oh , thats what you meant ? Thats what I meant about if your doctrine was correct ,it would make you closest to god. Did that make more sense ?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Perhaps I have misunderstood your definition of unity. I thought it meant in complete agreement. If that is not the case my post probably didn't make sense . When god reveals all his truths to you , wont there be some that say , oh , thats what you meant ? Thats what I meant about if your doctrine was correct ,it would make you closest to god. Did that make more sense ?



Yes, that clears things up for me. Thanks. 

I would submit that the "closeness" to God, at least in my mind, means being reconciled to Him. When two parties need to be reconciled its because they were at odds or enmity with one another. 

I believe the Scriptures teach that because of the sinfulness of mankind, mankind is at odds/enmity with God. They need to be reconciled to Him. God has provided reconcilation by covenant in Christ Jesus. 

So, whoever has been reconciled to God through Christ is my brother. A visible sign of my common union with those reconciled to God through Christ is the Lord's Table, or what we call communion (common union). 

If someone bars me from the Lord's Table then they are saying I have no common-union with them, and truly our union is with the Father and the Son. 

I share the Lord's Table with many Christians such as Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopalians, Non-denominational, Charistmatic, Pentecostal, et. (no can of worms here, but I do not share communion with Roman Catholics, and they will not share it with me. In order to be in communion with them, I would have to be in communion with the pope). 

Obviously there are a lot of areas of doctrinal disagreement between me, my church, and other Christian denominations. But this has not affected my common-union with them because that unity is in Christ Jesus. 

-five


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> 1 Timothy 1:3
> 1 Timothy 4:1
> Eph 4:14
> Titus 1:9
> ...



I haven't looked up all verses, but please highlight the one (or more) that teaches me that unless I have complete doctrinal agreement, then I cannot have or do not have unity with other Christians. 

Consider Romans 14 
Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 

There were in the early days of the Church disagreements and disputations. But I am to recieve them. 

v.3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 

Here is the ground for my recieving a brother or sister with whom I disagree on some point of doctrine--God has recieved them. 

v.4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 

Amen. 

v.5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 

Does this not sound relative to you? It is indeed relative. The ground and basis of our Christian unity IS NOT uniformity of doctrine. It is Christ and Christ alone. 

 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 

 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 

 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 

*9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. *

To underscore the point again, the foundation of our unity is Christ and Christ alone, Christ crucified and risen from the dead. 

-five


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

Excellent post! It's all about Christ.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Ya 'll do more arguing among yourselves than i could provoke in a year of Sundays. I lean toward pointing out discrepancies and in some cases what I consider hypocracies and holier than thou attitudes. If you are secure in your beliefs, by all means defend them aggressively. There is actually very little unity between faiths. That would make for a dull forum ,don't you think ? You give me way more power than I really have.





x2!


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

five .Are you not in unity with catholics ? If not how can you claim unity or common-union ?


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

DD ,good to see you . Out of respect I hung with you yesterday ,but a case of insomnia caught me this AM . You are a class act.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> five .Are you not in unity with catholics ? If not how can you claim unity or common-union ?



I am not in unity with Roman Catholics if they are in communion with the pope. 

I do not view the Roman Catholic church as another Christian denomination. Does that explain why I claim I am unity with my Christian brethren but not with the Roman Catholic church? (not to say some Roman Catholic is truly a Christian, I just think its not the norm).


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

Uh-oh -   loose the FIRE-ANTS!



Hey,Dominic - welcome! How did you find us all the way over in Spain?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> One can not be Catholic and not in communion with the Pope.



Which is why I am not in unity with Rome. I am in communion with Christ. 





> You are correct. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. All others are ecclesiastical communities which we have come to call denominations.



Which amounts to saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true Christian church on earth--which is false. The True Christian Church is that Church which Jesus bought with His own blood, His Bride, which is made up of those God the Father has given to the son. These are the faithful in Jesus, the saints of God, His elect. These are they who have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 

This Church has one Head, Jesus Christ, and One Holy Father, God the Father, and One Vicar of Christ, the Holy Spirit. 

-five


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Post 23 & 24 kind of confirm why there is no unity. All claim to be about christ while excluding others. 
Deacon , I think this answers your question also.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

One more time,earl- it's about Jesus Christ,NOT denominations,not opinions.Those posts don't confirm a thing - except that they have an opinion.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> Post 23 & 24 kind of confirm why there is no unity. All claim to be about christ while excluding others.
> Deacon , I think this answers your question also.



So you believe there is no truth?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> I have friends








The "Catholic- versus- everybody -else" topic has been beat to death here several times lately.Please say we're not whuppin' that poor ol' horse again?


----------



## THREEJAYS (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree that as long as there are two people there will be different opinions,having said that If we agree on Christ being the only way to the Father then we're on the right track.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

OK  RD , I am not trying to be ignorant , but how can you have unity while claiming the other guy is wrong . Maybe I just don't get the unity thing. When you tell some one that the are not going to heaven based on what you believe ,aren't you invalidating his belief in Jesus Christ ?
five , I definitely believe there is a truth. Man will never know for sure until he hears it straight from God. Untill that time you are making a best guess based on your belief.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Another question. If, as you say, it's all about Christ, do you believe that all christians will go to heaven irreguardless of their opinion of HOW they get there ?


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic,who is capable or qualified to determine which doctrines are false ?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> The Apostles, the Saints and their successors.



I woulda stopped at Apostles.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> But you did not you skipped over 1500 years of understanding and teachings to Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and onto yourself.
> 
> "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation" 2 Peter 1:20



Amazing what context will do with a text of Scripture. 

16For *we* have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, *but were eyewitnesses of his majesty*. 

 17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 

 18And this voice which came from heaven *we heard*, *when we were with him *in the holy mount. 

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 

 20Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 

 21For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

What this says, and what the Roman Catholic church says it means, don't match up. 

-five


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 28, 2009)

You say that there is a unity of believers who are 'Christian' because they claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven.

But do you really believe that?

I mean, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, yet I have seen again and again on here how you do not consider them 'real' Christians based on their doctrine.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 28, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You say that there is a unity of believers who are 'Christian' because they claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven.
> 
> But do you really believe that?
> 
> I mean, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, yet I have seen again and again on here how you do not consider them 'real' Christians based on their doctrine.


 
Correct.

JW's for instance don't ascribe deity to Christ.

Doing that is anathema according to the scriptures.

Gal 1:8,9

 9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.  10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> It clearly says that scripture is not open for personal interpretation and not open to the will of man. That would be you you are not to be interpreting scripture according to your will. It is clear that the Apostles alone where given the power to interpret scripture, to bind and loose, and to pass on their authority.  This is called Apostolic Succession. Your church does not have Apostolic Succession there is only one the does have Apostolic Succession.



I know what Apostolic Succession is, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. 

Are you saying that the text above is inaccurate? I just want to be sure you agree that the text we are discussing is accurate to what the Apostle Peter wrote. I assume you believe this. 

If you do believe this, do you think those to whom the letter was written to had the ability to understand it?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> You say that there is a unity of believers who are 'Christian' because they claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven.
> 
> But do you really believe that?
> 
> I mean, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses both believe Jesus is the only way to heaven, yet I have seen again and again on here how you do not consider them 'real' Christians based on their doctrine.



Who are you asking this question to?


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> OK  RD , I am not trying to be ignorant , but how can you have unity while claiming the other guy is wrong . Maybe I just don't get the unity thing. When you tell some one that the are not going to heaven based on what you believe ,aren't you invalidating his belief in Jesus Christ ?
> five , I definitely believe there is a truth. Man will never know for sure until he hears it straight from God. Untill that time you are making a best guess based on your belief.



I've never said ANYbody who believes the Gospel is not going to heaven,earl.Jesus Christ is rock-solid and that's good enough for me.If "unity" means every follower of Jesus is going to agree on every little thing that someone comes up with on this forum,well.....IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 28, 2009)

StriperAddict said:


> Correct.
> 
> JW's for instance don't ascribe deity to Christ.
> 
> ...




So then it isn't just the belief that Jesus is the only way... you also have to believe he is God.... now you're getting into doctrine


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 28, 2009)

One thing and the MAIN thing about Christianity that we all believe and really the only thing we have to believe to belong in the kingdom is John 3:16.  We may argue or debate scripture, but since all true Christians believe this, then we are united on the most important verse in the Bible.

John 3:16 (King James Version)

 16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree with you on agreeing with every little thing.Weird huh ? You may not have said that , but others here have said if you don't believe as they do you will not be going . Somebody has to be wrong.
 I think this unity thing is rapidly falling apart. If all believers of Christ are going to heaven [the ''goal'' of christians ] why are some proclaiming their way is the only way ? To me ,that is not difference of opinion, but a split in the bedrock of christianity.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I agree with you on agreeing with every little thing.Weird huh ? You may not have said that , but others here have said if you don't believe as they do you will not be going . Somebody has to be wrong.
> I think this unity thing is rapidly falling apart. If all believers of Christ are going to heaven [the ''goal'' of christians ] why are some proclaiming their way is the only way ? To me ,that is not difference of opinion, but a split in the bedrock of christianity.



Why do you believe the goal of Christians is to go to heaven? 

Also, since Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; No man comes to the Father but by Me." 

What do you think Jesus meant by this statement?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I agree with you on agreeing with every little thing.Weird huh ? You may not have said that , but others here have said if you don't believe as they do you will not be going . Somebody has to be wrong.
> I think this unity thing is rapidly falling apart. If all believers of Christ are going to heaven [the ''goal'' of christians ] why are some proclaiming their way is the only way ? To me ,that is not difference of opinion, but a split in the bedrock of christianity.



Trust me, I know exactly where you are coming from.

Most of the time, I'm just basic and simple in my beliefs about the Bible.
My father had gone to so many churches as a child, and was so confused about doctrine that it drove him nuts....and I mean to a point that he was hospitalized a few times. So I keep it simple. When I do teach or witness or whatever, I keep it extremely simple and basic, Jesus said His yoke is light...not heavily burdened by struggleing to learn who is right and who is wrong in doctrine.

By debating, I have learned a lot. It's more like a Bible study to me. Keeps me sharpening my sword(the word) everyday.

By simple I mean John 3:16.

I'm not saying we should do no works, I just don't believe we are saved by works. With Jesus working thru us, we want to love others, we want to help others, we want to get others saved. I'm not so good at those things working on my own power, I get sidetracked.

Whosoever believes in HIM...and that includes people of all churches, faiths, denominations, and even the ones who don't even attend church....shall be saved...

Peter himself, argued points with Jesus about doctrine.
There are things we will never understand until we are able to ask the Master.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 28, 2009)

If there is truth, and I believe there is, there can be only one truth.  It will not be debatable.  Your truth cannot be different from mine.  Truth is truth.  Either you have it, or you missed it.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

five , your question has set me back on my heels. As I have said before ,my father was a baptist preacher for ever. It has never occurred to me that there could be another goal. Please elaborate.
Ronnie , does that mean that those who don't believe as you do are not christians? I agree that there can't be but one truth so Ill ask again ... Who ,in this world , can know 100% what truth that is ? Pls don't say it is in the bible .As we all know even those who use the same bible will give you different truths.


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 28, 2009)

All religions are imperfect because they were all created by man.  God created man, but man creates the religions to worship the God. And because of this all religions have their paradoxes, contradictions and inconsistencies.  

Religions are created by man for the following reasons:

1. To answer the unanswerable questions - How did we get here - where are we going after we die - who created everything.

2.  To help us - to give us a standard or set of rules to follow so we can live together without hurting/killing each other more than we do, and to help us get through the daily aggravations/troubles of life which 98% of we cause ourselves.

3. To make us feel good about ourselves (what I think is the greatest religious/spiritual need) and to give us hope for the future.

It is this last part that causes all the trouble.  We were created as individuals. We may come together (as families, tribes, cities, nations, states, countries etc.) on occasion for a common purpose, but then once that is achieved we go back to being individuals.

So in religion, as individuals, it takes all sorts of different mindsets and beliefs to make us feel good about ourselves.  Some are satisfied with a broad based system of beliefs incorporating the rules of all religions, and then some need a really narrow system of beliefs.  Then everything in between.  Is one right and one wrong - No, what an individual needs to believe is right for that person.

And this is where the problem lies, to feel good/secure about our religious/spiritual system of beliefs the greatest need is to totally think your system is the only correct way to believe. Your belief is the only correct and true way..

And this can be a resourceful tool, the reason God made us this way.  We as individuals usually find it troubling to go out and killing other people by blowing them to little bits, or punching big holes in each other.  So when we as a society feel threatened we can use this "we are right and the other guy is wrong" to gather for a common defense and war against the "wrong doer's" and feel okay about killing others.

However, to temper this from getting out of control, God influenced us put one common thread found in every religion of the present day and all in the past - what we call the doctrine of love - to do unto others.

Among all things this is what God wants us to do the most - and Oh how we fail terribly trying to accomplish it.  The one concept God wishes us to believe the most - we accomplish the least and then to compound this transgression we often use our religion - how we worship God - to justify our actions. 

Really to boil it down more, the one who preached love, compassion, forgiveness, and tolerance the most, Jesus, we use our belief in him to condemn, fight against, name call, make fun of, and hate other to justify the fact that we are right and they are wrong.

To discuss religious concepts is fine, sometimes you find a new/different way of viewing things religiously that you have not considered and you incorporate it into your belief system as an improvement.  For example the "eye for an eye"thing.  Like most I thought it a doctrine of vengeance, however someone told me maybe it was a perception of mercy - if someone takes your eye temper your actions against them to just take an eye back, don't kill them. For me it opened up a new way of looking at things.

But to name call, to act aggressively, to make fun of someone else for how they believe religiously is probably the greatest of all sins.  

For people believe in a certain way because that is what they need to get through the troubles of life, and because they were raised that way through their family and local society.  They can't "help" the way they believe just as someone with a physical deformity can't help the way they look.  And to make fun of, to name call, to claim someone is evil (a instrument of Satan) for their religious beliefs is no different than doing the same to someone that can't help the way they appear.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> If there is truth, and I believe there is, there can be only one truth.  It will not be debatable.  Your truth cannot be different from mine.  Truth is truth.  Either you have it, or you missed it.



Yep. Ravi Zacharias uses the bus argument to defend this. By saying it is not an everyone's correct world. It's an either or. You or the bus may occupy a space but you can't at the same time.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> One can not be Catholic and not in communion with the Pope.
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. The Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded. All others are ecclesiastical communities which we have come to call denominations.



if the RCC is THE Church that Christ started... why isnt the RCC mentioned in the Bible? you cannot find one "Catholic" word in the Bible... dont you think that if Jesus had started the RCC, He would have mentioned the word(s)::   popes, nuns, cardinals, mass, eucharist, magesterium, wafer, transubstantiation, monstrance, lent, infant baptism, papacy, the vicar of Christ, the treasury of merit, mary queen of heaven, purgatory, indulgences, penance, celibacy, etc???  its not there. not one time in the Bible are those words there (in the RCC sense)...  use some common sense here...  God would not spend 1500 years, use 40 writers, write 66 books.. to tell us about the saving blood of Christ and NOT mention any of those RCC words...

THE Church is made up of blood washed born again saints and priests that have been chosen and have responded (effectual calling)...  these saints come from all walks of life, are all ages, are all colors, are in many different churches, but they all have one thing in common, they are chosen and they all call Christ their Savior... they put NO trust in their works, a church, other men, Mary, a wafer or anything else...

there are only 2 kinds of people on this earth... saved and unsaved...  chosen and unchosen, righteous and unrighteous, in the blood and out of the blood, born again and not born again... but there are only 2...  there is only 1 kind of Christian, not 20,000 kinds or denominations... just one, born again and chosen... if a person is not in that group, then they are not a Christian... it does not matter what we call ourselves... we can call ourselves "Christians" all of our lives but if God does not see us as Christians than we aren't... The Bible tells us how to be a Christian... putting our faith in anything other than Jesus and His Word is spiritual suicide...


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> five , your question has set me back on my heels. As I have said before ,my father was a baptist preacher for ever. It has never occurred to me that there could be another goal. Please elaborate.
> Ronnie , does that mean that those who don't believe as you do are not christians? I agree that there can't be but one truth so Ill ask again ... Who ,in this world , can know 100% what truth that is ? Pls don't say it is in the bible .As we all know even those who use the same bible will give you different truths.




The Bible contains truth.  If I believe one concept and you belief in it in another way, at least one of us is wrong.  The truth of the Bible does not change.
You said:  Even those who use the same bible will give you different truths......   Therein lies the problem.  There are not different truth's concerning God's will and God's word.
Who's right?  In most cases, the one who most seeks God's truth rather than their own.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> five , your question has set me back on my heels. As I have said before ,my father was a baptist preacher for ever. It has never occurred to me that there could be another goal. Please elaborate.
> Ronnie , does that mean that those who don't believe as you do are not christians? I agree that there can't be but one truth so Ill ask again ... Who ,in this world , can know 100% what truth that is ? Pls don't say it is in the bible .As we all know even those who use the same bible will give you different truths.



Hey earl, 

I think most Christians would agree, and I doubt I would even get an objection from a Roman Catholic, that the goal of our existence is to glorify God. In other words, He created us for His glory and for His pleasure. Part of our glorification of God is to enjoy Him as well. 

All people are invited to fullfill this. Isn't sin, as we often heard, to fall short of the glory of God? To repent of our sins is to turn away from them, but also to turn to God and glorify Him. 

To answer your question simply on who in the world can know truth 100% is God alone. To know truth 100% would mean to have knowledge of all things in existence, past, present and future. Only God possesses that knowledge. Only God possesses the ability to possess that knowledge. 

And it is entirely possible for God to choose to reveal truth/Himself to mankind. I do not believe a person can know God because they want to and because they try hard. God must reveal Himself if He is to be known. Unless He makes Himself known, no one would know Him. 

If Jesus was God come in the flesh, then there was a Man in the world who knew all things. His origin would not be from man or from the earth. He came from the Father and returned to the Father. If He was/is who He said He was, then what He said and did is of infinite value, and certainly demonstrates that God is both willing and able to make Himself known. 

At the very least, no matter what our upbringing gave us in our impression or knowledge of God, we ought to read and study the life of Jesus. 

One more thing earl, and was mentioned by Ronnie, the same Bible doesn't give different truths. The words do not change from one person to another. It is the reader that is the issue, not the Bible. 

-five


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

I will have to ponder those two responses for a while. Both are food for thought.
Meanwhile I see our friend big10 has given the definitive word on catholics and their place in the unity scheme of things. Always good to hear from some one that 100% knows all the answers.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jan 28, 2009)

Finding truth is easy.

John 8:31-36       31So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you *continue in My word,* then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32and *you will know the truth*, and the truth will make you free."


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I will have to ponder those two responses for a while. Both are food for thought.
> Meanwhile I see our friend big10 has given the definitive word on catholics and their place in the unity scheme of things. Always good to hear from some one that 100% knows all the answers.



He does not even realize he has based all knowledge of the Christian belief system throughout religious history solely on the KJV compiled around 1600AD...."40 writers, write 66 books."

Exclusivism.

Psssst......big 10, there is more out there........


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 28, 2009)

Dixie Dawg said:


> So then it isn't just the belief that Jesus is the only way... you also have to believe he is God.... now you're getting into doctrine


 
True 

but an important one at that.  It's quite a dividing line, no question about it.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> One more thing earl, and was mentioned by Ronnie, the same Bible doesn't give different truths. The words do not change from one person to another. It is the reader that is the issue, not the Bible.
> -five



Ergo the differences in teachings and theology, as popes, religious leaders, priests, clergy, pastors, evangelists, sunday school teachers, deacons, laymen, professors, theologists ARE ALL READERS AND INTERPRETERS!


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

Shhhhh. Don't tell him that , it will excite him.


----------



## Israel (Jan 28, 2009)

StriperAddict said:


> True
> 
> but an important one at that.  It's quite a dividing line, no question about it.



I agree...

But as to the understanding of that...isn't that the "mine" we are supposed to be working in, discovering just how Jesus and the Father are one? 
Isn't that the very source of the unity we are charged not only with maintaining, but also seem to have so many issues about?

John 17: 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

Jesus in the Father...the Father in Jesus...now, not only that, but each believer IS one with each other in the same manner, and all in Jesus and the Father.

I am convinced that as each of us takes our eyes off one another (i.e. "lemme look around and see who agrees with me, and who don't...and then I'll know who I'm in unity with...) and strive to abide in unity with God through Jesus Christ...we will discover in fact what we hold to _by faith_ that there is a whole body in which each has been placed...

I am equally convinced finding the way there is no different in our own experience than it was in Jesus'...or Paul's...or John's...etc...in other words...that faith will be tested.
There will be disagreements, there will be some whose vision exceeds my own (and whom I will mistakenly resist), and each should be just as ready to be resisted...for it is only in the response to being rejected that we prove we are the Sons of God.
Loving those who love us shows nothing.

Makes me think of what Mark Twain was quoted as saying 

"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." 

I can't tell you how much I have been convinced I know better than my Father. But I am saved by the patience he has for me through Christ, in whom he dwells, and in whom he has also invited each of us to abide.

We cannot be brothers apart from being the Lord's brother, first.

Mark 3: 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

There was a time I thought I had to be concerned about who was a "true" brother...and I separated from some that were true, and likewise I believe I received some who were false. But really, that's not the point I am trying to make...although those things have had impact upon my walk...but I believe in thinking that was something that was very important for me "to do"...to make sure I was with the "right" ones...I believe I probably got a bit jammed up (but had to) not knowing that was not really God's will for me.
That part up there:
For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother

I did not grasp too well. 
I see now, that if each of us pays attention to one voice alone...the Masters...we will come to see quite easily we are not alone, we are not the only one who has heard from God (still a pitfall I must assiduously resist), and we will hear him speaking quite plainly through all the parts of the body as he wills. And if there is a time when the Lord needs to reveal the true from the false to us...it will never be a matter of our suspicions...but simple revelation.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Ergo the differences in teachings and theology, as popes, religious leaders, priests, clergy, pastors, evangelists, sunday school teachers, deacons, laymen, professors, theologists ARE ALL READERS AND INTERPRETERS!



None of which are infallible. Ergo, Sola Scriptura.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jan 28, 2009)

Israel, your words are always challenging and reassuring at the same time, no parodox there as far as I'm concerned.  Thanks.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> None of which are infallible. Ergo, Sola Scriptura.



Roman Catholics do not let the reader have the final interpretation. They require authoritarian intepretataion and consider that to be infallible.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> I will have to ponder those two responses for a while. Both are food for thought.
> Meanwhile I see our friend big10 has given the definitive word on catholics and their place in the unity scheme of things. Always good to hear from some one that 100% knows all the answers.



I dont have all the answers, but the Bible does... thanks for calling me a friend... i thought we had some tension... i guess i was wrong...


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> He does not even realize he has based all knowledge of the Christian belief system throughout religious history solely on the KJV compiled around 1600AD...."40 writers, write 66 books."
> 
> Exclusivism.
> 
> Psssst......big 10, there is more out there........



thats not what i said... i use Bible, Scripture and the Word, interchangeably... yes, the Bible was not put together as a whole until long after Christ, but where'd it come from?  from the written manuscripts. where'd those come from? Jesus and the Apostles... where else...? Scripture... where'd that come from? the Word...  where'd the Word come from? it was with God from the beginning...

John 1:1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 

 2The same was in the beginning with God. 

 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 

 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 

 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 

 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 

 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 

 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 

 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 

 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 

 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

so the Bible comes from the Word, which is Jesus...

so you're wrong about me again....


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Odd the name Big10point is not mentioned in the scripture either, why should anyone take your word for it?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> Hey, there it is again....  another fact filled response to my questions...  just so typical of what the Catholic is trained to do by his priest... "if anyone questions our Church... answer their questions with smartelic resonses until they stop asking questions..."
> ...


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

I am still pondering. I have started three different posts and had to erase them. One thing I am sure of is that unity is not an  option.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

Big10point said:


> so you're wrong about me again....



Nah.  I know you are a Christian fundamentalist who only uses the KJV.  Nothing else is considered the true word.
Anything else, even Catholicism is wrong.
Exclusivism.

That's completely OK.  Whatever works for you.


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 28, 2009)

*I'll not let my Protestant brothers take this whipping alone*

I do not Catholic bash.I have seen the way things have gone in the past with Tn Extreme and BMque(however he spelled it) and didn't agree with what they are trying to do.I have been to churches that teach Catholicism and Mormonism as cults.

I'll not lie,certain things in their doctrines give me serious pause.I'll stop far short of saying they aren't saved.I don't know their hearts.

That said,once more...for me,for unity...

Virgin birth,Death/sacrifice,resurrection,repentance,Baptism and Grace.


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

That's OK too, MM!  It works for you!

It is still exclusivism, even if it is found within the Christian belief system.  Protestants and Catholics both believe their way is the only way, expecially in comparison to other religious beliefs like Islam.
That's probably as close to "unity" as it will ever get.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

What brother is taking a whipping in this discussion ? Thats a heck of a qualifier you have on unity. The original question was about unity of religion. Not of your particular belief or that of your protestant brothers. The attitude of ,my way or the highway, is certainly not a unifying one. This was ,I repeat ,was a civilized discussion with what I felt was an open hearted repore. To come rushing in proclaiming that you have all the answers in one short sentence is rather  high and mighty of you. I am happy that you are strong  in your beliefs ,but from your last few posts you have a chip or terrible burden on your shoulders. When you get to heaven I hope you are not the one saying ,but I thought thats what you meant.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Nah.  I know you are a Christian fundamentalist who only uses the KJV.  Nothing else is considered the true word.
> Anything else, even Catholicism is wrong.
> Exclusivism.
> 
> That's completely OK.  Whatever works for you.



i'm asking b/c i dont know the answer... but is "exclusivism
" a bad thing...?

i have never looked at myself as being an "exclusivist"  (is that a word?)...  

wouldnt God be an "exclusivist" too?  He gaves us 1 way to heaven (Jesus) and not 1000 ways...  He says that you have to go thru Jesus into heaven or else you're a thief and a robber... we cant get there any other way...  He says that if you're not bloodwashed,... you're not getting into heaven....  that seems more "exclusive" than anything....


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

Big10point said:


> i'm asking b/c i dont know the answer... but is "exclusivism
> " a bad thing...?
> 
> i have never looked at myself as being an "exclusivist"  (is that a word?)...
> ...



This article states it much better than I can.  I know most fundamentalists will not like the topic or the link, but it will make you think.

Your faith is yours alone. 

http://www.questioningchristian.com...ivism-is-fading-away---no-surprise-there.html


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 28, 2009)

*It ain't this discussion Earl*



earl said:


> What brother is taking a whipping in this discussion ? Thats a heck of a qualifier you have on unity. The original question was about unity of religion. Not of your particular belief or that of your protestant brothers. The attitude of ,my way or the highway, is certainly not a unifying one. This was ,I repeat ,was a civilized discussion with what I felt was an open hearted repore. To come rushing in proclaiming that you have all the answers in one short sentence is rather  high and mighty of you. I am happy that you are strong  in your beliefs ,but from your last few posts you have a chip or terrible burden on your shoulders. When you get to heaven I hope you are not the one saying ,but I thought thats what you meant.



It's life(and this board..)

What you are missing is I'm saying all who believe what's commonly taught as the "Roman road" are in unity.Christians.

The "whipping" part comes from the common differences in Catholic(particularly RCC) and protestant beliefs....

I'm saying I'm Protestant and don't believe everything doctrinely the RCC teaches and am well aware they feel the same toward me.The thing is I wouldn't dare take it so far as to say they aren't saved and due to the way these conversations tend to go.......

So I'm throwing my lot in with the Protestants.

WTM45 I know you think it exclusive"ism",but to me it's a pretty broad way to the narrow path...In other words,I believe there is plenty wiggle room on many issues,but not the way to a personal relationship with God.

I can give you my reasons for believing as I do about creation and the Earths age,or how all the animals got on the ark,so forth and so on.I don't see those as salvation breakers or non-unifying,just differences in interpretation or spiritual maturity...

But to me,if the Roman road is the basis to the plan of salvation in their doctrine,the rest is just details...


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> WTM45 I know you think it exclusive"ism",but to me it's a pretty broad way to the narrow path...In other words,I believe there is plenty wiggle room on many issues,but not the way to a personal relationship with God.



Understood, and I respect your view.  Grew up hearing that for many, many years.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> What brother is taking a whipping in this discussion ? Thats a heck of a qualifier you have on unity. The original question was about unity of religion. Not of your particular belief or that of your protestant brothers. The attitude of ,my way or the highway, is certainly not a unifying one. This was ,I repeat ,was a civilized discussion with what I felt was an open hearted repore. To come rushing in proclaiming that you have all the answers in one short sentence is rather  high and mighty of you. I am happy that you are strong  in your beliefs ,but from your last few posts you have a chip or terrible burden on your shoulders. When you get to heaven I hope you are not the one saying ,but I thought thats what you meant.



who's taking that "whipping"...???  I AM I AM...       earl, i have no answers myself... but God gives us all of the answers and they are in the Bible...  all we have to do is look for them based on what God wants and not us... ex. for 30 years i called my priest (holy) father...  unbeknownst to me... that was against God's will...  "Call no man (holy) father..." - Jesus.
nobody should call another sinful man (holy) father... Jesus said Dont!  so i dont do it anymore... i was using my "answers" and my own religion to get to God and it was all wrong... i formulated an opinion of religion and God and twisted and turned the Bible to fit my religion... that doesnt work... its called idolatry....  i now read the Bible and allow the HS to tell me what it means and how to use it... if you havent noticed that i back up my opinions with Scripture, all the time.... i dont want my mind or my wisdom... my mind and my wisdom is corrupt... i want the mind of God only... God made Solomon rich because he did not ask to be rich but to be wise....  therefore solomon got rich and wise...  i really do want the mind of Christ... what an amazing way to live a carnal natural life... to have the mind of Christ... i cannnot wait to get there...


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> This article states it much better than I can.  I know most fundamentalists will not like the topic or the link, but it will make you think.
> 
> Your faith is yours alone.
> 
> http://www.questioningchristian.com...ivism-is-fading-away---no-surprise-there.html



i loved this article... it explains exclusivism very well and amde me understand that i want to be in that small remnant church that Jesus promised heaven...

one thing that did catch my eye was this:      _ Bottom line:  It's simply not credible for Christian exclusivists to claim that accepting Jesus is even a guaranteed path to eternal happiness, let alone that it's the only path.  Unless exclusivists can come up with plausible support for their claim, they will end up in the same position as the odd millennialist who proclaims that The End Is Near. _

all i can say is wow!  if this guy is a Christian and he wrote that...? wow... its not credible for Christians to claim that accepting Jesus is a guaranteed path to heaven????

Jesus guaranteed eternal life... and thats all the credible proof that i need...

_Unless exclusivists can come up with plausible support for their claim, they will end up in the same position as the odd millennialist who proclaims that The End Is Near._

amazing! i do believe that the Word of God is more than enough support to prove that Jesus promised eternal life...


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

There is no proof that is indeed what will happen.  Fact.
No one alive on this earth right now can confirm that.

That's where faith takes over.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 28, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> There is no proof that is indeed what will happen.  Fact.
> No one alive on this earth right now can confirm that.
> 
> That's where faith takes over.



what about Lazarus? Elijah and the other saints who went to heaven and then came back down to show themselves... The rich man in helll begged lazarus for help... they were across the divide from each other and could not go back and forth...  what about all of the documented angles who come down out of heaven and do things here on earth as God commands...?  is none of that proof.  what is comming to mind now, is the verse that says... "without faith, it is impossible to please the Lord..."


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 28, 2009)

Like I said, faith has to take over.  That is a very personal thing.

We have the written record of the events, but no eyewitnesses are alive today.  Therefore, it has to be accepted through faith.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 28, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I haven't looked up all verses, but please highlight the one (or more) that teaches me that unless I have complete doctrinal agreement, then I cannot have or do not have unity with other Christians.
> -five



Easy...

The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes: 

1 Cor. 1:10. I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfect in mind and in the same judgement. 

There is, then, no place for "pick and choose" in the truths proposed to the Faith of Christians by the Infallible Teaching Church for they are bound in Heaven by God Himself. If something is decreed on earth and is also bound in Heaven, that thing must be the truth. Otherwise, God is no longer the Truth, which is contrary to the Gospel: 

Matthew 16:19. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

Big7 said:


> Easy...
> 
> The Christian is called to adhere to Christ and His teaching integrally; the unity of faith is the dominant motif of divine revelation on which St. Paul insists energetically, when he writes:
> 
> ...



This didn't address Romans 14. However, what is described here is the case in my church. 

-five


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

Big10point said:


> Dominic said:
> 
> 
> > Odd the name Big10point is not mentioned in the scripture either, why should anyone take your word for it?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

> Big10Pt- That really hurts your cause.



This sentiment is akin (to me) as saying that preaching the Gospel hurts the cause of Christ.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

big10, I gotta cry foul on post 87. In another thread you were pretty specific about angels being devils work or some thing to that effect. They were idols in catholic homes ,etc. Now you like them ? I dont think you are taking a whipping on this thread ,however  I think you should be a little more consistant  if you are going to be so zealous in your proclamation of faith..Also martyrdom doesn't suit you.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

The last few posts are great statements of your own partigular beliefs but once again unity of religion is not in the cards.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> big10, I gotta cry foul on post 87. In another thread you were pretty specific about angels being devils work or some thing to that effect. They were idols in catholic homes ,etc. Now you like them ? I dont think you are taking a whipping on this thread ,however  I think you should be a little more consistant  if you are going to be so zealous in your proclamation of faith..Also martyrdom doesn't suit you.



I think you misunderstood him. The Scripture speaks of satan transforming himself into an angel of light. 

The Scripture also speaks of angels of God being used of God to accomplish His purposes. 

The Scripture also says that if an angel of heaven preached another Gospel than that of the apostles, let him be accursed.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

earl said:


> The last few posts are great statements of your own partigular beliefs but once again unity of religion is not in the cards.



If by unity of religion you mean between religions that worship different gods, then of course. But if you mean Christian unity between denominations then I disagree.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> This sentiment is akin (to me) as saying that preaching the Gospel hurts the cause of Christ.



No. It isn't even close. You guys take the whole of the Catholic Church and say they are not Christian. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.

You reject so many things without thinking it thru. Catholics are Christian. Without the Catholic Church we don't have Christianity today. Not unless you invent something else to take it's place. Is it wrong and imperfect? YES! Is your church wrong and imperfect in some sense? YES! Churches are full of men. No doubt it is going to be imperfect. But that does not mean that every Catholic is a devil worshipper or worships the Pope or anything else you can throw at them.

Saying stuff like that hurts the arguments you make and even if you were correct how are you going to convince a Catholic that you are when you are so blatantly beating them over the head with everything you can grab? Why would they listen to you?

And remember I am in no way Catholic but this truly offends me. I do share some views with the Catholic church. I also share some views with the Baptists, Presbyterians, CofC (thanks to RonnieT and his brother), Methodists, and even the Jews.

I KNOW where my faith comes from. I know that Jesus Christ is the one and only true Son of God. The Godman. Immanuel. The Messiah. The way. The Truth. The light. And that no man will come to the father but thru him. So please no comments about how misguided I am in this regard.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 28, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. It isn't even close. You guys take the whole of the Catholic Church and say they are not Christian. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.
> 
> You reject so many things without thinking it thru. Catholics are Christian. Without the Catholic Church we don't have Christianity today. Not unless you invent something else to take it's place. Is it wrong and imperfect? YES! Is your church wrong and imperfect in some sense? YES! Churches are full of men. No doubt it is going to be imperfect. But that does not mean that every Catholic is a devil worshipper or worships the Pope or anything else you can throw at them.
> 
> ...



To say that to refute Roman Catholicism hurts the cause of Christ is to deny the Reformation had any affect. It just doesn't make sense to me. 

How am I "beating a catholic over the head" ?? lol Because I say that I believe his/her church is teaching another Gospel? This was the message and is the message of the Reformation. 

You also overstated both my (and I believe) big10's position. I have not read that either of us said the whole Roman Catholic church is not Christian. I am sure God in His sovereignty has saved many Roman Catholics. But I believe He has done so in spite of Roman Catholic teaching. 

I have no issue or beef with any roman catholic person in particular. It is the doctrine of that church that I believe is opposed to the doctrine of Holy Scripture. 

When have I ever said Roman Catholics were devil worshippers? I have personally seen Roman Catholics bow reverently before statues, bow their head and pray to the pope, and worship the wafer. The Bible teaches me this is idolatry and I think it very loving to warn others that it is. 

Now to be a little blunt, I have too much respect for the truth to suppose God left the world with a buffet of religion to choose from. lol It's His way or the way none of us want to go. We can cry exclusivism all day long...but I ain't arguing with the King. 

-five


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> To say that to refute Roman Catholicism hurts the cause of Christ is to deny the Reformation had any affect. It just doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> How am I "beating a catholic over the head" ?? lol Because I say that I believe his/her church is teaching another Gospel? This was the message and is the message of the Reformation.
> 
> ...



What's the difference between idolatry and worshipping the Pope and Devil worship???

You may pick specific parts of the doctrine and have a argument to back it up. but that isn't what has happened here or on many threads that this has come up in.

You have not lovingly corrected a fellow Christian. You have treated them as an unbeliever. There is a difference. 

And actually I may have included you unfairly in the unchristian in the WHOLE church comment. Big10 continually states he was catholic then became a Christian. Not hard to read that.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 28, 2009)

Oh and in the 99 thesis Luther was railing against indulgences and other specific points. Luther wanted to reform the Church. As a whole.


----------



## earl (Jan 28, 2009)

I mean unity between religions that worship god, not different gods. The current discussion involving catholics is a good example. I think they do worship the christian god but some on here disagree emphatically. One reason I vote no unity.
As far as crying foul goes , I went back and looked at that thread and I will stand by what  I said. Thanks any way.


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 29, 2009)

I have never understood why the Conservative born againer Christian hates the Catholic church so much.  98% of what the born againer believes comes straight out of the Catholic Catechism of Faith which was written by and revised by various Popes.


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 29, 2009)

I have stayed out of this one pretty much because the verse that started this long thread is used by many to prove they have the corner on the "we are right and that means your church/group/belief is not" market, but you are so right Celtic  

In another thread I mentioned how surprised I was to find real, honest Christian folk in the Catholic church... they are a strong, God fearing church. The Catholic church has many things I am just not as in tune with as some are, and its ok because so does every other church I have been to! 

If we study Peter and his young church and Paul and his followers we can clearly see the beginnings of both the Catholic movement and the non-Catholics.... one group was sure the Jewish Law had to be obeyed, right down to circumcision and eating habits! Remember the verses about the sheet full of unclean animals that was in a dream of Peter?  That isn't there to just realize Peter could dream in his sleep  

And Paul, who was just as sure that the Jewish Law did not have to be obeyed, and he was a former Pharisee, which meant he had been brought up knowing the OT Law very well!! But he knew it did not have saving power... 



> Galatians 2:
> 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
> 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
> 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
> ...


 





> You reject so many things without thinking it thru. Catholics are Christian. Without the Catholic Church we don't have Christianity today. Not unless you invent something else to take it's place. Is it wrong and imperfect? YES! Is your church wrong and imperfect in some sense? YES! Churches are full of men. No doubt it is going to be imperfect. But that does not mean that every Catholic is a devil worshipper or worships the Pope or anything else you can throw at them.
> 
> Saying stuff like that hurts the arguments you make and even if you were correct how are you going to convince a Catholic that you are when you are so blatantly beating them over the head with everything you can grab? Why would they listen to you?
> 
> ...


----------



## Israel (Jan 29, 2009)

Big10point said:


> i loved this article... it explains exclusivism very well and amde me understand that i want to be in that small remnant church that Jesus promised heaven...
> 
> one thing that did catch my eye was this:      _ Bottom line:  It's simply not credible for Christian exclusivists to claim that accepting Jesus is even a guaranteed path to eternal happiness, let alone that it's the only path.  Unless exclusivists can come up with plausible support for their claim, they will end up in the same position as the odd millennialist who proclaims that The End Is Near. _
> 
> ...



Now I really am confused...I guess I am both an exclusivist and an odd millenialist...and I am despondent over not being able to find that scripture  that says "and they were first called exclusivists and odd millenialists at Antioch"


I wonder if we see the difference between "I know the only way"....and "he alone is the way"...now they may sometimes even be packaged precisely the same, but the one who has had his senses exercised to discern may well be able to taste the difference.

A man may say "Jesus is the only way", yet I do not hear the Father speaking...I hear the self being exalted.

Another may say it, and I see the Lord's work in bringing that one to a point where the unsaid corollary is "and I have learned it has nothing to do with me"...meaning simply...Jesus is Lord, not because I say so, not because I make him so...but God has been gracious enough to open my eyes to that truth.

I cannot explain this work...except I believe sometimes the Lord lets us taste our own fruit. There is nothing more easily temptable, nor dangerous to the soul of a disciple than to allow himself to think his/her knowledge of God...makes him/her "anything".

As Paul asked the church "What do you have that you have not received? And if you have received it, why do you act as though you didn't"

"what? has the Word of God originated with you, or come only to you?"

Now, I believe I understand why this is so. But nevertheless, because of its power we need great grace to resist the temptation to believe the ability to hear and see are because of our great ears and eyes.

When one receives revelation, it is always intensely personal...the light from the spirit floods the soul so exquisitely and sublimely, the Lord's touch is so deep and stirring as to lift us to that place where we begin to feel we have x-ray eyes.
Sometimes the clarity of certain matters is so overwhelming we begin to wonder if anyone else has seen things this way... and just as bad, looking around and seeing many carrying on in what we consider the "same old way" wonder if anyone else at all _is_ involved with receiving revelation. 
It's very much like the experience of first love...we are convinced no one has ever known love like this, not our friends, certainly not our parents (unless we have had the rarest and most singularly devout of those)...and we are more than willing to believe we now know all about love there is to know.
We simply laugh at folks that tell us this is an "infatuation"... how could they know? 
It's easy to develop a condescending attitude.
But Jesus is not like that...and he will work to bring us into conformity of who he is...and leave the chaff behind.


So anyway, having said all that to say this...are there really folks out there that do not believe the end is near?

If Peter saw it, John clearly saw it and wrote a whole book about what he saw of the "end", Paul saw it, maybe the reason we are not seeing it is for some reason what is passing away is seeming more real in our minds than what(Who) is coming?
I was blessed to know a brother "in the body" who simply brought me to understand some of the meaning of this verse when he simply stated the meaning of "Behold"...it means "See"...and in this verse is used as an instruction ...and also has within it the very power (as do all of Jesus' instructions) to bring it to pass if we but believe it...

"Behold, I come quickly"

If we believe it, we see it. If we are not seeing it, it is because we do not believe it...
and I here say, it is no less important to believe this (and no less wonderful) than to believe the word of the same one who says
"I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me"


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

Israel, You make a great point with your statement that is Jesus is the only way and I know the only way. 

Christians can reasonably disagree on many things as long as our statement of faith is "Jesus us the only Son of God, Was Crucified, Died, and was Buried. On the 3rd day rose again and ascended into heaven. He sitteth at the right hand of the Father. The triune God. One sacrifice (Jesus on the cross) for the forgiveness of sins."

There are a few other items but you get the drift. As long as we believe this whether anyone admits it or not the rest is theology and can be discussed and disagreed upon. That statement is bedrock and is salvation. Christ did not say if you believe in infant baptism or Transubstantiation or dispensationalism.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Exactly.  Some fail to grasp that concept.



I can't let this go, Dawg......

Would you worship in a Protestant church that understood it was "all about Jesus?"


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Explain the conflict of creation order in Genesis if you use Sola Scriptura?



easy... Well.... Uh..... MMMMMM.....


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Some people like Ford, some like Chevrolet.
> 
> Some people shoot deer in the neck, some in the shoulder.
> 
> ...



I can't look at it like this but... I am not willing to dismiss all of the Catholic Church. We should learn and study and most have not done that with the RC. It's far more along the lines of them being trained by a pastor somewhere and simply repeating it than knowledge.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Then that would have been the death of Christianity.  In fact, your bible and a great percentage of what you believe is in fact due to the successors, like it or not.



Implicit in your reply:

1. Apostolic Succession is the cause of the perpetuation of the Christian Church. 

2. It's not Jesus who builds His Church.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Explain the conflict of creation order in Genesis if you use Sola Scriptura?



Present the conflict and I will respond to it. Also, what is your understand of Sola Scriptura?


----------



## Big10point (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. It isn't even close. You guys take the whole of the Catholic Church and say they are not Christian. THAT SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE.
> 
> You reject so many things without thinking it thru. Catholics are Christian. Without the Catholic Church we don't have Christianity today. Not unless you invent something else to take it's place. Is it wrong and imperfect? YES! Is your church wrong and imperfect in some sense? YES! Churches are full of men. No doubt it is going to be imperfect. But that does not mean that every Catholic is a devil worshipper or worships the Pope or anything else you can throw at them.
> 
> ...



fisherman, it is because of the RCC that we almost didn't have Bible Christianity today. history is quite clear... the RCC burned millions of Bibles to keep people from getting to the Word... they persecuted millions of Bible Believers just for not bowing the knee to the pope...  if anything, Christianity has suffered tremendously due to the RCC...  Remember Hitler...?  had the USA not stepped in, we'd all be speaking German or Italian... the history books prove the same about the RCC...   If it were'nt for the great Bible Believers, that existed thru out the centures (Huss, Rogers, Luther, Wyclife and the millions who stepped up for the Bible), then we would ALL be in a state run church with Benedict as the head... i'm sorry, Jesus is the head of me and my church...  

i promise you, if you will study the history of the church, you will see that the RCC almost killed Christianity.
if you'er willing to take the time, i can assure you, you will be amazed at what you learn about the early church... the link below is a great source...

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?keyword=threads


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Actually, implicit in my reply:
> Through Apostolic succession, Jesus builds his church.  (In case you skipped over the part in the Bible where Jesus left around 33A.D.)



Have you guys been left as orphans? 

We bible-believers haven't...

“If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you."  John 14:15-18

It says, 

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Matt 16:18

I missed the part where it says, "I through apostolic succession will build my church..." 

-five


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Genesis 1 & 2 have clear conflicts of order.  I am disappointed in you.  You claim to be well versed in the Bible, but are not even familiar with Genseis.



You assumed a conflict without explaining it and then asked me to defend it. lol 

So, either you can or cannot present the conflict. You want me to do your homework for you too? lol


----------



## Big10point (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Not according to them, but yes, it does.



ok, please prove to us that 98% of what a Bible Believer believes come from the RC caetchism... that is absurd to say the least.  the RC catechism is a book dedicated to Mary... yes, some of the catechism looks similar to Scripture but most contradicts Scripture...  ex. the Bible says we are saved thru faith in Christ ALONE and not in our works lest any man should boast...  yet your books says, "if any man says that salvation comes thru Christ alone and does not need the Church and its sacraments...", let him be anathema...  this is the heart of the Gospel and they are diametrically opposed....

its ludicrous (not the singer) to say that our faith has anything to do with what is in that book. over 30% of your catechism is about Mary...  Mary is of little significance to the Bible Bleliever...  absurd, crazy, nuts and pure wacko to say that Bible Believers take anything from the catechism...


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Could you please give the paragraph number of this statement in the Catechism?
> 
> 
> Or if you could please locate the word anathema in the Catechism?



I would say it is not in the catechism but in canon law. 

The catechism confuses justification with sanctification.


----------



## GA1dad (Jan 29, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> Where is the oneness in this world of religion? Where is the unity?





Are you willing to seek unity??? Even with the Jewish faith??? Would you be willing to discuss God without referring to Jesus?? And Muslams,, buddists,,, Or does your question only go out to Christ Worshipers?



Without seeking and accepting the common good in "all" religions,,,, then religious unity is not really being sought, is it?


----------



## GA1dad (Jan 29, 2009)

Big10point said:


> fisherman, it is because of the RCC that we almost didn't have Bible Christianity today. history is quite clear... the RCC burned millions of Bibles to keep people from getting to the Word... they persecuted millions of Bible Believers just for not bowing the knee to the pope...  if anything, Christianity has suffered tremendously due to the RCC...  Remember Hitler...?  had the USA not stepped in, we'd all be speaking German or Italian... the history books prove the same about the RCC...   If it were'nt for the great Bible Believers, that existed thru out the centures (Huss, Rogers, Luther, Wyclife and the millions who stepped up for the Bible), then we would ALL be in a state run church with Benedict as the head... i'm sorry, Jesus is the head of me and my church...
> 
> i promise you, if you will study the history of the church, you will see that the RCC almost killed Christianity.
> if you'er willing to take the time, i can assure you, you will be amazed at what you learn about the early church... the link below is a great source...
> ...




But Christians are not blameless in this type of action either. If history books are correct,,,,,, Baptists fought to exclude  "Freedom Of Religion" in our Bill Of Rights. They wanted "one religion" in our newly formed country,,,,,,, Baptists,,,,,,, period.

I wish I could remember where I was reading this,,,,,,,, I'm sorry I have nothing to quote from specifically. Maybe someone else is familiar with this bit of history?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Then could you locate these in Canon Law
> 
> http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM



By Canon Law I meant the Council of Trent. My mistake, but no need to split hairs over this. It is the doctrine of Rome: 

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that by the said sacraments of the New Law grace is not conferred through the act performed, but that faith alone in the divine promise suffices for the obtaining of grace; let him be anathema. 
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

I could not find the Council of Trents Canons and Decrees on the Vatican's website.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

GA1dad said:


> But Christians are not blameless in this type of action either. If history books are correct,,,,,, Baptists fought to exclude  "Freedom Of Religion" in our Bill Of Rights. They wanted "one religion" in our newly formed country,,,,,,, Baptists,,,,,,, period.



Actually, that is false. I can show how Baptists fought FOR separation of Church and State, and that was from Protestants in America that were taxing Baptists to build their own churches. Baptists refused to pay the tax and were jailed, beaten, had their possesions confiscated, et. 

Isaac Backus was a forerunner of that legislation in the US.


----------



## GA1dad (Jan 29, 2009)

Thank You Five,,,,,,,, now I'm off to find where I was reading about it.


----------



## earl (Jan 29, 2009)

five , you have shown an old dog some thing new !Being raised on helllfire and brimstone from infancy ,it never occurred ,or was taught , to me the way you put it. It was always , you are the lowest of the low and you are going to die and burn forever in a lake of fire if you dont do this.  Amazing what can be learned on a forum where you don't belong and are made unwelcome by some. Thank you for this new ,to me, and refreshing point of view.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

earl said:


> five , you have shown an old dog some thing new !Being raised on helllfire and brimstone from infancy ,it never occurred ,or was taught , to me the way you put it. It was always , you are the lowest of the low and you are going to die and burn forever in a lake of fire if you dont do this.  Amazing what can be learned on a forum where you don't belong and are made unwelcome by some. Thank you for this new ,to me, and refreshing point of view.



I appreciate that earl. Perhaps we could get together and kill something together. lol 

big10 and I are going scouting this saturday for Turkey and Deer season and see if we can get a few squirrels while we are at it. We are also going to look for hog tracks. Who knows...


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

GA1dad said:


> Thank You Five,,,,,,,, now I'm off to find where I was reading about it.



I would be very interested in what you find because I am not aware of any Baptist group trying to make a "Baptist-state." It has been my understanding that it has been "very Baptist" to advocate separation of church and state. Of course, my knowledge may not be complete...so please share with me what you find. 

God bless, 
-five


----------



## GA1dad (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Actually, that is false. I can show how Baptists fought FOR separation of Church and State, and that was from Protestants in America that were taxing Baptists to build their own churches. Baptists refused to pay the tax and were jailed, beaten, had their possesions confiscated, et.
> 
> Isaac Backus was a forerunner of that legislation in the US.




Perhaps I have mis-remembered my reading. A quick search has only yeilded one mention of Baptist opposition. And it really wasn't historically quotable.

Basically, Baptist rallied for an established "governmental" religion, and that the religion should be Baptist. And that the reason they opposed the First Ammendment was not the freedom "of" religion part,,,,,, but the freedom "from" religion that bothered them.

I'm gonna keep digging and see if I can find something historically quotable.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> But there is a need and there is a difference between the Council of Trent and the Code of Canon Law.
> 
> Just so we understand that anathema due to its rarity of use is no longer part of Church Law and is no where in the CIC.
> 
> ...



Thanks. I would look closer at the differences between the code of canon law, and the canons and decrees of Trent to ensure . 

Glad to see that I am no longer under an anathema. Not that is mattered much anyway. lol


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

Big10point said:


> fisherman, it is because of the RCC that we almost didn't have Bible Christianity today. history is quite clear... the RCC burned millions of Bibles to keep people from getting to the Word... they persecuted millions of Bible Believers just for not bowing the knee to the pope...  if anything, Christianity has suffered tremendously due to the RCC...  Remember Hitler...?  had the USA not stepped in, we'd all be speaking German or Italian... the history books prove the same about the RCC...   If it were'nt for the great Bible Believers, that existed thru out the centures (Huss, Rogers, Luther, Wyclife and the millions who stepped up for the Bible), then we would ALL be in a state run church with Benedict as the head... i'm sorry, Jesus is the head of me and my church...
> 
> i promise you, if you will study the history of the church, you will see that the RCC almost killed Christianity.
> if you'er willing to take the time, i can assure you, you will be amazed at what you learn about the early church... the link below is a great source...
> ...


I've taken the time. I HAVE TAKEN A LOT OF TIME! I grew up just like most others on here believing all kinds of crap about Catholics. Shoot I only knew 2 for the first 21 yrs of my life. In the last 13 though I got into studying not only it but our Christian heritage and where these ideas come from. Including the anti-catholic attitude that is so prevalent in this area. Mainly inland Ga and Alabama and Tenn. The bible belt and the buckle of it.

The Catholic Church is not responsible for Hitler. The Enlightenment is. Eugenics. Atheism and Agnosticism is. Has the Catholic Church ventured to far into the worldly views with empires and declaring wars and crusades. Yes. Have the Protestants blown the ideas of the RCC WAYYYYYY out of proportion and to which there is no resemblance to Catholic doctrine. YES!

Did the Catholics get so entrenched that we HAD to have the Reformation? YES! But remember Luther wanted to REFORM the church. He saw specific issues to fix. Priestly classes. Indulgences. Total control of the Pope. 

Now you agree and pursue the ideas of John Calvin far more than you realize. He believed the Pope was the anti-christ. 

My biggest point of contention is with saying stuff like Catholics are not Christian. If you want to pick on doctrine that's fine. But that is a lack of sincerity.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> You assumed a conflict without explaining it and then asked me to defend it. lol
> 
> So, either you can or cannot present the conflict. You want me to do your homework for you too? lol



Genesis has both creation events in it. A God created the heavens and earth and all mankind then goes onto the second creation explanation. The 7 days. Which a lot of Jewish scholars believe is a poetic explanation of the event. In other words to satisfy more fully the needs of men.


----------



## Banjo (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Sure.  I have attended services in Protestant Churches.  I have no problem with that.  But I can tell you and I mean no affront with this comment, something is missing for me there.  I don't know what it is, but something is missing.



As long as it's not Jesus...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Actually, that is false. I can show how Baptists fought FOR separation of Church and State, and that was from Protestants in America that were taxing Baptists to build their own churches. Baptists refused to pay the tax and were jailed, beaten, had their possesions confiscated, et.
> 
> Isaac Backus was a forerunner of that legislation in the US.



Ahhhhhh. The good ol' days!


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

GA1dad said:


> Perhaps I have mis-remembered my reading. A quick search has only yeilded one mention of Baptist opposition. And it really wasn't historically quotable.
> 
> Basically, Baptist rallied for an established "governmental" religion, and that the religion should be Baptist. And that the reason they opposed the First Ammendment was not the freedom "of" religion part,,,,,, but the freedom "from" religion that bothered them.
> 
> I'm gonna keep digging and see if I can find something historically quotable.



Check out this article. Seems pretty well sourced to me..

http://www.reformedreader.org/americanbaptists.htm


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I would say it is not in the catechism but in canon law.
> 
> The catechism confuses justification with sanctification.



Sorry not there either.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Ahhhhhh. The good ol' days!



No worries, I'm sure they will figure out a way to come after us again...'cept now many of us Baptist are more reformed, so we shoot back.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> This didn't address Romans 14. However, what is described here is the case in my church.
> 
> -five



What verse(s) would you like to see addressed?


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Roman Catholics do not let the reader have the final interpretation. They require authoritarian intepretataion and consider that to be infallible.



That's the way it was intended to be.
(we will get to that later)

Now is the later.

Ultimately, we believe in the authority of the universal and historical Christian community to guide our interpretation of the Bible. We do not believe in reading the Bible "alone," but with the consensus of the Church of Christ, the same Church founded by the apostles, and the same Church that chose which books make up the modern Bible. Thus Catholics certainly do believe the Bible, and Catholics are encouraged to read it often and follow the teachings of Jesus contained within.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> What verse(s) would you like to see addressed?



1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 

 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 

 3Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 

 4Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 

 5One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 

 6He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. 

 7For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. 

 8For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. 

 9For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. 

 10But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 

 11For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. 

 12So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. 

 13Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way. 

 14I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 

 15But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. 

 16Let not then your good be evil spoken of: 

 17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Sorry not there either.



What do you mean? The RCC catechism speaks on both justification and sanctification.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> This sentiment is akin (to me) as saying that preaching the Gospel hurts the cause of Christ.



It does, when a lot, particularly on this forum,
have absolutely NO IDEA what the Bible even says,
let alone how it was translated and by whom.

With over 35,000 denominations, most claiming to use the Bible as the sole authority, obviously the Bible says quite a lot of different and conflicting things to different groups. The Bible was not written as a "how-to" guide. It is a collection of books from different cultures, time-periods, and authors (although God is the ultimate author). It is not "self-interpreting," as evidenced by the large number of disagreeing denominations claiming to simply "believe the Bible." This means that the phrase "believing the Bible" presents many problems, because so many groups claim to "believe the Bible," yet they usually don't agree on what the Bible actually says!


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Genesis has both creation events in it. A God created the heavens and earth and all mankind then goes onto the second creation explanation. The 7 days. Which a lot of Jewish scholars believe is a poetic explanation of the event. In other words to satisfy more fully the needs of men.



Where is the conflict?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> It does, when a lot, particularly on this forum,
> have absolutely NO IDEA what the Bible even says,
> let alone how it was translated and by whom.
> 
> With over 35,000 denominations, most claiming to use the Bible as the sole authority, obviously the Bible says quite a lot of different and conflicting things to different groups. The Bible was not written as a "how-to" guide. It is a collection of books from different cultures, time-periods, and authors (although God is the ultimate author). It is not "self-interpreting," as evidenced by the large number of disagreeing denominations claiming to simply "believe the Bible." This means that the phrase "believing the Bible" presents many problems, because so many groups claim to "believe the Bible," yet they usually don't agree on what the Bible actually says!



The 35 billions  of denominations argument is getting so old..honestly, it's boring. Popes, councils, priests, et. have no more unity that what they claim is disunity in non-roman catholic churches. 

The so-called ecclesiastical infallibility doesn't hold water with the reality of what has happened and does happen within the RCC. 

Next..

Now, answer some questions if you will...

1. Are the NT Scriptures themselves infallible and accurate to the Apostle's teaching? 
2. Where those who heard them and read their letters able to understand them? 
3. If they were able to understand the Apostle's own teaching, why can we not understand them? Why do I need a Roman Catholic magesterium, priest, et. to tell me what the Apostle's themselves plainly taught?


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

JuliaH said:


> In another thread I mentioned how surprised I was to find real, honest Christian folk in the Catholic church...



Really?


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The 35 billions  of denominations argument is getting so old..honestly, it's boring. Popes, councils, priests, et. have no more unity that what they claim is disunity in non-roman catholic churches.
> 
> The so-called ecclesiastical infallibility doesn't hold water with the reality of what has happened and does happen within the RCC.
> 
> Next..



The Bible Believing bashing crowd is getting REALLY OLD.
I can't help it if you find the truth offensive.

To start with, we wish to gently remind our "friends" that it was the Church that actually wrote and compiled the Bible. In the earliest centuries AD there were hundreds of gospels floating around. It took the Church over 600 years to fully agree on the current canon of Scripture, that is those books which were defined as divinely inspired. In the first and early second centuries AD, there was no universally defined canon of Scripture, although by the 2nd and 3rd centuries, most of the books in our current Bible were generally universally accepted throughout the Christian world, although 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation were still disputed. Obviously, the Bible did not fall from the sky "as is"; the Church Fathers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) decided which books were to be included, and which were spurious.

As I have asked many times:
Where do all you "Bible Believers think the Bible
came from?


----------



## matthewsman (Jan 29, 2009)

*hmmn*



Big7 said:


> Really?



I don't think shewas being insulting,she's Catholic too if I remember correctly,converted...A lot of folks down here are taught Catholicism is a cult,like the moonies or whatever..she,like me,learned differently than what we were taught


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Where is the conflict?



I'm an old earth person. I see a conflict. Where don't you?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> I don't think shewas being insulting,she's Catholic too if I remember correctly,converted...A lot of folks down here are taught Catholicism is a cult,like the moonies or whatever..she,like me,learned differently than what we were taught



Amen.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

AND -

Typically, when most people ask if one "believes the Bible," that person means "do you believe the Bible as I interpret it?" Obviously, if both the more progressive United Church of Christ and the conservative Southern Baptist church both claim to "believe the Bible," interpretation matters immensely. If you look at Catholic and Orthodox worship services, the writings of the Church Fathers, the Medieval theologians, and the other sources of Catholic Christianity, you will find that we take Scripture very seriously. In fact, if we did not have any copies of the Bible today, we could piece together over 95% of the Bible simply by using quotations from the Church Fathers. So while Catholics do not interpret the Bible in a 19th century Protestant fashion, or a 20th century progressive fashion (although we have things in common with both of these outlooks), we do "believe the Bible" when interpreted by the historical and present believing community of Christians, i.e. the Church. Thus we read the Bible with Tradition. As the great G.K. Chesterton once observed, "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes: our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
Have fun- work to do.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> Could you please give the paragraph number of this statement in the Catechism?
> 
> 
> Or if you could please locate the word anathema in the Catechism?


fivesolas	
Quote:
Originally Posted by celticfisherman  
Sorry not there either.
What do you mean? The RCC catechism speaks on both justification and sanctification.


The RCC teaches you need the communion of the Church to live the life called for.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The 35 billions  of denominations argument is getting so old..honestly, it's boring. Popes, councils, priests, et. have no more unity that what they claim is disunity in non-roman catholic churches.
> 
> The so-called ecclesiastical infallibility doesn't hold water with the reality of what has happened and does happen within the RCC.
> 
> ...



You just answered your own question.
It's called Apostolic Succession.
Started 1500 years BEFORE  The "Reformation"

NEXT


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> You just answered your own question.
> It's called Apostolic Succession.
> Started 1500 years BEFORE  The "Reformation"
> 
> NEXT



That's why I believe we cannot just throw out the teachings and traditions of the church.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7,



> The Bible Believing bashing crowd is getting REALLY OLD.
> I can't help it if you find the truth offensive.



I am going to ask you to prove this. If disagreeing with the Roman Catholic church is being labelled "bashing" then it is an unjust label. Are you saying those outside your church are not permitted to question, criticize, or disagree? I would hope not. Otherwise your rhetoric here is just trying to disparage persons instead of actually dealing with doctrine. If it is impossible to discuss these matters in a civil manner, would it not be better to just leave it alone? 





> To start with, we wish to gently remind our "friends" that it was the Church that actually wrote and compiled the Bible.



I would like to remind my Roman Catholic friends (I have no need to use quotes around the word friends) that it is the Holy Spirit who is the author of Scripture and the NT writings as well as the OT are the very speaking of God Himself. 



> In the earliest centuries AD there were hundreds of gospels floating around. It took the Church over 600 years to fully agree on the current canon of Scripture, that is those books which were defined as divinely inspired.



Using the term defined to describe this history is misleading in my opinion. I would use the term recognized. 



> In the first and early second centuries AD, there was no universally defined canon of Scripture, although by the 2nd and 3rd centuries, most of the books in our current Bible were generally universally accepted throughout the Christian world, although 2 John, 3 John, 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation were still disputed.



What your speaking of relates the NT only. The OT "canon" was already established without the Roman Catholic Church, and the NT canon was establish before the Church at Rome degenerated into heresy. 




> Obviously, the Bible did not fall from the sky "as is"; the Church Fathers (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) decided which books were to be included, and which were spurious.



This is simply not accurate to history. It was not just a few "bishops" at Rome to call the shots and usurp their rule and authority over all of Christendom. 



> As I have asked many times:
> Where do all you "Bible Believers think the Bible
> came from?



From God. And I will give you no other answer. 

-five


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

From God. And I will give you no other answer. 

-five


From his inspiration.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 29, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> I don't think shewas being insulting,she's Catholic too if I remember correctly,converted...A lot of folks down here are taught Catholicism is a cult,like the moonies or whatever..she,like me,learned differently than what we were taught






Yep


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

earl said:


> five , your question has set me back on my heels. As I have said before ,my father was a baptist preacher for ever. It has never occurred to me that there could be another goal. Please elaborate.
> Ronnie , does that mean that those who don't believe as you do are not christians? I agree that there can't be but one truth so Ill ask again ... Who ,in this world , can know 100% what truth that is ? Pls don't say it is in the bible .As we all know even those who use the same bible will give you different truths.



That's what it means to them earl.


Catholics.....

Ultimately, we believe in the authority of the universal and historical Christian community to guide our interpretation of the Bible. We do not believe in reading the Bible "alone," but with the consensus of the Church of Christ, the same Church founded by the apostles, and the same Church that chose which books make up the modern Bible. Thus Catholics certainly do believe the Bible, and Catholics are encouraged to read it often and follow the teachings of Jesus contained within.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I'm an old earth person. I see a conflict. Where don't you?



I am not giving in on this one celt. It was assumed that there is a conflict in Genesis between the two accounts. It was stated as such. I am simply asking for that claim to be demonstrated. That has not happened yet. 

Now, your statment here confuses me...are you saying you see a conflict in Scripture between Scripture, or are you saying that between your scientific worldview and Scripture you see a conflict?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> From God. And I will give you no other answer.
> 
> -five
> 
> ...




This statement is confusing to me. Are you saying you disagree that the Scriptures are from God?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

matthewsman said:


> Virgin birth,Death/sacrifice,resurrection,repentance,Baptism and Grace.



That about sums it up.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> This statement is confusing to me. Are you saying you disagree that the Scriptures are from God?



No. I believe the scriptures are Divinely Inspired. Not that God handed them down as one book. God gave them to us over time thru the His workings in His people.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. I believe the scriptures are Divinely Inspired. Not that God handed them down as one book. God gave them to us over time thru the His workings in His people.



I believe that too. Do you also believe that, while God used the means of human agency to communicate, that the writings we have today are without error and without a mixture of human interpretation? In other words, they are the very speaking of God?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I am not giving in on this one celt. It was assumed that there is a conflict in Genesis between the two accounts. It was stated as such. I am simply asking for that claim to be demonstrated. That has not happened yet.
> 
> Now, your statment here confuses me...are you saying you see a conflict in Scripture between Scripture, or are you saying that between your scientific worldview and Scripture you see a conflict?



I have no conflict with scripture. I happen to believe when people started to wonder how and why that was added into the Jewish tradition and we have continued it. I do not have a scientific world view. I believe that God's work can be plainly seen. If the 7 days is literally true something is askew with what we see and what we experience. Not sure that God would do that. I also do not believe we will ever understand all the miracles in this world. And accept the simple fact that God created the heavens and the earth. Just believe the 7 days was added in by the Jewish (not saying that with any slander either) ancestors to more fully explain and to answer the questions raised when other creation stories were told.

Where am I missing something?


----------



## gtparts (Jan 29, 2009)

Much of what is now termed the N.T. had been copied numerous times and were in common circulation in the later part of the 1st century, Notice that I used the plural. That is because no single compilation existed. Local churches only had copies of what circulated through their particular body. As the various writings were distributed, each church collected what was available. The idea of compiling them may not have been original to what is now called the RCC, but they did the most effective job, albeit over many heated disputes and over many years. Even then, not everyone agreed to the canon. 

So much for unity.

Almost 1500 years have passed and the basis of our faith is still Jesus Christ. 

If there be any unity, let it be found in Him.....

......beyond that, it is just "he said / she said". Since God is NOT the author of confusion, I normally conclude where there is strong disagreement, each side claiming the confirmation of the H.S., that neither is confirmed, but that each is so invested in his own particular view that the H.S. couldn't get their attention with a Louisville Slugger.

Peace and good day.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I have no conflict with scripture. I happen to believe when people started to wonder how and why that was added into the Jewish tradition and we have continued it. I do not have a scientific world view. I believe that God's work can be plainly seen. If the 7 days is literally true something is askew with what we see and what we experience. Not sure that God would do that. I also do not believe we will ever understand all the miracles in this world. And accept the simple fact that God created the heavens and the earth. Just believe the 7 days was added in by the Jewish (not saying that with any slander either) ancestors to more fully explain and to answer the questions raised when other creation stories were told.
> 
> Where am I missing something?




Thanks for explaining your view. I don't think your missing something here because your simply explaining your understanding. 

I would suggest that your current view is in conflict with the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture though.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> . The Bible was not written as a "how-to" guide.



To me the Bible is a how to guide.

How to slay the giants in my life.....God will give me the tools to do that.

God is our hightower(psalms), He sees what is up ahead for us...and when we say 'thy will be done'....we can easier swallow 'our wants but our do not gets'because God can see ahead where we are going and what we do and do not need. That teaches me how to wait on the Lord....as in "those that wait upon the Lord, shall take wings as eagles".

Yeah though I walk THRU the valley of the shadow of death....don't camp there and stay there, walk thru to the other side, God is with me to comfort and guide me. He is!...not my mother, not my father, not my pastor, priest, minister, but God is.


The Bible is the Living (just like Jesus) word of God.
Whatever I need today, in sickness, sadness, desperation, and in joy, peace and abundance, I can find comfort and answers in the Word of God.

Even from the dead sea scrolls, we have found that there are few mistakes in translation to JKV or most other bibles. There are hebrew and aramaic scholars that can translate. The text wasn't originally written in some unknown language that can't be translated.
Can we translate Latin to English? or is that translation useless also?

The Bible teaches us how to pray...."Our Father which art in heaven".

How to take communion....take of the fruit of the vine, and bread.

How to not make someone else stumble.

How to treat each other.

What about all the proverbs and the ten commandments? that's a how to.
What about the beatitudes, that's a how to.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Thanks for explaining your view. I don't think your missing something here because your simply explaining your understanding.
> 
> I would suggest that your current view is in conflict with the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture though.



Only if you do not count Creation as a revelation of God.


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> 1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
> 
> 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
> 
> ...



WOW -   This oughta be a "sticky" at the top of this forum,with a flashing red light beside it!


----------



## crackerdave (Jan 29, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Much of what is now termed the N.T. had been copied numerous times and were in common circulation in the later part of the 1st century, Notice that I used the plural. That is because no single compilation existed. Local churches only had copies of what circulated through their particular body. As the various writings were distributed, each church collected what was available. The idea of compiling them may not have been original to what is now called the RCC, but they did the most effective job, albeit over many heated disputes and over many years. Even then, not everyone agreed to the canon.
> 
> So much for unity.
> 
> ...



A big Baptist "AMEN" from the back pew!


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Are you serious?  Go read your bible, the order is different in GEN 1 & 2. I forgot, you only grasp the 5 solas.  Sweet Mary mother of God.....



I asked you to demonstrate your claim of a conflict and all you have done is continue to assert the claim. I rest my case then...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> I asked you to demonstrate your claim of a conflict and all you have done is continue to assert the claim. I rest my case then...



No you haven't answered the response.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

Dominic said:


> If the Holy Spirit was the author of scripture then how do you account for the clearly different writing styles associated with each book and letter? (Please do not mistake me I fully believe the Holy Spirit guided the writers of Scripture by Divine Inspiration, however I do believe as some seem to that the Holy Spirit physically penned Scriptures)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Gonna start a new thread on this..


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No you haven't answered the response.



There was no repsonse. The burden of proof is on your my friend, to make your claim.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

I did. I have already made my statement. And the burden of proof is not on me. You have not countered anyone with a logical argument just these statements.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I did. I have already made my statement. And the burden of proof is not on me. You have not countered anyone with a logical argument just these statements.



Ok celt. We are going to have to agree to disagree then. I did not make the claim that there was a conflict in the Genesis account. You made this claim. I then asked you to demonstrate that claim and you asked me to demonstrate that there wasn't a conflict, even to the point of coming close to insulting my intelligence. 

If you will demonstrate your claim of the conflict, I will address that claim and counter it. 

-five


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I have no conflict with scripture. I happen to believe when people started to wonder how and why that was added into the Jewish tradition and we have continued it. I do not have a scientific world view. I believe that God's work can be plainly seen. If the 7 days is literally true something is askew with what we see and what we experience. Not sure that God would do that. I also do not believe we will ever understand all the miracles in this world. And accept the simple fact that God created the heavens and the earth. Just believe the 7 days was added in by the Jewish (not saying that with any slander either) ancestors to more fully explain and to answer the questions raised when other creation stories were told.
> 
> Where am I missing something?



Where is there not a conflict in scripture. I said I have no issue with it. Since I believe it was added as an aid later.

Why is this view in conflict?


----------



## WTM45 (Jan 29, 2009)

Does II Peter 3:8 help with this?
How can we know what is a day to a deity (in this case God) that has always been and created everything from nothing?  Does He follow our earth's trip around the axis?  Our trip around the sun?  1000 trips around the sun?
I don't think so myself.
I think the 7 days was to satisfy the curious human mind so as to not decrease faith.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> That was a good post paisano.



Indeed!... 

That's pretty much how we see it.

five-
In regard to your earlier post #165 I will say:

On the bashing part, you have obviously not been around
 here very long or you would not ask me to "prove it".
It is certainly on here a lot.
 Usually comes in spurts.
The "rhetoric" as you describe was "rhetoric in kind"... so to speak. 
That does not make it OK for me to do though. Weakness on my part.


On my part for putting "friends" in quotes, that was 
wrong and I apologize to most but not all.
No need to name names.

Same scenario: Still no excuse for me though.

The original writings read:
"To start with, we wish to gently remind our readers that it was....." 
I added the "friends" - in quotes.

The site that came from, which I have quoted, cited
and credited many times before may be found HERE.
http://www.ancient-future.net/dontbelieve.html

It's a great site and I encourage you to give it a look.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 29, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> Does II Peter 3:8 help with this?
> How can we know what is a day to a deity (in this case God) that has always been and created everything from nothing?  Does He follow our earth's trip around the axis?  Our trip around the sun?  1000 trips around the sun?
> I don't think so myself.
> I think the 7 days was to satisfy the curious human mind so as to not decrease faith.



Them yankees haven't rubbed off on you yet!!! That's a good argument.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The 35 billions  of denominations argument is getting so old..honestly, it's boring. Popes, councils, priests, et. have no more unity that what they claim is disunity in non-roman catholic churches.
> 
> The so-called ecclesiastical infallibility doesn't hold water with the reality of what has happened and does happen within the RCC.
> 
> ...



It's not 35 billions... yet. Give it time.
35,000 approximately is the more accurate number.

We won't go into your "so-called" comment ... Unless
we need to. 

Same with the "Next.." rhetoric. For someone that cry's
foul for use of rhetoric, you sure seem to use it a lot.

1) Yes, IF it was laid down from God through Apostolic Succession, 
The Catholic Living Magisterium  AND Sacred Tradition.

2) Yes - BECAUSE it was laid down from God through Apostolic Succession, 
The Catholic Living Magisterium AND Sacred Tradition.

3) Because 35,000 DIFFERENT DENOMINATIONS
just may not have gotten it right.
Again,  It is not "self-interpreting," as evidenced by the large number 
of disagreeing denominations claiming to simply "believe the Bible." 
This means that the phrase "believing the Bible" presents many problems, 
because so many groups claim to "believe the Bible," yet they usually
 don't agree on what the Bible actually says! 

Next...


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

Big7 said:


> What verse(s) would you like to see addressed?





fivesolas said:


> 1Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.
> 
> 2For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
> 
> ...



Properly translated with footnotes:
1 
1 Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions. 
2 
One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 
3 
The one who eats must not despise the one who abstains, and the one who abstains must not pass judgment on the one who eats; for God has welcomed him. 
4 
Who are you to pass judgment on someone else's servant? Before his own master he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 
5 
(For) one person considers one day more important than another, while another person considers all days alike. Let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind. 2 
6 
Whoever observes the day, observes it for the Lord. Also whoever eats, eats for the Lord, since he gives thanks to God; while whoever abstains, abstains for the Lord and gives thanks to God. 
7 
None of us lives for oneself, and no one dies for oneself. 
8 
For if we live, we live for the Lord, 3 and if we die, we die for the Lord; so then, whether we live or die, we are the Lord's. 
9 
For this is why Christ died and came to life, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living. 
10 
Why then do you judge your brother? Or you, why do you look down on your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; 
11 
for it is written: "As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bend before me, and every tongue shall give praise to God." 
12 
So (then) each of us shall give an account of himself (to God). 
13 
Then let us no longer judge one another, but rather resolve never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 
14 
I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; still, it is unclean for someone who thinks it unclean. 
15 
If your brother is being hurt by what you eat, your conduct is no longer in accord with love. Do not because of your food destroy him for whom Christ died. 
16 
So do not let your good be reviled. 
17 
For the kingdom of God is not a matter of food and drink, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the holy Spirit;

Footnotes
1 [14:1-15:6] Since Christ spells termination of the law, which included observance of specific days and festivals as well as dietary instruction, the jettisoning of long-practiced customs was traumatic for many Christians brought up under the Mosaic code. Although Paul acknowledges that in principle no food is a source of moral contamination (Romans 14:14), he recommends that the consciences of Christians who are scrupulous in this regard be respected by other Christians (Romans 14:21). On the other hand, those who have scruples are not to sit in judgment on those who know that the gospel has liberated them from such ordinances (Romans 14:10). See 1 Cor 8; 10. 

2 [5] Since the problem to be overcome was humanity's perverted mind or judgment (Romans 1:28), Paul indicates that the mind of the Christian is now able to function with appropriate discrimination (cf Romans 12:2).

3 [8] The Lord: Jesus, our Master. The same Greek word, kyrios, was applied to both rulers and holders of slaves. Throughout the Letter to the Romans Paul emphasizes God's total claim on the believer; see the note on Romans 1:1.

Rest is pretty self explanatory.

Next.


----------



## Big7 (Jan 29, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> Why do I need a Roman Catholic magesterium, priest, et. to tell me what the Apostle's themselves plainly taught?



Just in time. Thanks pigpen1. Here ya' go five-
Here is your answer in the simplest form and I do
mean simple. 

Over in hall county, there are two churches named Dewberry #1 and Dewberry #2, They split back in the late 1800's over predestination.

They were having dinner out in the church yard and one man said the Lord predestined before the foundation of the world that I would eat this chicken leg today, another man slapped the chicken leg out of his hand and a hound dog jumped and grabbed it and the other man said, No I believe the dog was predestined to eat it....and this is why there is a Dewberry #1 and a Dewberry#2.... 

http://forum.gon.com/showpost.php?p=3123466&postcount=5

Killer, I rest my case!


----------



## PWalls (Jan 29, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Sweet Mary mother of God.....



"Pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death."


I think I got that right. Been a while.

Of course, now, I just lift them straight to Jesus. She sure was a blessed woman though.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 30, 2009)

No middle man or woman for me, I pray straight to...Our Father which art in heaven. Jesus said that was the way to pray and I believe Him.  I also repent to Jesus/God and the Holy Spirit is my comforter.

I love Mary, because of who she is. I believe she deserves great respect. But since she's not omnipotent, omnipresent,  how can she pray for so many people at one time and hear everyone's prayers all at the same time.


----------



## jason4445 (Jan 30, 2009)

Ah - Mary is indeed omnipotent and all that other God stuff.  Mary Is an Advocate with Power to Save All

So great is the authority that mothers possess over their sons, that even if they are monarchs, and have absolute dominion over every person in their kingdom, yet never can mothers become the subjects of their sons. It is true that Jesus now in Heaven sits at the right of the Father, enjoying that distinction even as Man because of the hypostatic union with the Person of the Divine Word.

He has supreme dominion over all and also over Mary; nevertheless, it can always be said that for a time at least, when He was living in this world, He was pleased to humble himself and be subject to Mary. 

Says St. Ambrose, Jesus Christ having deigned to make Mary His Mother, inasmuch as He was her Son, He was truly obliged to obey her. And for this reason,  we say that they are with God; but of Mary alone can it be said that she was so far favored as to be not only herself submissive to the will of God, but even that God was subject to her will.

Therefore we say that, even though Mary can no longer command her Son, since they are not on earth any more, still her prayers are always the prayers of a Mother and are therefore most powerful in obtaining whatever she asks.

At the command of Mary all obey, even God. 

She is omnipotent, for the queen, according to all laws, enjoys the same privileges as the king; and since the son's power also belongs to the mother, this Mother is made omnipotent by an omnipotent Son. 

Therefore, God has put the whole Church not only under the patronage, but even under the power and authority, of Mary.

Since, then, the Mother must have the same power as the Son, Mary became omnipotent because Jesus is omnipotent. Of course, the Son is omnipotent by nature, where Mary is omnipotent only by grace. This is proved by the fact that the Son never refuses the Mother anything she seeks, as St. Bridget learned in a revelation.

One day this Saint heard Jesus saying to Mary: " Ask Me for anything; your request can never be in vain." And this is the beautiful reason He gave: "Because you never refused Me anything on earth, I will refuse you nothing in Heaven."


----------



## Israel (Jan 30, 2009)

That might all be true if heaven operated according to the ways of a corrupted earth.
See, that is taking corrupted worldly reasoning and applying it to heavenly things instead of taking revelation of heavenly things to change corrupted earthly relationships.
Think instead of how Jesus stated this in refutation of those who would try to elevate his ties to the flesh:

Mark 3: 31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mark 3: 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mark 3: 33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mark 3: 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mark 3: 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Mary herself had to learn some painful lessons about the One who would be her savior.
She had no special "pull".
Even in Cana.
He listened only to the Father's voice...and Mary learned his obedience to her came only from listening to his Father's voice...and she is glad.
For it was only by the work of the son she was herself, saved.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 30, 2009)

jason4445 said:


> Ah - Mary is indeed omnipotent and all that other God stuff.  Mary Is an Advocate with Power to Save All
> 
> So great is the authority that mothers possess over their sons, that even if they are monarchs, and have absolute dominion over every person in their kingdom, yet never can mothers become the subjects of their sons. It is true that Jesus now in Heaven sits at the right of the Father, enjoying that distinction even as Man because of the hypostatic union with the Person of the Divine Word.
> 
> ...





please tell me that this is just a joke... please...  pigpen1, did you read this?


----------

