# what changes would you like to see after Pope Benedict XVI?



## bigdawg25

So there is a lot of debate about reform in the Catholic church, and a lot of suggestions have been thrown around regarding changing a few things....calls for Vatican III have been made too. I am not asking about a wishlist from a known liberal because I know what they'll say, I am asking it from a viewpoint of someone middle of the road who have reasonable suggestions and would like to see some change in how things are done.

to kick things off, I don't like the fact that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive communion, and I would like to make it open for them.


----------



## Lowjack

I like to se ethem going back to true Christianity or Yeshua Sitting on David's throne all religions done away with.


----------



## bigdawg25

Lowjack said:


> I like to se ethem going back to true Christianity or *Yeshua Sitting on David's throne all religions done away with.*



what? plain English please


----------



## centerpin fan

Just FYI:  very few Catholics post here.


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> Just FYI:  very few Catholics post here.



thanks, I didnt realize this before and this was my first time posting on this sub-forum. I definitely wasn't looking into hearing this antiquated thing abt how catholics arent Christians.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> thanks, I didnt realize this before and this was my first time posting on this sub-forum. I definitely wasn't looking into hearing this antiquated thing about how Catholics aren't Christians.



Just because there aren't many Catholics that post here doesn't mean you aren't welcome because you are. Most Protestants would believe Catholics are Christian. 
We all came from the same 1st Church.
Although I don't totally agree with Lowjack, atleast give him a chance to explain himself. Now if he wishes both the Protestants & Catholics would both go back to the first Christian Church, I agree with him.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> So there is a lot of debate about reform in the Catholic church, and a lot of suggestions have been thrown around regarding changing a few things....calls for Vatican III have been made too. I am not asking about a wishlist from a known liberal because I know what they'll say, I am asking it from a viewpoint of someone middle of the road who have reasonable suggestions and would like to see some change in how things are done.
> 
> to kick things off, I don't like the fact that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive communion, and I would like to make it open for them.



I would be ok with remarried Catholics to receive communion. Could you explain what Vatican III is? Do we have Vatican II? I don't think most Protestants know enough about Catholicism to  ponder as to what changes need to be made. Do ya'll still have to eat fish on Friday? I think that would be a good place to start.


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

I wish that we all(Christians) would make every effort to become one and remove all traditions of men that separate us from each other, such that we may become one in Christ Jesus our Lord and our Christian witness would begin again to turn the world upside down.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> Just because there aren't many Catholics that post here doesn't mean you aren't welcome because you are. Most Protestants would believe Catholics are Christian.
> We all came from the same 1st Church.
> Although I don't totally agree with Lowjack, atleast give him a chance to explain himself. Now if he wishes both the Protestants & Catholics would both go back to the first Christian Church, I agree with him.



I didnt want to sideline the main post, but for me someone is christian or not is determined by whether they completely believe what's said the nicene creed (or some other ones like apostle's creed) and they unconditionally believe in the scripture (bible) and agree that there have not been any further revelations. 

By that token, Catholics and most Protestants are Christians, and the only ones I exclude are faiths like Mormons. I do not have enough faith (yet) to completely believe nicene creed or bible, and hence I classify my non religious; but I know enough friends and families who are catholics and who I think definitely are Christians. 39000 denominations has definately made my doubts in christianity stronger, because you cannot have thousands of versions of truth, so yes, I will gladly have one universal church.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I would be ok with remarried Catholics to receive communion. Could you explain what Vatican III is? Do we have Vatican II? I don't think most Protestants know enough about Catholicism to  ponder as to what changes need to be made. Do ya'll still have to eat fish on Friday? I think that would be a good place to start.



vatican II was a vatican council held in 1960s to reform the church, and they came up with using normal languages for mass instead of latin, and they made structural changes and translations of the liturgy etc. Basically, it made catholic church services more protestant church like, and increased the accessibility of it to lay man. 

vatican III is sometimes used as a term to indicate a future council to decide to more issues of the church, and reform it to make it look less antiquated. In other words, catholic church still "looks" different from any other church, and there is a debate as to whether to make it even more accessible.

eating fish on Fridays originated in italy where fish was cheap so eating it was considered as a restraint/sacrifice of other luxury meats, and then it got carried out where in the world...so some folks still do it, but many people dont do it because they consider it to be like any other meat, and hence they abstain from all other meats on fridays.


----------



## dawg2

centerpin fan said:


> Just FYI:  very few Catholics post here.



Not many in here now.  But a few still lurk around.

As for the OP: I don't really see any major changes they could make.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> By that token, Catholics and most Protestants are Christians, and the only ones I exclude are faiths like Mormons.


I would say that the majority of Catholics and Protestants are non-Christian. The majority of professing Christians are non-Christian.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> I didnt want to sideline the main post, but for me someone is christian or not is determined by whether they completely believe what's said the nicene creed (or some other ones like apostle's creed) and they unconditionally believe in the scripture (bible) and agree that there have not been any further revelations.
> 
> By that token, Catholics and most Protestants are Christians, and the only ones I exclude are faiths like Mormons. I do not have enough faith (yet) to completely believe nicene creed or bible, and hence I classify my non religious; but I know enough friends and families who are catholics and who I think definitely are Christians. 39000 denominations has definately made my doubts in christianity stronger, because you cannot have thousands of versions of truth, so yes, I will gladly have one universal church.



Where did you get the idea that being a Christian involves following a creed of an sorts? Please explain why you classify yourself as non-religious. Does this mean you are a Christian but don't follow a particular denomination or Church doctrine?
Thanks for the info on Vatican III. I think we can talk about a few side items without getting off track. It might help us answer the original question better.
I hope they don't do away with all the traditions. I like the smoke symbols when picking a new pope.


----------



## dawg2

gemcgrew said:


> I would say that the majority of Catholics and Protestants are non-Christian. The majority of professing Christians are non-Christian.


Could you elaborate?  Kind of a broad, generalization without any supporting information.


----------



## centerpin fan

dawg2 said:


> Could you elaborate?  Kind of a broad, generalization without any supporting information.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> Where did you get the idea that being a Christian involves following a creed of an sorts? Please explain why you classify yourself as non-religious. Does this mean you are a Christian but don't follow a particular denomination or Church doctrine?
> Thanks for the info on Vatican III. I think we can talk about a few side items without getting off track. It might help us answer the original question better.
> I hope they don't do away with all the traditions. I like the smoke symbols when picking a new pope.



dont pay too much attention on the name of any creed...see what's written in them, and if you believe in what's written, then you should be christian. Many of the churches have their own belief statement, but in essence, it says the same thing. I am non religious in that I dont have complete belief in everything the church says; I have my doubts to say the least, and I read a lot of theology to look for answers but catholicsm is something closer to home for me so I unconsciously read more on it then any other denomination.

here is copy of nicene creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen. 

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end. 

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
"


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> I would say that the majority of Catholics and Protestants are non-Christian. The majority of professing Christians are non-Christian.



are you refering to the no true christian fallacy on lines of no true scotsman  ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


----------



## Artfuldodger

I would let priests and nuns marry. I base this on recently watching the "Thorn Birds" on dvd. 
Seriously I think it's time to let them marry.


----------



## Ronnie T

bigdawg25 said:


> I didnt want to sideline the main post, but for me someone is christian or not is determined by whether they completely believe what's said the nicene creed (or some other ones like apostle's creed) and they unconditionally believe in the scripture (bible) and agree that there have not been any further revelations.
> 
> By that token, Catholics and most Protestants are Christians, and the only ones I exclude are faiths like Mormons. I do not have enough faith (yet) to completely believe nicene creed or bible, and hence I classify my non religious; but I know enough friends and families who are catholics and who I think definitely are Christians. 39000 denominations has definately made my doubts in christianity stronger, because you cannot have thousands of versions of truth, so yes, I will gladly have one universal church.



But haven't you heard, all of them are perfectly correct in their beliefs.
.


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> I would say that the majority of Catholics and Protestants are non-Christian. The majority of professing Christians are non-Christian.



                     I"m not surprised that you're the one who said this.


----------



## Ronnie T

dawg2 said:


> Could you elaborate?  Kind of a broad, generalization without any supporting information.



Okay, here it comes!


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> dont pay too much attention on the name of any creed...see what's written in them, and if you believe in what's written, then you should be christian. Many of the churches have their own belief statement, but in essence, it says the same thing. I am non religious in that I dont have complete belief in everything the church says; I have my doubts to say the least, and I read a lot of theology to look for answers but catholicsm is something closer to home for me so I unconsciously read more on it then any other denomination.
> "



I agree if someone believed in most church creeds they would be a Christian. What I don't believe is that a Christian has to believe in a creed of any sorts.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I would let priests and nuns marry. I base this on recently watching the "Thorn Birds" on dvd.
> Seriously I think it's time to let them marry.



I was about to mention that in OP too. Yeah, the rationale behind celibacy is weak, and its time that they be allowed to marry if they want.


----------



## bigdawg25

Ronnie T said:


> But haven't you heard, all of them are perfectly correct in their beliefs.
> .



yeah, but at the same time, most of the church members still think that their version is more "correct" then the one across the street, and they all have mental hierarchy about which ones are better (to be honest even I am guilty of this). if you hear some calvinist churches, then you'll hear them say that only few among us are "predestined" for heaven.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I agree if someone believed in most church creeds they would be a Christian. What I don't believe is that a Christian has to believe in a creed of any sorts.



oh no a person doesnt have to believe in any creeds by naming names; I just use it when someone asks what does it mean to be a christian because these creeds condense Christianity and its story into few words, and if someone have issues with the content then essentially he is questioning the basic tenets of the religion, and in that case, a person is misidentifying him/her as a christian.


----------



## gemcgrew

dawg2 said:


> Could you elaborate?  Kind of a broad, generalization without any supporting information.


I am using the word Christian to mean a believer, a saved person. How many believers were there in Noah's day? Sodom and Gomorrah? 

Consider these verses:
"Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."

"Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> I am using the word Christian to mean a believer, a saved person. How many believers were there in Noah's day? Sodom and Gomorrah?
> 
> Consider these verses:
> "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace."
> 
> "Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."
> 
> "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
> 
> "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."



oh I get it...you are a proponent of predestination in the form Calvin prescribed. There is nothing I can do to make you see light; but I will suggest that you look at writings of Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley because they spent quite a bit of time explaining why predestination is such a bad idea.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> oh I get it...you are a proponent of predestination in the form Calvin prescribed. There is nothing I can do to make you see light; but I will suggest that you look at writings of Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley because they spent quite a bit of time explaining why predestination is such a bad idea.


Or you could address the scriptures provided. Do you not think that those people who were destroyed in the flood thought that they were secure?


----------



## centerpin fan

bigdawg25 said:


> oh I get it...you are a proponent of predestination in the form Calvin prescribed.



You catch on quick.


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> Or you could address the scriptures provided. Do you not think that those people who were destroyed in the flood thought that they were secure?



gemcgrew, the problem is that I cannot address those verses; they are from bible, and taken literally, they mean what you said. Arminius and Wesley used a set of other verses to support their free will argument, and why overall, they felt god didnt want predestination. As I said before, I grapple with such contradictions in bible all the time, and hence I call myself non religious at the moment. But if you ask me what I really "want" to believe in, or what I will be biased for, then my personal preference will be for arminian theology.


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> You catch on quick.



yes sir I do. I know a few things about protestant churches and their early theologians too, even though my main area of reading is catholic beliefs.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> gemcgrew, the problem is that I cannot address those verses; they are from bible, and taken literally, they mean what you said. Arminius and Wesley used a set of other verses to support their free will argument, and why overall, they felt god didnt want predestination. As I said before, I grapple with such contradictions in bible all the time, and hence I call myself non religious at the moment. But if you ask me what I really "want" to believe in, or what I will be biased for, then my personal preference will be for arminian theology.



Not sure how we got into Arminianism and free will. I think we live in a time and place where just about everybody is thought to be a "Christian". I was raised in that easy believism environment, so I am very aware of the camouflage. What I am seeing is a man-made "Christianity".


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> oh I get it...you are a proponent of predestination in the form Calvin prescribed.


No, I would argue that Calvin was a softy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> gemcgrew, the problem is that I cannot address those verses; they are from bible, and taken literally, they mean what you said. Arminius and Wesley used a set of other verses to support their free will argument, and why overall, they felt god didnt want predestination. As I said before, I grapple with such contradictions in bible all the time, and hence I call myself non religious at the moment. But if you ask me what I really "want" to believe in, or what I will be biased for, then my personal preference will be for arminian theology.



I wish I believed in predestination and election.


----------



## centerpin fan

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish I believed in predestination and election.



As John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try."


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish I believed in predestination and election.


Why? Salvation is not in a system of theology or doctrine.


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> Not sure how we got into Arminianism and free will. I think we live in a time and place where just about everybody is thought to be a "Christian". I was raised in that easy believism environment, so I am very aware of the camouflage. What I am seeing is a man-made "Christianity".



well, I am not quite following you. As I have said before, people frequently mis-label themselves as christians even when they arent quite sure what they believe in. Every church a person attends has a basic belief system where they say what they believe in; but some dont bother to read it, and its nothing new, I am sure this was something which happened ever since church was established. I am sure god didnt intervene and wrote those belief statements either, so its always been a "man made" interpretation of the divine. we got to arminianism because that is middle of the road theology worth a grain of salt which could successfully argue against Calvinism.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> I would say that the majority of Catholics and Protestants are non-Christian. The majority of professing Christians are non-Christian.



I would have to agree. I don't see much fruit. I don't see much meekness, love, forgiveness, repentance, faithfullness, nor obedience.

"Many are called but few are chosen" 

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven"


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> Why? Salvation is not in a system of theology or doctrine.



It would be a load off my back to know that all my choices were predetermined.


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> As John Lennon said, "It's easy if you try."



exactly! if you want to believe something hard enough then u will eventually start believing it. when u start believing in predestination though, convince yourself that you are the chosen one too because otherwise life will be depressing.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> It would be a load off my back to know that all my choices were predetermined.



I agree I would feel the same.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> It would be a load off my back to know that all my choices were predetermined.


Well, without predestination and foreordination, there is no salvation.

"Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"(Acts 2:23)

"For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."(Acts 4:27-28) 

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."(Romans 8:29-30)

"And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"(Romans 9:23)

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"(Ephesians 1:5)

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"(Ephesians 1:11)

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."(Ephesians 2:10)


----------



## dawg2

Ronnie T said:


> Okay, here it comes!



That's funny. 



centerpin fan said:


> You catch on quick.


----------



## dawg2

gemcgrew said:


> Well, without predestination and foreordination, there is no salvation.
> 
> "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"(Acts 2:23)
> 
> "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."(Acts 4:27-28)
> 
> "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."(Romans 8:29-30)
> 
> "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"(Romans 9:23)
> 
> "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"(Ephesians 1:5)
> 
> "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"(Ephesians 1:11)
> 
> "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."(Ephesians 2:10)



I think we need a new thread.  But I will add, if pre-destination is the flavor, then we can do anything we want.  No matter what we do, we have been pre-destined to heaven or he11, so it doesn't matter.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Interesting link on the Greek term "eklektos".
"For many are called, but few are chosen (eklektos)."
"For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect (eklektos).
How could one of the "elect" be chosen or mislead if they were something other than "believers"

When referring to Believers, the New Testament use of God's chosen (eklektos) never engenders pride. Instead, to be "eklektos" reflects faith in the atoning work of Jesus, a recognition of divine grace and grateful obedience in service to Christ. This inclusion is dependent upon one's decision to believe in Jesus. And it appears that each person bears a responsibility for the consequences of their decision.

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/9Salvation/ElectionEklektos.aspx


----------



## bigdawg25

dawg2 said:


> I think we need a new thread.  But I will add, if pre-destination is the flavor, then we can do anything we want.  No matter what we do, we have been pre-destined to heaven or he11, so it doesn't matter.



exactly. This is a fundamental sticking point against predestination, because it negated human choices, because everything (good or bad) can be attributed back to god by saying that he has made those choices for us, we just acted on it.


----------



## dawg2

bigdawg25 said:


> exactly. This is a fundamental sticking point against predestination, because it negated human choices, because everything (good or bad) can be attributed back to god by saying that he has made those choices for us, we just acted on it.



At that point, then why bother?


----------



## gemcgrew

dawg2 said:


> But I will add, if pre-destination is the flavor, then we can do anything we want.  No matter what we do, we have been pre-destined to heaven or he11, so it doesn't matter.


Paul addressed your assertions.

"What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> Paul addressed your assertions.
> 
> "What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
> 
> Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"



As I said before gem, for every one verse you show me for predestination, there are a few more on free will. If it wasnt that complicated, then we wont need theology schools and theologians who have spent last couple of thousand years on this subject. Quoting verses will not solve this to any degree, and at some point you have to use interpretations and arguments not clearly observed in scripture.


----------



## gordon 2

bigdawg25 said:


> So there is a lot of debate about reform in the Catholic church, and a lot of suggestions have been thrown around regarding changing a few things....calls for Vatican III have been made too. I am not asking about a wishlist from a known liberal because I know what they'll say, I am asking it from a viewpoint of someone middle of the road who have reasonable suggestions and would like to see some change in how things are done.
> 
> to kick things off, I don't like the fact that divorced and remarried Catholics cannot receive communion, and I would like to make it open for them.



Before I answer this query... I'd like to say if St. Paul was here and reading this tread.. he'd develop a bad case of the gout, pancreatitis, gall stones, migrane, fibromialgia, panter's nicrosis, ringing of the ear, nausia, vertigo etc and he would say, " The roman wip is nothing." 

As a catholic this is what I'd like to see. But first all this kumbaya about being oneness as a church is for the birds. Catholics don't worship the same way within the church in North America, let alone the world... so being in likeness to other denominations seems to me a pie in the sky dream.

Ok... this is what I'd like to see. I'd like to see a church that is creative... in every facet of the church's responsibilities. I'd like to see church folk in the Catholic Church who are big spenders of the currency called Good News.

Concretely I'd like to see monestaries, with lots of monks with very different callings...but especially teaching, bible study, church history etc... and justice studies, peace studies, economics, community studies, ... you name....

Now what would this mean to the average catholic? It would mean no matter how screwed up the church and its culture was... ordinary people could be fed in the name of the Lord as catholics... just for the asking!!!!!!!!!

And if I was the Pope...that is what I would do... I'd build a thousand monestaries in North America alone in the next five yrs... cause the church as it stands today was made sick by a few generations, ( more than one) and it will take more than one to bring balance back to it. But monesteries and monks are the catholic churches next hero's and saints according to my prayers.

All the liberal stuff people are waiting for is just like all the conservative stuff... white wash. Freedom in the Lord was paid for by blood... it is that kind of a cross and no amount of veneer will make things right. It is time to be real...as God is real, or as one catholic is fond of saying here, "as real,  as a stroke is real."

So back to the fundamentals: Monestaries and lots of them... and all of them feeding the sheep as per the Lord's will. I think the catholic laity is ripe to be fed by such. Monestaries, monks and ordinary catholic folk could get along real well I think and for good purpose ( or according to God's purpose).

So there you have it. No - (baby cat) footing,...if your going to Love...  no little doses as if it was a curative poison... feed it like our soldiers fought in the 2ed WW... with moral integrity and a clear purpose-- where one division might do, fight with two and fight day and night...rain or shine until you win... as per our calling in Christ!


----------



## bigdawg25

gordon 2 said:


> Before I answer this query... I'd like to say if St. Paul was here and reading this tread.. he'd develop a bad case of the gout, pancreatitis, gall stones, migrane, fibromialgia, panter's nicrosis, ringing of the ear, nausia, vertigo etc and he would say, " The roman wip is nothing."
> 
> As a catholic this is what I'd like to see. But first all this kumbaya about being oneness as a church is for the birds. Catholics don't worship the same way within the church in North America, let alone the world... *so being in likeness to other denominations seems to me a pie in the sky dream.*
> 
> yeah I agree with this too, as much as people like the schisms to revert back, the fact is that wheels of time cannot be turned back; and we will see more denominations in future.
> 
> Ok... this is what I'd like to see. I'd like to see a church that is creative... in every facet of the church's responsibilities. I'd like to see church folk in the Catholic Church who are big spenders of the currency called Good News.
> 
> Concretely I'd like to see monestaries, with lots of monks with very different callings...but especially teaching, bible study, church history etc... and justice studies, peace studies, economics, community studies, ... you name....
> 
> but why just monastaries, Catholics have always been in the forefront of educational institutions, and from high schools to Jesuit established universities, they all do a good job. what will monasteries bring new to it? I thought it was only common in eastern orthodox church because they dont have nearly as many theology schools as us.
> 
> Now what would this mean to the average catholic? *It would mean no matter how screwed up the church and its culture was*... ordinary people could be fed in the name of the Lord as catholics... just for the asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I would replace that past tense with present; because I dont think catholic church is out of the woods yet; and these child abuse scandals have stricken such a blow to avg catholic which even the corruption and excesses of middle ages church clergy didnt do.
> 
> And if I was the Pope...that is what I would do... I'd build a thousand monestaries in North America alone in the next five yrs... cause the church as it stands today was made sick by a few generation, ( more than one) and it will take more than one to bring balance back to it. But momesteries and monks are the catholic churches next hero's and saints according to my prayers.
> 
> 
> you would not want to do anything else? removing celibacy requirement could be a start too.
> 
> All the *liberal stuff *people are waiting for is just like all the conservative stuff... white wash. Freedom in the Lord was paid for by blood... no amount of veneer will make things right. It is time to be real...as God is real, or as one catholic is fond of saying here, "as real,  as a stroke is real."
> 
> I dont have much appetite for drastic changes either; and if we know this church any better, then we both know that they will move gradually too.
> 
> So back to the fundamentals: Monestaries and lots of them... and all of them feeding the sheep as per the Lord's will.
> 
> So there you have it. No - (baby cat) footing,...if your going to Love...  no little doses as if it was a curative poison... feed it like our soldiers fought in the 2ed WW... with moral integrity and a clear purpose-- where one division might do, fight with two and fight day and night...rain or shine until you win... as per our calling in Christ!



I think if I understood you correctly, then you want the catholic church to adopt active role in getting new followers? more evangelizing ? I think it makes sense, because for an avg protestest out there, when he thinks of switching denominations, catholic church seldom comes even in the shortlist, except if their spouse is one too, but that's different.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Just curious as to how monastaries help the general population? Do they have Catholic retreats at them? I know they help the monks themselves in their quest. I thought they lived in seclusion or withdrawal from the world or society. In their seclusion they have removed obstacles in the way to loving God. I'm all for more monastaries in the US. Do they still have one in Moncks Corner, SC?


----------



## Artfuldodger

I like this individuals take on Church;
Born and raised Roman Catholic, parochial school, etc. Joined the Navy in 71 and ran into The Navigators. They drew their KJVs and I drew my RSV and we had at it. I believed, and still believe, that one can be saved in the Catholic church…(note: I was also drawn to the Catholic Charismatic Renewal movement)…but there are issues. Over time I decided that calling myself a Catholic meant that I agreed with all that the church taught, and I don’t (Sola Scriptura!). So I was essentially Southern Baptist until the conservative take-over, left for The Vineyard till the pastor started preaching and teaching from The Message (paraphrase) and am now happily esconced in a local Nazarene church. So, for me, it was and is beliefs and practice. That said, there is some good stuff on the Roman Catholic side (i.e. Pope Benedict’s ‘Jesus of Nazareth’). So like bible.org’s Theology Program taught…(basically)…unity in the essentials, freedom to differ in the non-essentials. Your mileage may vary. “Absorb what is useful, Discard what is not, Add what is uniquely your own.” — Bruce Lee

http://pursiful.com/2011/04/why-catholics-become-protestants/


----------



## gordon 2

bigdawg25 said:


> I think if I understood you correctly, then you want the catholic church to adopt active role in getting new followers? more evangelizing ? I think it makes sense, because for an avg protestest out there, when he thinks of switching denominations, catholic church seldom comes even in the shortlist, except if their spouse is one too, but that's different.



I look at it simply. I take what protestants do mostly out of the picture. I look at what catholics need, not from what I think they need, but what I see they need by how they behave and what they do.

 Every catholic I know needs a place where they can be in spiritual comfort and security talking with other catholics. Every catholic has a time or times in his life that are "the right time" to grow in faith or in relationship with God. 
This is not available anymore to catholics in the present church culture. 

Example: Catholics want to study the bible and be able to relate intimately in Christ with other ( non catholic) christians and to grow as individuals and communities via the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is as simple as this. ( I think because people today are well educated and because of the social make up of today's society and the trail of the church, monks, orders, monesteries are a great fit now.

Every diocese should have a monestary that ministers to all the faithful. Presently this simple thing is not available to ordinary catholics... Monks and orders outside the usual church structures is a remedy to this  problem in my view. The times are right for it.

I know many catholics who do not attend church today... for many reasons but  would frequent a monestary...for many reasons.? What do you think?


----------



## Ronnie T

Artfuldodger said:


> I wish I believed in predestination and election.



Why?
Even if you did you still wouldn't know if you were on the list.
Those who believe in individual predestination and election believe in a list, and their future depends upon that list.  They cannot ever know for sure that they are predestined!!!  They only know that "some" are predestined.

Art, you stick with your faith and life in Christ.
.


----------



## bigdawg25

gordon 2 said:


> I look at it simply. I take what protestants do mostly out of the picture. I look at what catholics need, not from what I think they need, but what I see they need by how they behave and what they do.
> 
> Every catholic I know needs a place where they can be in spiritual comfort and security talking with other catholics. Every catholic has a time or times in his life that are "the right time" to grow in faith or in relationship with God.
> This is not available anymore to catholics in the present church culture.
> 
> Example: Catholics want to study the bible and be able to relate intimately in Christ with other ( non catholic) christians and to grow as individuals and communities via the promptings of the Holy Spirit. It is as simple as this. ( I think because people today are well educated and because of the social make up of today's society and the trail of the church, monks, orders, monesteries are a great fit now.
> 
> Every diocese should have a monestary that ministers to all the faithful. Presently this simple thing is not available to ordinary catholics... Monks and orders outside the usual church structures is a remedy to this  problem in my view. The times are right for it.
> 
> I know many catholics who do not attend church today... for many reasons but  would frequent a monestary...for many reasons.? What do you think?



Ok, I am understanding what you are saying a bit more. You want the monasteries to have a supporting role in addition to what local parishes do. So folks who do not or cannot attend church regularly still get to meet like minded folks with less social pressure. I think yeah that's a huge problem in church because people dont feel like they have enough room to grow in few churches. Also, if someone doesnt attend church regularly (I never did) then catholics make you feel more guilty then in any other ones, and then those folks just drift away. 

I think that Catholics can also have more informal religion study sessions which could in some void you are mentioning which we see in today's churches.


----------



## Ronnie T

gemcgrew said:


> Well, without predestination and foreordination, there is no salvation.
> 
> "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:"(Acts 2:23)
> 
> "For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done."(Acts 4:27-28)
> 
> "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."(Romans 8:29-30)
> 
> "And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,"(Romans 9:23)
> 
> "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"(Ephesians 1:5)
> 
> "In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:"(Ephesians 1:11)
> 
> "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."(Ephesians 2:10)



It's called "scripture stacking".  
.


----------



## gordon 2

Artfuldodger said:


> Just curious as to how monastaries help the general population? Do they have Catholic retreats at them? I know they help the monks themselves in their quest. I thought they lived in seclusion or withdrawal from the world or society. In their seclusion they have removed obstacles in the way to loving God. I'm all for more monastaries in the US. Do they still have one in Moncks Corner, SC?



Simple if monks can bind books... they have time to mind people's  spiritual needs according to the calling of their order and the needs of our society. Retreats yes. Bible studies yes. Research yes. Prayer yes. Ministries to the poor and those seeking peace and justice. Science yes. Photography yes. Music yes. Arts yes.  The Gospel of Matthew yes. Gardening yes.  And simply good solid christians to live with in and look up to in our communities.


----------



## gordon 2

bigdawg25 said:


> Ok, I am understanding what you are saying a bit more. You want the monasteries to have a supporting role in addition to what local parishes do. So folks who do not or cannot attend church regularly still get to meet like minded folks with less social pressure. I think yeah that's a huge problem in church because people dont feel like they have enough room to grow in few churches. Also, if someone doesnt attend church regularly (I never did) then catholics make you feel more guilty then in any other ones, and then those folks just drift away.
> 
> I think that Catholics can also have more informal religion study sessions which could in some void you are mentioning which we see in today's churches.



Yes you are getting it. That is what I'm driving at. Catholics and other people who are called by God are not content to sit in the pews and be told to put up and shut up. They what to do things, go places... and act on the Good News. If they are ambitious, they soon become discouraged and some will simply try to find pasture elsewhere and some do. But many will give up...and their potential will never be tapped. But give me one good monk with an Irish twinkle in his eye, or the sense of justice and even heaven is not a limit.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Ronnie T said:


> Why?
> Even if you did you still wouldn't know if you were on the list.
> Those who believe in individual predestination and election believe in a list, and their future depends upon that list.  They cannot ever know for sure that they are predestined!!!  They only know that "some" are predestined.
> 
> Art, you stick with your faith and life in Christ.
> .



I'm not even considering crossing over unless God starts to control my mind to that point. I could be predestined to believe in Jesus & free will. I'm part of the "Elect" just not pre-elected. God doesn't choose people to believe, he chooses believers. "For many are called, but few are chosen" lets me know that. Why else would God call and I not be chosen if it was not up to me to believe?


----------



## Lowjack

Going Back to the believes of the Primitive chuch means , all having all things in Common , doing away with made up dogmas by men , believing Christ is the Saviour of all mankind and doing away with all pagan doctrines which have infiltrated 99.9 % of Churches today.IMO.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm not even considering crossing over unless God starts to control my mind to that point. I could be predestined to believe in Jesus & free will. I'm part of the "Elect" just not pre-elected. God doesn't choose people to believe, he chooses believers. "For many are called, but few are chosen" lets me know that. Why else would God call and I not be chosen if it was not up to me to believe?



 I am glad that you have found your calling with believing that god's given free will to everyone. I believe in that too, and I think its that free will that makes me explore and question more about my belief system. Sometimes I too wish that pre-destination comes to me rather then this, because then I will have given up this as an excercise in futility.


----------



## bigdawg25

gordon 2 said:


> Yes you are getting it. That is what I'm driving at. Catholics and other people who are called by God are not content to sit in the pews and be told to put up and shut up. They what to do things, go places... and act on the Good News. If they are ambitious, they soon become discouraged and some will simply try to find pasture elsewhere and some do. But many will give up...and their potential will never be tapped. But give me one good monk with an Irish twinkle in his eye, or the sense of justice and even heaven is not a limit.



Gordon, you idea definitely seems like something which can make a difference. However, before this discussion, I always thought of monasteries as something which was relegated in history books; and to be honest, no one has even put it on radar right now. 

The problem as you mentioned is not caused by lack of monasteries, but rather too regimented structure of catholic church and services which doesnt let people "grow" in faith. The congregation members dont have much say and their feedback doesnt carry as much value as in some other churches. While I know tons of folks who are happy by going through the motions and attend church regularly but there are equal number who feel that their growth has been plateaued hence every parish should have separate sessions for those who wants to deal with more theological questions; and most of it, reduce the amount of guilt they try and induce for folks who dont attend regularly. if they fix all these things, then maybe the need for monasteries is somewhat substituted.


----------



## bigdawg25

Lowjack said:


> Going Back to the believes of the Primitive chuch means , all having all things in Common , doing away with made up dogmas by men , believing Christ is the Saviour of all mankind and doing away with all pagan doctrines which have infiltrated 99.9 % of Churches today.IMO.



what you are asking is turning the wheels of time backwards by two thousand years. Its almost impossible to do that, and instead we have to live with what we have and what we know. as an example, even things as basic as baptisms were done differently in early churches. Their formula was to do it in the name of Jesus only; not as trinity which most of present day churches do.


----------



## Ronnie T

What we need to do is go back to doing Bible things in the Bible way.  Not in church way.


----------



## gordon 2

Ronnie T said:


> What we need to do is go back to doing Bible things in the Bible way.  Not in church way.


 This is true to a point perhaps.

 If doing bible things means christians are standing still, that the church is unchanging, that christians don't acknowledge that the christians of the 2ed and 17th centuries are not the same people as today's christians because society changes and changes people....then  the "bible way" is not a way.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> what you are asking is turning the wheels of time backwards by two thousand years. Its almost impossible to do that, and instead we have to live with what we have and what we know. as an example, even things as basic as baptisms were done differently in early churches. Their formula was to do it in the name of Jesus only; not as trinity which most of present day churches do.



While we all know this would be impossible, it is nice to wonder how it would be without all the divisions. If we could all belong to just one big happy, Kum ba yah singing, First Church. We do all have various beliefs and that is why we have all the different Churches. I would rather worship with like Christians who believe the same as me on most dogma. It's not that I can't worship with the various groups every once in awhile but I don't feel comfortable when they start preaching a "percieved" Biblical concept I don't believe in. I can overlook the "Divinity of Mary" long enough to worship with Catholics but not to the point of joining their church. I could overlook the Primative Baptist's "election" beliefs to fellowship with them. What about all the premillennialism, millennialism, amillennialism, trubulation, pretribulation, & all the different judgements? They don't have any bearing on our Salvation but how a Church feels would be important. Being Baptized in the name of Jesus verses the Trinity could also be a deciding factor.


----------



## centerpin fan

gordon 2 said:


> This is true to a point perhaps.
> 
> If doing bible things means christians are standing still, that the church is unchanging, that christians don't acknowledge that the christians of the 2ed and 17th centuries are not the same people as today's christians because society changes and changes people....then  the "bible way" is not a way.



Times change, but human nature doesn't.  We are still sinners in need of a Savior.


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> It's called "scripture stacking".



It's called "pointing out the obvious" in hope that someone will be enabled to see it.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> While we all know this would be impossible, it is nice to wonder how it would be without all the divisions. If we could all belong to just one big happy, Kum ba yah singing, First Church. *We do all have various beliefs and that is why we have all the different Churches. I would rather worship with like Christians who believe the same as me on most dogma. *It's not that I can't worship with the various groups every once in awhile but I don't feel comfortable when they start preaching a "percieved" Biblical concept I don't believe in. I can overlook the "Divinity of Mary" long enough to worship with Catholics but not to the point of joining their church. I could overlook the Primative Baptist's "election" beliefs to fellowship with them. What about all the premillennialism, millennialism, amillennialism, trubulation, pretribulation, & all the different judgements? They don't have any bearing on our Salvation but how a Church feels would be important. Being Baptized in the name of Jesus verses the Trinity could also be a deciding factor.



I agree with what you are saying. I go to UGA at on campus we have student centers of all the major denominations; that has led me to attend services of denominations which I would not be exposed otherwise. The belief system overall of the congregation definitely becomes important in that regard. So maybe having just one church may make our life easier in that we have dont have to make many choices; but it restricts our beliefs too.


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> It's called "pointing out the obvious" in hope that someone will be enabled to see it.



oh well, what do you think of those verses and arguments in support of free will? you have already made up your mind, but in the process of doing so I am sure you read arguments against predestination (from scriptures too). So what do you make of this contradiction? dont you think that it may not be as black and white as we sometimes tend to discuss?


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> oh well, what do you think of those verses and arguments in support of free will? you have already made up your mind, but in the process of doing so I am sure you read arguments against predestination (from scriptures too). So what do you make of this contradiction? dont you think that it may not be as black and white as we sometimes tend to discuss?



That is called indoctrination. Did Mary remain a virgin?. What about the Trinity? You can find verses where Jesus says, the Father is greater than I, etc. We can twist verses and pick & choose verses to prove our beliefs are correct.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> oh well, what do you think of those verses and arguments in support of free will? you have already made up your mind, but in the process of doing so I am sure you read arguments against predestination (from scriptures too).


I was raised in free-will works religion. I am very familiar with the arguments. Even as an unregenerate, when I stumbled upon scripture that made it appear that God was actually in control of creation, I was told that "it is a mystery" or that "who can understand the mind of God?". There are no mysteries in what is revealed.



bigdawg25 said:


> So what do you make of this contradiction? dont you think that it may not be as black and white as we sometimes tend to discuss?


I do not see contradiction. If scripture appeared to me to contradict scripture, it would be my biblical worldview that is wrong, not scripture.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> That is called indoctrination. Did Mary remain a virgin?. What about the Trinity? You can find verses where Jesus says, the Father is greater than I, etc. *We can twist verses and pick & choose verses to prove our beliefs are correct.*



that's true, and I have always tried not to actively cherry pick my own verses, and ignore the rest. I think many Christians today cherry pick bible to such an extent that they no longer should be considered Christians. I grew up in a very open atmosphere, so I have not experienced indoctrination much, but I certainly see how it can influence one's viewpoint.


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> I was raised in free-will works religion. I am very familiar with the arguments. Even as an unregenerate, when I stumbled upon scripture that made it appear that God was actually in control of creation, I was told that "it is a mystery" or that "who can understand the mind of God?". There are no mysteries in what is revealed.
> 
> 
> I do not see contradiction. If scripture appeared to me to contradict scripture,* it would be my biblical worldview that is wrong, not scripture.*



no one here said that the scripture itself is wrong; I was saying that there are verses out there clearly supporting free will, and there are few out there indicating predestination. Now, on the surface there is contradiction there; so theologians try to get a take home message from it. So if you just choose one side of it, then that would be kinda cherry picking too, wouldnt it?


----------



## Ronnie T

bigdawg25 said:


> no one here said that the scripture itself is wrong; I was saying that there are verses out there clearly supporting free will, and there are few out there indicating predestination. Now, on the surface there is contradiction there; so theologians try to get a take home message from it. So if you just choose one side of it, then that would be kinda cherry picking too, wouldnt it?



I agree.  and therein lies the problem of simply quoting "a" scripture.  Doing that is a horrible was to study.
I can prove anything if all I have to do is quote a scripture.


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> no one here said that the scripture itself is wrong; I was saying that there are verses out there clearly supporting free will, and there are few out there indicating predestination. Now, on the surface there is contradiction there; so theologians try to get a take home message from it. So if you just choose one side of it, then that would be kinda cherry picking too, wouldnt it?



This was a  discussion, from the link below, on contradicting verses and church divisions? Exerpt from me on that discussion:

I've tried reading the Bible with guidance from God, The Holy Spirit and with guidance from Church elders and I still find verses that contradict each other. I also find chapters that various "associations that follow Jesus" use to distinguish their beliefs. I'm not the only one who finds this or I would think it was just me. Maybe I should ask for guidance on how to ignore these contradictions & different associations. The only thing I can do is read the Bible with guidance from God and let the Bible form me. I would assume that is what Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have done. My question would be, why did the Holy Spirit guide us all so very different? 


http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=673809&highlight=against


----------



## bigdawg25

Ronnie T said:


> I agree.  and therein lies the problem of simply quoting "a" scripture.  Doing that is a horrible was to study.
> I can prove anything if all I have to do is quote a scripture.



That's Why I personally dont like quoting a verse from scripture unless absolutely needed for an argument. I usually refer to whole chapters or to writings of other theologians because that conveys the true context behind a verse.


----------



## barryl

I tell you what the problem is. Every post starts out like this " This is what I{We} believe" or " I{We} don't believe that." The "TRUTH," is the "TRUTH" no matter what you or I think or say!! Sooner or later you have to decide who your final authority is, God, or man, or yourself. By the way, there are no contridictions in the word of God!! Private interpretations are the problem.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> This was a  discussion, from the link below, on contradicting verses and church divisions? Exerpt from me on that discussion:
> 
> I've tried reading the Bible with guidance from God, The Holy Spirit and with guidance from Church elders and I still find verses that contradict each other. I also find chapters that various "associations that follow Jesus" use to distinguish their beliefs. I'm not the only one who finds this or I would think it was just me. Maybe I should ask for guidance on how to ignore these contradictions & different associations. The only thing I can do is read the Bible with guidance from God and let the Bible form me. I would assume that is what Catholics, Protestants, Lutherans, and Presbyterians have done. *My question would be, why did the Holy Spirit guide us all so very different?
> *
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=673809&highlight=against



Art, you have asked a billion dollar question, and the answer to those are can vary from very simple to very complex which may even question the very existence of the holy spirit. Some folks blame us humans for such divisions, and say that its us who caused it. I tend to disagree with such a simplistic view; and in my mind, there exists an inherent contradictions in the bible, and as a result of god given human nature, we try to reconcile with these contradictions, and find an overall picture; and it could very well be that we arrive at different picture. who is to claim that god didnt intend it that way? So, the problem comes when determining which one was correct? and what happens to folks which followed the wrong one ? I dont know, and I would not start calling myself religious until I get some answers regarding that. Till then, I am at peace with being spiritual, and being a student of religion while trying to understand each side.


----------



## bigdawg25

barryl said:


> I tell you what the problem is. Every post starts out like this " This is what I{We} believe" or " I{We} don't believe that." The "TRUTH," is the "TRUTH" no matter what you or I think or say!! Sooner or later you have to decide who your final authority is, God, or man, or yourself. *By the way, there are no contridictions in the word of God!! Private interpretations are the problem.*



yeah, go in denial mode; that served catholic church pretty good until reformation when Calvin, Luther, Arminius etc took the cat out of the bag. 

if you read it as closely as I have then you will immediately realize that dismissing either of the calvinist or arminian theology is not as easy as you think because both have some verses supporting their argument. Hence, everyone and their denomination has their own interpretation to some extent whether you admit it or not.


----------



## Ronnie T

I believe every verse in the Gospel will compliment all the other verses of the Gospel.  Unless, one has hung their hat on one verse to the exclusion of the other verse.
Paul would tell us:  "it isn't so much about taking sides of what you believe, as is the necessity to contend for the faith once received".


----------



## Artfuldodger

Protestants, Catholics, and all the various denominations can't all be right. We all read the same Bible. The truth most definitely is "the truth" and that is what we are all looking for. How can an individual with free will not interpret verses differently than the next believer? Some are quick to judge a whole denomination of not having salvation because of their interpretation. I can't see God punishing whole denominations  because they used the wrong words during their Baptism or a different "end time" belief, or if Heaven is on Earth.
Maybe it's man or maybe it's the Holy Spirit guiding us all differently to make a point. To show us that it doesn't matter. If it's the Holy Spirit then that would be an argument towards predestination. God controls all of us for good and bad.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Mahatma Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Christians, and he replied "I don't know, I've never met one." This is a man who went to college in England. But I know what he meant. I once met a hitchhiker (in the 1970's) who owned only the clothes on his back, and a backpack with three books: an English Bible, a Spanish Bible, and an English-Spanish dictionary. He was a member of a church whose members met once a year at a farm in California, and spent the rest of the year traveling around the country witnessing etc. He contended that the hundred-odd members of that church were the only people on the face of the Earth who were saved; everyone else was going to - he!!. Because, they were the only ones who were actually DOING all the things Jesus had told his followers to do. They had sold everything they owned and used the money for good works; they obeyed all of the Law of Moses, they practiced strict nonviolent pacifism (do not resist evil, turn the other cheek, do good to those who hate you), they abstained from judging others, they spent their time purifying their own character, doing good works, and spreading the gospel. So I think I am luckier than Gandhi; I think I have actually met one.
(someone else's story but it made me wonder about selling our possessions.)
Not from me but do we sell everything we own or was Jesus talking just to his deciples? What about the other times he was talking to just his deciples?


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> no one here said that the scripture itself is wrong; I was saying that there are verses out there clearly supporting free will, and there are few out there indicating predestination. Now, on the surface there is contradiction there; so theologians try to get a take home message from it. So if you just choose one side of it, then that would be kinda cherry picking too, wouldnt it?


I understand what you are saying. I would argue that if I see contradiction "on the surface", I must rely on God to correct my thinking.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> Protestants, Catholics, and all the various denominations can't all be right. We all read the same Bible. The truth most definitely is "the truth" and that is what we are all looking for. How can an individual with free will not interpret verses differently than the next believer? Some are quick to judge a whole denomination of not having salvation because of their interpretation. I can't see God punishing whole denominations  because they used the wrong words during their Baptism or a different "end time" belief, or if Heaven is on Earth.
> Maybe it's man or maybe it's the *Holy Spirit guiding us* all differently to make a point. To show us that it doesn't matter. If it's the Holy Spirit then that would be an argument towards predestination. God controls all of us for good and bad.



maybe, or the holy grail for me would be that maybe all of those denominations arent as different as they like to think...and maybe all the roads leads to the same outcome. at the moment, I definitely dont see how that may be, but some of the really smart theologians in the past have hinted at that, although that isnt backed so much by evidence as it is by their personal feelings and "inner voice".


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> Mahatma Gandhi was once asked what he thought of Christians, and he replied "I don't know, I've never met one." This is a man who went to college in England. But I know what he meant. I once met a hitchhiker (in the 1970's) who owned only the clothes on his back, and a backpack with three books: an English Bible, a Spanish Bible, and an English-Spanish dictionary. He was a member of a church whose members met once a year at a farm in California, and spent the rest of the year traveling around the country witnessing etc. He contended that the hundred-odd members of that church were the only people on the face of the Earth who were saved; everyone else was going to - he!!. Because, they were the only ones who were actually DOING all the things Jesus had told his followers to do. They had sold everything they owned and used the money for good works; they obeyed all of the Law of Moses, they practiced strict nonviolent pacifism (do not resist evil, turn the other cheek, do good to those who hate you), they abstained from judging others, they spent their time purifying their own character, doing good works, and spreading the gospel. *So I think I am luckier than Gandhi; I think I have actually met one.*
> (someone else's story but it made me wonder about selling our possessions.)
> Not from me but do we sell everything we own or was Jesus talking just to his deciples? What about the other times he was talking to just his deciples?



This story is really thoughtful, and sometimes I wonder its irony. Jesus was a pacifist and believed that helping the poor was a job everyone should do. In today's time, that isnt what we all believe at all; and to some extent, we all believe that hard work can triumph poverty and uplift the person's social class. as a corollary, it means that the poor of today got where they are because of some fault of their own eg bad work ethic, lazy etc.

To be honest, I myself believe that too, and although I support charities, and had volunteered at a catholic one when I was in high school, I still think that too much of that makes folks dependent on them. So my question would be what changed in last 2000 yrs? did the poor become more lazy or "we" became more selfish?


----------



## bigdawg25

gemcgrew said:


> I understand what you are saying. I would argue that if I see contradiction "on the surface", I must rely on God to correct my thinking.



well, I am relying on it too, but so far I have got no messages directly, so in the interim, I am relying on the god given skills to find out the truth .


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> maybe, or the holy grail for me would be that maybe all of those denominations arent as different as they like to think...and maybe all the roads leads to the same outcome. at the moment, I definitely dont see how that may be, but some of the really smart theologians in the past have hinted at that, although that isnt backed so much by evidence as it is by their personal feelings and "inner voice".



Would you go so far as to include Mormons, JW's. & Apostolics? Some universal Churches are like the Boy Scouts & Masonry, as long as you believe in a God. Oprah & Joel Osteen have mentioned their belief in this concept. Could this be The same God calling all under the same umbrella?

I've always believed Jesus is the only way. Except for the Jews of course who were blinded and will be granted amnesty.


----------



## Artfuldodger

As far as charity is concerned, we still have a Biblical commitment to help the poor. I would say we must use our own judgement in who to help. I don't know if Jesus was walking the Earth today if he would discriminate the freeloaders from the needy. It's not that I don't mind helping a freeloader, it's just that i'd  rather see my resources used to help the needy. they are still out there and so is the command. I think I'm seeing this the same as you. Welfare isn't charity, it's just a two-way dependency between people getting checks or votes. (symbiotic relationship) It creates generations of dependency.


----------



## gemcgrew

bigdawg25 said:


> well, I am relying on it too, but so far I have got no messages directly, so in the interim, I am relying on the god given skills to find out the truth .


I see.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> I've always believed Jesus is the only way. Except for the Jews of course who were blinded and will be granted amnesty.


So, is Jesus the only way or not? Make up your mind.


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> Would you go so far as to include Mormons, JW's. & Apostolics? *Some universal Churches are like the Boy Scouts & Masonry, as long as you believe in a God*. Oprah & Joel Osteen have mentioned their belief in this concept. Could this be The same God calling all under the same umbrella?
> 
> I've always believed Jesus is the only way. Except for the Jews of course who were blinded and will be granted amnesty.



I know the ones you are talking about. we have an Unitarian Universalist church in town, and their belief statement is so broad that you can expand it to include atheists (no joke). I have nothing against these churches, its just that as I said before, if you have doubts in basic story of Christianity, then you arent a christian, period. Nothing wrong with that, some of these "churches" are either social support organizations filling in the role of churches, and they should be classified as separate religion.

I listen to Joel osteen sometimes, and I think he is a good public speaker almost a motivational speaker, but dont think he knows anything about theology or much about scripture either.

My problem with mormons JW etc is that they believe in stuff outside what's been carried to us by traditions, scripture or by the creed. Their "new" revelations make them a separate religion just like Christianity is separate from Judaism even though both read OT.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gemcgrew said:


> So, is Jesus the only way or not? Make up your mind.



I had to read that again before I responded. I was fixin to say, where did I say I believe differently. Then I realized it was in the next sentence. Yeah I'll have to read & pray on that one. You make a good point.
What if I use your belief that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy? Does that let me off the hook?

I see more gray areas than you. I have trouble committing. I'm open to change as i search for the "Truth" I've switched denominations but so have you. I've seen the light, was once a Democrat, tried the Republican party for 30 years, & now turning Libertarian.
I used to be a racist & gay hater. I used to despise Yankees even though I didn't know any.
So as you can see my journey through the "Lonesome Valley" ain't gonna be easy.


----------



## Artfuldodger

barryl said:


> I tell you what the problem is. Every post starts out like this " This is what I{We} believe" or " I{We} don't believe that." The "TRUTH," is the "TRUTH" no matter what you or I think or say!! Sooner or later you have to decide who your final authority is, God, or man, or yourself. By the way, there are no contridictions in the word of God!! Private interpretations are the problem.



I'm going to pray for  God to bestow on me the special powers he gave you and the interpreters of the special king's Bible.  I'm going to pray that he will give me the special powers to disregard "Man" to include all councils & creed writers. 
If your Church/denomination  has this special power from God, given only to ya'll, can you show this to me in the special king's Bible?


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I had to read that again before I responded. I was fixin to say, where did I say I believe differently. Then I realized it was in the next sentence. Yeah I'll have to read & pray on that one. You make a good point.
> What if I use your belief that God will have mercy on whom he will have mercy? Does that let me off the hook?
> 
> *I see more gray areas than you. I have trouble committing. I'm open to change as i search for the "Truth" I've switched denominations but so have you. *I've seen the light, was once a Democrat, tried the Republican party for 30 years, & now turning Libertarian.
> I used to be a racist & gay hater. I used to despise Yankees even though I didn't know any.
> So as you can see my journey through the "Lonesome Valley" ain't gonna be easy.



I am glad that you are openly admiting your personal struggle against accepting everything the "church" says. I have found that the easiest way people get out of this is to begin to ignore what other denominations are doing; and start convincing yourself that the choice you made is the correct one. I dont want to go that road, and I will be without religion rather then start changing the reality. 

being "racist" has become so broad that mere stereotying makes oneself racist nowadays. with being hater similar thing, if one is against gay marriage (as I am) then I automatically hate them, which is not true at all.

I know enough "yankees" and some of them are more pious and moral then some of the folks you see down here. a person's upbringing is what matters, not where they are from.


----------



## barryl

Artfuldodger said:


> I'm going to pray for  God to bestow on me the special powers he gave you and the interpreters of the special king's Bible.  I'm going to pray that he will give me the special powers to disregard "Man" to include all councils & creed writers.
> If your Church/denomination  has this special power from God, given only to ya'll, can you show this to me in the special king's Bible?


I'm gonna show you this "special power" John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. KJV AV


----------



## Ronnie T

barryl said:


> I'm gonna show you this "special power" John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. KJV AV



I think, if you'll give it a good study, you'll see that in the above chapters Jesus was speaking directly to His apostles, and only to his apostles.  
He was speaking concerning their being able to have much to teach that they didn't already know.
It would be a mistake for me to accert that everything I say or believe fallings within those verses.

The Holy Spirit would shew the apostles things to come.


----------



## centerpin fan

barryl said:


> I'm gonna show you this "special power" John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. KJV AV



I'm gonna anticipate AD's response:



Artfuldodger said:


> ... why did the Holy Spirit guide us all so very different?


----------



## Artfuldodger

centerpin fan said:


> I'm gonna anticipate AD's response:



It's not much other than what you pointed to that I said earlier. I will add as bigdawg25 pointed out that ignoring denominations to work out your own salvation might be the path for some. In saying this it is the path for me, not everyone. If one feel comfortable in their denomination then by all means work out your own salvation in that Church.
I don't feel as maybe Barryl does that one denomination has insight to the "Word of God" that other don't. I also don't believe that Barryl has disregarded what the jury has said so to speak and based his beliefs solely on guidance from the Holy Spirit and not from any man. I contend that would be impossible. I agree with his concept and that is what I would like to do. But my free will to be persuaded by "Man", Church elders, preachers, my own parents, special King James,  ancient prophets, ancient creed writers, Jim Bakker & Tammy Faye Bakker, elementary school teacher, and everyone on this forum can't be ignored because "Man" will fail me every time. I give a lot of respect to "man" and I think I'm finally wise enough to serrate the good from the bad to a certain extent. 
I don't believe me, you, or Barryl has any more of a direct line to the Holy Spirit than Church #1,2,3 or the Mormons, Apostolics, or The House of God Which is the Church of the Living God the Pillar and Ground of the Truth Without Controversy, Inc.”
(not much huh? Oh well "you gotta sing when the Spirit says sing".)

Philippians 2:12  Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
(my point is the path could be different from me to you, from Catholic to Protestant, from Methodist to Baptist in working out our salvation.")


----------



## Artfuldodger

bigdawg25 said:


> being "racist" has become so broad that mere stereotying makes oneself racist nowadays. with being hater similar thing, if one is against gay marriage (as I am) then I automatically hate them, which is not true at all.
> 
> I know enough "yankees" and some of them are more pious and moral then some of the folks you see down here. a person's upbringing is what matters, not where they are from.



I know what you mean about perceived racism just for being a white Republican. There is a big difference from not being for affirmative action and being a racist. There is a big difference from not accepting gays for religious reasons than hating them. I believe I should have the right to refuse service to blacks & gays. I don't think that make me a racist, just a discriminator. Insurance companies discriminate every day. They do it for business reasons. I know the difference because in my younger days I was a racist & gay hater. It used to despise me to see a mixed or gay couple. I truly hated them. Again, I don't even know why I hated Yankees, too much Beverly Hillbillies maybe. 
I would like to know if you feel unmarried couples are discriminated against as much as gay couples and if not why?
Bigdawg, how do you separate your spiritual side from your religious side until you find the right denomination for you? How important is it for you to find this denomination? Why do you put so much emphasis on creeds as being a part of Christianity? What if you never find the denomination you are looking for?


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to know if you feel unmarried couples are discriminated against as much as gay couples and if not why?
> 
> Bigdawg, how do you separate your spiritual side from your religious side until you find the right denomination for you? How important is it for you to find this denomination? Why do you put so much emphasis on creeds as being a part of Christianity? What if you never find the denomination you are looking for?



I am not sure, I have never met a real life gay couple, but if I do then I think I wont be feeling completely comfortable as a traditional couple. I guess do indeed discriminate between those.

Till I find the perfect blend of theological belief or denomination, I just feel like god is more deistic in nature, and he wants "us" to figure out the answers ourself using the skills he has given us. 

I place some importance in creeds because I think they are cliff notes of the religion itself, and regardless of what individual churches call it (we have had several creeds in past two millenia); I just want churches and their members to clearly know in their belief system. I see my friends attend churches which have huge congregations with music and entertainment, and they talk so little theology except about "god's love" that I feel whether they even know what they are "celebrating" there. I dont want a watered down version of Christianity because that in my book is far worse then selecting a particular version of theology, and believing in that.

for me personally its not absolutely essential to find the right denomination or even religion; I grew up in a household where none of my parents were really religious, but were really spiritual, and believed in charities (mostly church supported ones). They got their quota of socializing among like minded people there, and I would be perfectly fine doing that too because inspite of so many wrongs I see with catholic church, I still feel connected with them because I see good done by them everyday.

as Late Mother Teresa (a beatified nun) used to say "I see God in every human being. When I wash the leper's wounds I feel I am nursing the Lord himself. Is it not a beautiful experience?".


----------



## Artfuldodger

And speaking of Mother Teresa:
"When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/teresa94.html

I agree he leaves a lot up to us as individuals. I look at the whole concept of accepting salvation as being left up to us. God's grace, Christ's suffering, dying, resurrection, & ascension. Guidance from the gift of the Holy Spirit. And, a big AND, our choice to  accept or deny. 
 Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (our choice to deny)

2 Timothy 2:12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us. (our choice to deny)

 Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.

 Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (repent? is this a works?)

Titus 2:12 Training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,  (that speaks tons of free will)

 Romans 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ( we'd better use our free will and "see fit")

 John 11:35 Jesus wept. (Jesus even had free will and somehow turned off his foreknowledge to allow him to cry.)

Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, (how could I possibly repent without a free will?)

God has free will, Jesus was the Son of God. I was made in the image of God. I can be obedient. I can be angry. I can weep.


----------



## gordon 2

Lowjack said:


> I like to se ethem going back to true Christianity or Yeshua Sitting on David's throne all religions done away with.



Yes. But would you praise this song for your community's school commencement?:


----------



## gordon 2

centerpin fan said:


> Times change, but human nature doesn't.  We are still sinners in need of a Savior.



Yes---and---- no. With all respect, I slant on the side of nature and nurture when it comes to human nature.

 So we are potential sinners for the blood of our fathers and mothers which courses in our veins since Adam and Eve. But also we are sinners or saints for the ways  our societies have fashioned us.

 And the extent we are sinners for our social nurture is never constant. Think of the German People( a very christian nation) before WW1 for example and germans today. And there for think of the sins of the Jews and those of Christians.

Society has a degree of ( for lack of a better word) peer- pressure that invites more and less sin. Think of the effect of patriotism, ( nationalism) for example, and on how far individual moral outlooks are influenced for it.

So, if I am even mildly right, the sins and excess of a pacific nation will most likely be less or to a different degree( a different temper) than for that of a militaristic nation with a social mind set of "manifest destiny" or for a societies'  religious ideas and beliefs on salvation, Heaven and H A D E S, political outlook, and social expectations...  etc.

In other words we all are sinners, but what ministered to my great grand-fathers during the recent roman occupation of Northern Europe does not minister fully today, because nurture has made Jack duller or brighter to sin, to salvation.

I guess what I'm saying is Old Time Religion is not good enough... and I always fear that it is is what some people might read for the sinner and scripture, and for fear of backslide  we keep on to our non productive paradigms and their beautiful but impotent fractals.


----------



## Ronnie T

What Christ needs is disciples rather than biblical scholars.
.


----------



## gemcgrew

Artfuldodger said:


> "you gotta sing when the Spirit says sing".


Why?


----------



## formula1

*Re:*



Ronnie T said:


> I think, if you'll give it a good study, you'll see that in the above chapters Jesus was speaking directly to His apostles, and only to his apostles.
> He was speaking concerning their being able to have much to teach that they didn't already know.
> It would be a mistake for me to accert that everything I say or believe fallings within those verses.
> 
> The Holy Spirit would shew the apostles things to come.



Ronnie, you know how much I love you brother!

I just want to go on record that I believe your assertion is false, by a myriad of evidence both in these chapters, in Acts, and in the rest of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit teaches all believers(even on occasion, things to come) and indwells all believers just for this purpose, that is, to guide us into all Truth. How can it be possible to walk in the Spirit without the guiding of the Holy Spirit?

I will give you this on your point, that is, some think they hear but do not and it is evident in their fruit.  But Jesus said, 'My sheep know my voice'!  In truth, I know you know it. But your assertion could lead many away from the great blessing that is the Holy Spirit in the lives of each believer!

God bless you my brother and keep searching!


----------



## gemcgrew

Ronnie T said:


> What Christ needs is disciples rather than biblical scholars.


In what other areas do you view Christ as lacking?


----------



## Artfuldodger

formula1 said:


> The Holy Spirit teaches all believers(even on occasion, things to come) and indwells all believers just for this purpose, that is, to guide us into all Truth. How can it be possible to walk in the Spirit without the guiding of the Holy Spirit?



The Holy Spirit does indwell in us and guides us. There are verses in Acts that tell us this as you said. 
John 14:26 is part of Jesus' Farewell Discourse where he is speaking to his disciples before leaving the Earth.
I do not know if his "Farewell Discourse" pertains to all Christians. Sounds like a good topic.

Barnes' notes on the Bible;
Shall teach you all things - All things which it was needful for them to understand in the apostolic office, and particularly those things which they were not prepared then to hear or could not then understand. See John 16:12. Compare the notes at Matthew 10:19-20. This was a full promise that they would be inspired, and that in organizing the church, and in recording the truths necessary for its edification, they would be under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 10:19-20
19But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible

For it is - the Spirit of your Father, etc. - This was an extraordinary promise, and was literally fulfilled to those first preachers of the Gospel;


----------



## bigdawg25

Ronnie T said:


> What Christ needs is disciples rather than biblical scholars.
> .



How can we know what he wants or doesnt want. In my view he wants everyone, and maybe we want him rather then the other way around; even atheists like dawkins say the same thing; we need god more then he needs us.

15th century poet Milton put it best in his sonnet "on his blindness" in which he was refering as to how does a blind man like him makes himself useful to god.

"
    When I consider how my light is spent
    Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
    And that one talent which is death to hide
    Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
    To serve therewith my Maker, and present
    My true account, lest he returning chide,
    "Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
    I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
    That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
    Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
    Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
    Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
    And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
    They also serve who only stand and wait."


----------



## bigdawg25

Artfuldodger said:


> And speaking of Mother Teresa:
> "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/teresa94.html
> 
> I agree he leaves a lot up to us as individuals. I look at the whole concept of accepting salvation as being left up to us. God's grace, Christ's suffering, dying, resurrection, & ascension. Guidance from the gift of the Holy Spirit. And, a big AND, our choice to  accept or deny.
> Matthew 10:33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven. (our choice to deny)
> 
> 2 Timothy 2:12 if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us. (our choice to deny)
> 
> Jeremiah 17:10 I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.
> 
> Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (repent? is this a works?)
> 
> Titus 2:12 Training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age,  (that speaks tons of free will)
> 
> Romans 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ( we'd better use our free will and "see fit")
> 
> John 11:35 Jesus wept. (Jesus even had free will and somehow turned off his foreknowledge to allow him to cry.)
> 
> Acts 3:19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, (how could I possibly repent without a free will?)
> 
> God has free will, Jesus was the Son of God. I was made in the image of God. I can be obedient. I can be angry. I can weep.



I was referring to few of the above verses when I told gemccrew about scriptural evidence for free will. "human interpretation" of the above verses lead to nothing but to the conclusion of free will; and there is lies the dilemma. There is no way someone can fault the interpretation of above verses as something other then free will; in similar token same with verses hinting at predestination. I can tell folks that in final analysis, I think the free will theology is what god favors, but that's just that, a hunch; and I although folks like wesley and Arminius provided arguments for them, I still dont think this debate can end conclusively any time soon.


----------



## gordon 2

bigdawg25 said:


> How can we know what he wants or doesnt want. In my view he wants everyone, and maybe we want him rather then the other way around; even atheists like dawkins say the same thing; we need god more then he needs us.
> 
> 15th century poet Milton put it best in his sonnet "on his blindness" in which he was refering as to how does a blind man like him makes himself useful to god.
> 
> "
> When I consider how my light is spent
> Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
> And that one talent which is death to hide
> Lodg'd with me useless, though my soul more bent
> To serve therewith my Maker, and present
> My true account, lest he returning chide,
> "Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
> I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
> That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
> Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
> Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
> Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
> And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
> They also serve who only stand and wait."



Yea. But we do not remember the fundamental of Catholic Confirmation ( which is the choice to be a deciple in my view) and  the cathechism which accompanies us there with its many biblical examples of how Jesus explains to many, "Follow me." And thereafter, for the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters where with now the showing up of the Comforter all are called to go through the Narrow Gate now available to all, or in my view to be followers of The Way and deciples...etc...


----------



## Lowjack

bigdawg25 said:


> what you are asking is turning the wheels of time backwards by two thousand years. Its almost impossible to do that, and instead we have to live with what we have and what we know. as an example, even things as basic as baptisms were done differently in early churches. Their formula was to do it in the name of Jesus only; not as trinity which most of present day churches do.



It is not Impossible , we've done it.!


----------



## bigdawg25

Lowjack said:


> It is not Impossible , we've done it.!



done what? I cant see any present day denomination doing things like early churches; if there are any, then kindly enlighten me.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigdawg25 said:


> I cant see any present day denomination doing things like early churches ...



Examples?


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> Examples?



maybe you mis-read what I wrote. I said I do NOT see them being exactly like early churches. Catholic church comes close, but still, we are a bit different now then 2000 yrs ago; it was lowjack who said they have done it.


----------



## centerpin fan

bigdawg25 said:


> I said I do NOT see them being exactly like early churches.



I know, but _how_ are they not alike?

Here is Justin Martyr's description of early church worship:

_And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration_

Except for weekly communion, most churches do something very similar to that.


----------



## Lowjack

bigdawg25 said:


> done what? I cant see any present day denomination doing things like early churches; if there are any, then kindly enlighten me.



can't show it to you only in person , if you ever come to Miami let me know , I will show you what the real church is about.


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> I know, but _how_ are they not alike?
> 
> Here is Justin Martyr's description of early church worship:
> 
> _And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration_
> 
> Except for weekly communion, most churches do something very similar to that.



Ok, maybe we were talking about two different aspects of it. I was refering to church belief whereas you are talking about church worship. Church beliefs have changed, evolved whatever you want to call it, and the church structure is totally different then in early church days. Things like infallibility of the pope are recent constructs. Also, in early churches there was nothing like "bible study", and it was just liturgy and creed which people were familiar with. Once the cat came out of the bag so as to speak,with bible being translated into common languages, and everyone read it, and churches had to develop advanced theology to explain it to the common folks. this Progress, for better or worse, was what I was saying cannot to turned back. Even communion every week is a rather new thing.


----------



## bigdawg25

Lowjack said:


> can't show it to you only in person , if you ever come to Miami let me know , I will show you what the real church is about.



My cousin is frm ft lauderdale; I go there all the time, so I might have see it someday . BTW, what denomination is it? Google can open doors you know.


----------



## Artfuldodger

The Early church had Scriptures and we have the Bible. They were searching the Scriptures daily. I just wonder what exactly they were using for Scriptures?
“And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, whether those things were so.   Therefore many of them believed .” (Acts 17:10-12 KJV)


----------



## centerpin fan

bigdawg25 said:


> Ok, maybe we were talking about two different aspects of it. I was refering to church belief whereas you are talking about church worship. Church beliefs have changed, evolved whatever you want to call it, and the church structure is totally different then in early church days. Things like infallibility of the pope are recent constructs. Also, in early churches there was nothing like "bible study", and it was just liturgy and creed which people were familiar with. Once the cat came out of the bag so as to speak,with bible being translated into common languages, and everyone read it, and churches had to develop advanced theology to explain it to the common folks. this Progress, for better or worse, was what I was saying cannot to turned back. Even communion every week is a rather new thing.



I basically agree with everything but that last sentence.


----------



## bigdawg25

centerpin fan said:


> I basically agree with everything but that last sentence.



lol ok, frequency of receiving communion is totally different debate .


----------



## barryl

Ronnie T said:


> I think, if you'll give it a good study, you'll see that in the above chapters Jesus was speaking directly to His apostles, and only to his apostles.
> He was speaking concerning their being able to have much to teach that they didn't already know.
> It would be a mistake for me to accert that everything I say or believe fallings within those verses.
> 
> The Holy Spirit would shew the apostles things to come.


Spiritual, Doctrinal, and Historical Applications. Guess which one I was using ?


----------

