Christian Forums

You are the one asking if I'm on drugs and wondering whether I can read.  All I'm doing is pointing out your own words.

That you resort to name-calling and making unfounded assertions does, I think, show who knows what they're talking about and who does not.

But, if you're implying that you'll cease your name-calling and blank assertions, I can accept that from you.  Thanks.

Again... you just don't get it.  I wish someone would have warned me.  You see what you want to see, you read into the words of others what you want it to say... you blame them when you misinterpret their remarks, you twist and you assume...  it's so sad.  Is that a Catholic thing?  I've noticed when discussing Biblical beliefs, that other Catholics do that also... I guess it's one way to make yourselves look as though you are right in practicing the false religion.  Oh well,  Movin on...   

I know that I know what my husband believes, and I know that I know that while my Catholic family may be GOOD Catholics, they are lousy Christians, according to the WORD of GOD.

They have more dust on their bibles than the nonbeliver, they couldn't find you a verse if their life depended on it, they lie, they compromise the gospel, they cheat, but... they don't miss mass, or ever forget to pray to Mary....  they make sure all of their beer drinking teenagers go to Catholic schools...  And of course they always go to confession after committing fornication.  Good Catholics. All of them.

You say I am in a bad spot to judge their hearts, I'm not intimidated by that.  I line up what I see in fruits with the WORD of GOD... and no RELIGION...  has more authority than that, not even the Catholic Church, even though you all teach that it does. 

When someone trusts what the Priest says over what the BIBLE says, their heart is in the wrong place, mine isn't.  I've seen this happen time and time again... So, your "scare" tactics just don't work here... 

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 07, 2008 - 20:45:54
All Christians can do this. But only Jesus can pass on our petitions to God.

You lost me on this one.

If I were to become Roman Catholic, it would be because they seem to take the mystery of the religion, and worship periods, a bit more seriously than a lot of low-church Protestants.

I won't become RC because there are other items with which I take issue.

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 18:44:55

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 07, 2008 - 20:45:54
All Christians can do this. But only Jesus can pass on our petitions to God.

You lost me on this one.

So much has been said that the context might have gotten lost.
What I was saying was that all Chistians can pray without any earthly help but only Jesus (not a priest) mediates between the praying Christian and God.

Quote from: Snargles on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 22:03:34

Quote from: HRoberson on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 18:44:55

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 07, 2008 - 20:45:54
All Christians can do this. But only Jesus can pass on our petitions to God.

You lost me on this one.

So much has been said that the context might have gotten lost.
What I was saying was that all Chistians can pray without any earthly help but only Jesus (not a priest) mediates between the praying Christian and God.

Yes, but there are various forms of mediation.

It may well be that Jesus is The Mediator because He remained faithful into death, and it is His faithfulness that allows all other mediations.

It does not require Jesus as a middle man for God to hear your prayers - he hears them directly.

It does not require Jesus as a middle man for God to hear your prayers - he hears them directly.
[/quote]

I would like to think that. After all, in OT times people spoke directly to God because Jesus hadn't come to earth yet. My CoC upbringing has always told me that we pray "in Jesus name" because we have to go through him. Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit intercedes for us. I Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator, JC. Aren't mediating and interceding the same thing? Are these 2 verses contradictory?

The following could be said about a whole slough of cofC'er's and independent Cc'er's I've known:

Quote from: kensington on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 18:34:06I know that I know what my husband believes, and I know that I know that while my [church of Christ/Christian church] family may be GOOD [church of Christ'er's/Christian church'er's], they are lousy Christians, according to the WORD of GOD.

They have more dust on their bibles than the nonbeliver, they couldn't find you a verse if their life depended on it, they lie, they compromise the gospel, they cheat, but... they don't miss [worship], or ever forget to pray [for sinners] ....  they make sure all of their beer drinking teenagers go to [youth group outings]...  And of course they always [repent privately and swear never never to do it again . . . oops!] after committing fornication.  Good [church of Christ'er's/Christian church'er's]. All of them.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 18:34:06You say I am in a bad spot to judge their hearts, I'm not intimidated by that.  I line up what I see in fruits with the WORD of GOD... and no RELIGION...  has more authority than that, not even the Catholic Church, even though you all teach that it does.

No, you go much further: you judge their hearts.  Shame on you.

Quote from: kensington on Mon Oct 13, 2008 - 18:34:06When someone trusts what the Priest says over what the BIBLE says, their heart is in the wrong place, mine isn't.  I've seen this happen time and time again...

So, on what basis do YOU taken YOUR OWN interpretation as THE RIGHT ONE over anyone else?  When you do that, aren't you just doing what the Catholics you malign do?  The only difference is you're your own Pope.  Isn't that more arrogant than at least having the humility to say, "Gosh, I'm not infallible here, and, in fact, I know that my heart is so infected by sin that I can pretty much get the Bible to say anything I want it to say, why don't I put some check and balance on my own pride and listen to God's messenger here?"

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 07:50:19I would like to think that. After all, in OT times people spoke directly to God because Jesus hadn't come to earth yet. My CoC upbringing has always told me that we pray "in Jesus name" because we have to go through him. Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit intercedes for us. I Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator, JC. Aren't mediating and interceding the same thing? Are these 2 verses contradictory?

For prayer to be Christian, it must be Trinitarian: we pray to God the Father, by virtue of our union with Christ the Son, through the intercession of the Holy Spirit.  And we can pray directly to any Person of the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity: Father, Son or Holy Spirit.

The word "Trinity" isn't found in scripture.

Neither is a capella or non-instrumental or Sunday School.

But the Trinity is all over Scripture, like, for example, at Creation, at Jesus' baptism.

No, you go much further: you judge their hearts.  Shame on you.

You say this and you accuse this, but you cannot possibly know this...  or are you judging my heart? 

Shame on me?  WHY?  For being honest... and for knowing when someone's fruit matches what they say they believe and when it doesn't line up with the word?

Again... I am not intimidated by your accusations... not at all. 

When someone tells me they do NOT need to be born again and doesn't even want the term used in their home, because their family has been "Catholic" for generations... "The FRUIT" is evident, and you are the one who doesn't know what he judges. 

Quote from: kensington on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 15:37:33When someone tells me they do NOT need to be born again and doesn't even want the term used in their home, because their family has been "Catholic" for generations... "The FRUIT" is evident, and you are the one who doesn't know what he judges. 

Puh-leeeze.  Some one rejects a particular loaded term (and "born again" however much it is a phrase in John 3, is very much here in the U.S. a loaded term) and affirms solidarity with other Catholic Christians, and that somehow gives you leave to determine that in their hearts they aren't really Christians?  And you give the laundry list of accusations of their sins and failures, and that gives you leave to speak with what you think is authority on the state of their hearts that they aren't Christian?  You won't even give them the courtesy of calling them "Christian"--even though they believe in Jesus Christ, salvation by grace through faith, baptism for the remission of sins, etc.--and give them the (what is in your mind) derogatory designation "Catholic" . . .

Yes, you are committing the sin of judging another person's salvation.  I don't have to look into your heart to see it, I just have to read your words.

You, however, cannot tell, merely by someone's actions, what is the state of their heart and of their salvation before God.  None of us can.

If they fornicate and you want to call fornication a sin--go ahead.  That's biblical.  But since you indicate that they commit sin and yet go to confession (which is an act of repentance, by the way)--you have no right then to call that repentance invalid or judge them not to be Christian.  How many times do we commit a particular sin, repent of it before God, then go back out and do it again?  Worse, how many times do we sin and yet don't repent of it (like gossiping!)?

You'll get over it... I'm not explaining myself to you further... You judge what you do not know.  I have hands on experience as to whether or not my family is saved... any of them, one of them, or none of them.  Not you. 

I still am not intimidated by your remarks... WHO are you now?  Is your name Jesus Christ?  No... so... it's a moot point.

Quote from: kensington on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 16:46:04You'll get over it... I'm not explaining myself to you further... You judge what you do not know.  I have hands on experience as to whether or not my family is saved... any of them, one of them, or none of them.  Not you. 

I still am not intimidated by your remarks... WHO are you now?  Is your name Jesus Christ?  No... so... it's a moot point.

Wow.  Sad.

Quote from: CDHealy on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 16:51:48

Quote from: kensington on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 16:46:04You'll get over it... I'm not explaining myself to you further... You judge what you do not know.  I have hands on experience as to whether or not my family is saved... any of them, one of them, or none of them.  Not you. 

I still am not intimidated by your remarks... WHO are you now?  Is your name Jesus Christ?  No... so... it's a moot point.

Wow.  Sad.

No... not sad at all...  just fine.  Saved by grace...  I love the LORD and I do not care what "MEN" may think of me.   

Did you think that your mocking, guilt filled callous remarks about my opinion would garner respect for you, and cause me to grovel?  Perhaps begging you to enlighten me?   Silly boy.   

Quote from: kensington on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 16:55:54No... not sad at all...  just fine.  Saved by grace...  I love the LORD and I do not care what "MEN" may think of me.   

Did you think that your mocking, guilt filled callous remarks about my opinion would garner respect for you, and cause me to grovel?  Perhaps begging you to enlighten me?   Silly boy.  

Revelatory.

Great!  I'm glad with this Epiphany you can see more clearly.  Makes my day! 

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 07:50:19

Quote
It does not require Jesus as a middle man for God to hear your prayers - he hears them directly.

I would like to think that. After all, in OT times people spoke directly to God because Jesus hadn't come to earth yet. My CoC upbringing has always told me that we pray "in Jesus name" because we have to go through him. Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit intercedes for us. I Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator, JC. Aren't mediating and interceding the same thing? Are these 2 verses contradictory?

It's a different type of mediating and interceding than would be required if we had to "pass our prayers through Jesus." Jesus intercedes with God on behalf of Mankind, because He became human and understands our trials and temptations. "We have an advocate," not "we have a postman."

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 23:02:45

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 07:50:19

Quote
It does not require Jesus as a middle man for God to hear your prayers - he hears them directly.

I would like to think that. After all, in OT times people spoke directly to God because Jesus hadn't come to earth yet. My CoC upbringing has always told me that we pray "in Jesus name" because we have to go through him. Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit intercedes for us. I Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator, JC. Aren't mediating and interceding the same thing? Are these 2 verses contradictory?

It's a different type of mediating and interceding than would be required if we had to "pass our prayers through Jesus." Jesus intercedes with God on behalf of Mankind, because He became human and understands our trials and temptations. "We have an advocate," not "we have a postman."

Thanks Hoyt.

Since you are an elder in the one true church let me ask, have we not taught that Jesus is, as so you aptly put it, a postman? Is this a regional thing here in small conservative churches in Appalachia or have I slept through too many sermons?

I also have the feeling that we view "inJesusnameamen" at the end of a prayer as our "send" button.

Quote from: Snargles on Wed Oct 15, 2008 - 10:26:24

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 23:02:45

Quote from: Snargles on Tue Oct 14, 2008 - 07:50:19

Quote
It does not require Jesus as a middle man for God to hear your prayers - he hears them directly.

I would like to think that. After all, in OT times people spoke directly to God because Jesus hadn't come to earth yet. My CoC upbringing has always told me that we pray "in Jesus name" because we have to go through him. Romans 8:26 says that the Spirit intercedes for us. I Tim 2:5 says there is one mediator, JC. Aren't mediating and interceding the same thing? Are these 2 verses contradictory?

It's a different type of mediating and interceding than would be required if we had to "pass our prayers through Jesus." Jesus intercedes with God on behalf of Mankind, because He became human and understands our trials and temptations. "We have an advocate," not "we have a postman."

Thanks Hoyt.

Since you are an elder in the one true church let me ask, have we not taught that Jesus is, as so you aptly put it, a postman? Is this a regional thing here in small conservative churches in Appalachia or have I slept through too many sermons?

I also have the feeling that we view "inJesusnameamen" at the end of a prayer as our "send" button.

I don't know that I have actually heard "you have to pray to Jesus because God won't listen if you don't," but I could imagine that idea coming across to folks. The rote prayers that seem to be place holders rather than comforting (most Catholics I know who are in grief find the Rosary comforting more so than meaningless rote) do sometimes become stilted. Unfortunately, most groups of people develop "standard" ways of saying things rather than selecting more appropriate words.

I will sometimes play down the "Christian" part of being a God-follower because Jesus-on-earth always pointed to God, not Himself. We are followers of Jesus, yes, but we are primarily followers of the Creator God.

I think we often miss the point that we are to be followers of God the creator more than followers of the Son. Both are parts of the Godhead but Jesus was sent to do his father's will and the sender is superior to the sent. God, not Jesus knows when the world will end. Jesus always referred back to God as the source of his authority.
It is easier for us to get comfortable with Jesus because he is the older brother while God is the all-knowing, all-seeing father who will punish us if we act up.

I agree with you but when I have expressed this view in Bible study it hasn't gotten very far.

HRoberson and Snargles:

I fear that the views you two are expressing are coming dangerously close to subordinationism; i.e., the belief that Jesus is somehow essentially (as opposed to personally) different from the Father.

It's an easy misstep for followers of Alexander Campbell, who, in contradiction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, mistakenly denied the eternality of the Son.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Oct 16, 2008 - 08:56:38
HRoberson and Snargles:

I fear that the views you two are expressing are coming dangerously close to subordinationism; i.e., the belief that Jesus is somehow essentially (as opposed to personally) different from the Father.

It's an easy misstep for followers of Alexander Campbell, who, in contradiction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, mistakenly denied the eternality of the Son.

I realize that but how do you explain that God sent Jesus and Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit? If you give someone the orders to "Go" doesn't that put you above them?
John said the word was with God and the word was God. In Romans 9:5 Paul said "Christ, who is God over all." Jesus said he was one with the Father. Still, God knows when time on earth will end and Jesus doesn't. If they are the same how can one part know something the other part doesn't?

There are differences between God, Jesus and the Spirit but I think it is beyond man to understand them.

Quote from: Snargles on Thu Oct 16, 2008 - 08:05:00
I think we often miss the point that we are to be followers of God the creator more than followers of the Son. Both are parts of the Godhead but Jesus was sent to do his father's will and the sender is superior to the sent. God, not Jesus knows when the world will end. Jesus always referred back to God as the source of his authority.
It is easier for us to get comfortable with Jesus because he is the older brother while God is the all-knowing, all-seeing father who will punish us if we act up.

I agree with you but when I have expressed this view in Bible study it hasn't gotten very far.

There is one God, and in some mystery we understand that one Divine Being as three persons or personalities or representations - no one really knows how to explain it. We do know that Jesus pointed to the Father as someone separate at least in some aspect from Jesus, and we know that He referred to the Spirit as something different at least in some aspect from both Jesus and the Father. We simply do not grasp the intricacies and essences of the Divine Being.

It is easier to get comfortable with Jesus for a number of reasons. Paul's pointing to Jesus is one, our calling ourselves Christians is another, and it was Jesus that lived on this globe as a human. Since He looked like us, spoke like us, and lived with us, He seems more approachable.

What we miss though, is that Jesus was both an example of God, and an example of who we have been made to be. We are to learn about both God and ourselves by looking at Jesus.

It is not that one is superior and one subordinate, but that the world is God's - as Jesus would have said - the Father's, and Jesus kept pointing us to God, not Himself except as He exampled God. I suspect both the apparent subordination and the pointing to someone other than Himself is explained in some part by the fact that Jesus appeared as Human - with Human limitations to some degree, and it is not a human form to whom we are submit, but to the Divine Being.

It is not clear in Scripture exactly how Jesus is separate from the Father, but we do know that this Jesus is said to mediate between us and God and so there is some manner in which there is separation even if that is only in conceptual form.

In any event, God hears our prayers directly and we need not "go through" any other person or member of the Divine Being.

Quote from: CDHealy on Thu Oct 16, 2008 - 08:56:38
HRoberson and Snargles:

I fear that the views you two are expressing are coming dangerously close to subordinationism; i.e., the belief that Jesus is somehow essentially (as opposed to personally) different from the Father.

It's an easy misstep for followers of Alexander Campbell, who, in contradiction to the Epistle to the Hebrews, mistakenly denied the eternality of the Son.

You're paying too close attention, and this has nothing to do with AC.

It is clear in Paul's letters that he perceived some sort of separation between the Father and Jesus, the mediator. It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus spoke of two various entities by speaking of "going to the Father," and "We (the Father and Jesus) will abide with [people that follow God].

It seems that if Jesus (God) can speak of God as being in two different places and being two different entities, we can do the same without running afoul of orthodoxy even if Orthodoxy has a different view.

Could someone please tell me what CoC means?

Thanks, Elaine

Quote from: Elaine on Wed Oct 22, 2008 - 17:18:17
Could someone please tell me what CoC means?

Thanks, Elaine

CoC = church of Christ a semi-denomination of rather conservative churches characterized by their practices of not using instrumental music in worship periods, baptism by immersion for salvation, and a congregational governance model that includes elders as the spiritual leaders.

Of course, any specific congregation may or may not fit those practices.

Kennsington,

Why do you say Catholicism is a false religion? Is it because of the rules that people follow that were made up by men (and can change at another meeting)?  Or is it deeper.
Have patience with me I'm new at this.  Or if you're busy - is there a link?

God bless,
Elaine

Elaine...   Rules don't bother me, there are rules in all places of life...  my husband is military, I understand rules...  but....  Because of the idolatry involved in being a Catholic.  The repetitious praying, the praying to saints, the Pope as "Holy Father",  Mass, candle lighting, baptizing infants, purgatory, confessing to priests, Praying to Mary(Ave Maria), Calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, penance, obligations, absolution, All Saints Day, Communion, the Catechism, Statues, the crucifix, the rosary (made for repetitious praying), Beatification, Feasts of the Church, Patron Saints, dispensation (as for "mixed marriages), religious medals, Sacraments producing grace, Mystery of Salvation, Christian name at baptism, name day, the Prayer of Quiet, Communion of Saints(the spiritual union between those in heaven, those in purgatory, those on earth), the Immaculate conception, the conclave, assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary...   

Just to name a few reasons. 

Kennsington,

Thank you, you should have seen my face when I read the list. :)

I have a Cath Dictionary of some sort somewhere - so if you're busy - just let me know...
I don't even know what an obligation is -conclave, dispensation...is baptizing infants wrong? What do the other churches do?
What's wrong with Communion - I thought Protestant churches do that at special times  - Trinity Church of Christ here gives little cups of grape juice on Sundays...now the Assumption - is nowhere in the Bible, right? I mean did Catholics just fabricate that?   It seems that way.

I really am pretty innocent about this stuff ---on these sites there can be so much intensity around these things ---and that is not me. I'm into learning only.

I was getting a tiny bit into the Catholic Church nearby bec I love Communion ----but it all just seems so nuts to me - all the rules and intellectual "stuff".   I'm just a simple person that loves God and Jesus. But being a Catholic in my youth it still attracts me for sure.

I'm not a Catholic hater by any means - I don't hate anything that I know of.   I guess you could say - I'm naive if anything. ( About the Catholic Church --but my eyes are opening - I read most of Holy Blood Holy Grail recently...)

Nice talking with you and that you took the time,
Elaine

Well, you are very welcome.  If you peek around you may find that I am married to someone who was raised to be Catholic, a religion chosen for him, and the indoctrination started at the cradle that in that religion was his salvation. (Which is a lie)

And since the day he got saved and started walking free of the obligations and "religious" bonds, he has been persecuted by Catholics, his own family and those who claim to LOVE him, in the name of Catholicism.  Trying to guilt him to return and to repent of getting "Saved" and set free.

So, yep... my list is instant and much longer than I actually posted.  I've seen the man go from an unsaved Catholic to a born again blood bought, spirit filled, child of the living God. A man of prayer and submission to the word in his life, a man who loves God and preaches the gospel to the hurting and the bound.  To see him accused of being backslid and in danger of Hell according to the "religious" chains of the Catholic church....  fires me up.   

PS.. I don't hate Catholics...

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 21:06:07PS.. I don't hate Catholics...

You couldn't tell it.

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 22:20:27

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 21:06:07PS.. I don't hate Catholics...

You couldn't tell it.

That she doesn't hate them is shown by her concern for their souls.

Is *that* what all the snarky sarcasm and false allegations are?  Sorry.  I must have missed it.

(For one who claims to be an expert on Catholicism, I've never seen so much ignorance about a religion.  If she truly loved them, she would get her facts straight. But clearly she'd rather rail against them and judge them than actually take seriously what they say about their own faith.  Feel the luv.)