For Heaven's Sake by Mike Morgan for February 15, 2010

The bow and arrow do complete the ensemble… (oh, and the frizzed hair.)

Now THAT is an image I could have done without!

So the minister in this comic strip is married? I know ministers of some denominations can marry themselves while other ministers of other denominations cannot marry themselves.

Agree or disagree, I’m of the LDS Church and you –as a worthy member of the Church– can get married by a sealer in the temple and your marriage will go beyond death. If by a bishop of a ward (congregation), your marriage is civil; the “death do you part” kind.

http://www.lds.org http://www.mormon.org

MY EYES!!!!!

rac you took the words out of my mouth. Glad my pastor didn’t do that for Valentine’s day. The elders and maybe his wife would be up in arms. There is nothing great about this strip.

No, we don’t exactly resemble “the Way”. But a one year old child, or even a twenty-year old youth does not exactly resemble a seventy-year old elder either. What matters is what lies in the heart–and in that these churches have followed the Spirit and kept the treasure that God entrusted to us.

Amen brother.

@commerce, remember that churches are composed of sinners. (Perfect people would not need churches, after all…) So then, just because some or even all of the members of a church do something does not make it right.

Thank you SO MUCH! (But he is also wearing a rope, okay that may be worse!)

Ministers can marry themselves?

There is no such thing as a nondenominational church. Once they call themselves a church they have a denomination. The simplified definition of denomination is label, everything else is just connotation.

They really should have warned us. I was so shocked I fell out of my chair!

Now I am confused as well.

I don’t understand beyond death. I was thinking it meant you never married again. And possibly you kept the remains with you (like in an urn).

Now I am really confused!

What does Fastball’s “The Way” have to do with anything?

I agree with Doctor Toon, he is a doctor after all.

That explains why I don’t need church!

See, that is what I don’t get how can there be so many different practices, and everyone be right?

Wait, so is ‘nondenominational church’ a phrase they chose to sound like they were more tolerant than other Christians? I would think if they wanted to truly come close to a ‘nondenominational church’ they would have a meeting place where people of all faiths and practices could meet.

That actually kind of sounds nice. We could all learn from each other.

@LuvH8, as we understand it, all the various churches and church-like communities have some truth–they would not survive if they did not–but, like most people, we believe we come closest to the full and complete gospel. Otherwise, why not join the group that has more than we do?

As a result, we tend to look to and prize the ways we are close to the Gospel. Catholics talk about the one, holy, catholic (universal), and apostolic Church, the one community founded by Jesus (in the disciples) and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. We prize the Apostolic succession and the unity of belief with the apostles and those who followed them. We look to the Bible for the inspiration of our faith, even if we have spent a lot of time developing and drawing out the consequences of what’s there. We value our traditions, and try hard to be faithful to our memory of Jesus and our experience of God, much of which is laid out in the Bible.

Similarly, since he has posted here and his views seem fairly clear, Joe prizes faithfulness to the text of the Bible, a very literal interpretation of what’s there, and a Spirit-filled and otherwise unfettered form of worship and prayer.

A “non-denominational” church is one not affiliated with any other church. It’s sort of a stand-alone church. They tend to be similar to the Baptists or Reformed Churches, since many other groups, like Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, and even Lutherans prize their unity to a larger community.

Okay, something to think about. I can’t find my notes right this moment but one of the things they keep on talking about is spirituality.

It has occurred to me in the past and currently, that everyone defines spirituality differently and I am working on defining what it means for me. Since my mind is having a hard time turning off, and I find I need something to distract me from Real World stresses right now it seemed a good time to ask.

There are several people whose opinion I trust enough to ask questions of and believe they will try to answer honestly. The Bible intimidates me and I really have a hard time with all the repitition, the terms are unfamiliar to me, and I have seen and experienced enough to be terrified of those who choose to attempt to force their believes on others.

If anyone can recommend a book or two on spirituality or religion that is easily undertstood I would appreciate that since I enjoy learning through reading. I really liked ‘The Tao of Pooh’ by Benjamin Hoff. I am interested in learning from many belief systems, and developing one that works for me personally.

Thank you for your help so far, and I appreciate any further assistance.

Shikamoo If you get this I wanted to let you know I admire your bold way of stating your opinion with no apologies. It may take me a little longer to get the message, because I have to step back (mentally) and examine what you are actually saying. Which is actually also a good thing.

I find that most works on spirituality are easier to put in perspective when I have a good grasp of my own tradition and its beliefs. Most traditions are more or less coherent–except possibly Monty Python’s church, St Loony Up The Cream Bun and Jam, naturally–and so they give a good starting place from which to understand others. More, starting from my own tradition, the ideas and concepts “fit” my mind-set better, if you know what I mean.

I think bunny face said it perfectly.

Um…. you guys lost me again with the unfamiliar language. Could you try to explain as if talking to a young child with no background information?

For this topic, that really is about my level of understanding.

Bunnyface I also liked your story, because I had to think for myself, and could understand more as I was ready to accept the advice.

C’mon Joe. We were just getting to the meat and potatoes of this discussion.

How about a story that guides in making tough decisions where there are no winning solutions. Please. What do you do when whatever decision you make will hurt someone or some people?

ah I think I love this site. I believe to understand the Bible you must listen to the guidance of the wee small voice of the Holy Spirit. A couple good books that helped me are: The Late Great Planet Earth and Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth. They are more about the New Testament and Revelations though. Books by Charles Swindle, Tim LaHaye,and Billy Graham are good. Also there are a lot of Bible handbooks out there to help you understand.

Good night everyone. Ill be back when you least expect it!

Bunnyface - I read that script from Monty Python and have ordered it from the library ( : It sounds like a fun church.

Thank you for the help everyone.

I have no real traditional personal set of beliefs. Or at least not one that is in any way positive. I looked up Eucharist and got some similiar phrases and will look for books targeted to explaining it to youth and maybe young adults.

Two of the concepts I never feel like I quite grasp are:

‘not judging others’ - because you need to make judgments just to survive

‘treating others as you want to be treated’ - well it seems self explanatory but ?

These are the two concepts I have heard the most often in the most belief systems and the two that also seem to be preached more than practiced (maybe I am just hypersensitive on these two).

Any suggestions for understanding what is really meant by those two concepts / definitions?

I believe it means what it says,but I agree its very difficult in practice. Even though I try to practice it all the time. We all make many judgements on a daily basis. As you say, we have to just to survive. My thoughts on it may not agree with others and if I offend, Im sorry. This is the way we look at others. Someone may say mean and untrue things about you and you become angry. You believe they are hateful and should eternity in the old fire pit. That would be considered harsh judgement. Or, you could say, “Father forgive

them” as Jesus did on the cross. That would be kind and right thing to do and also very difficult even for the best of people. Depending on which attitude you have toward others it is your way of judging them either harshly or kindly. We need to remember that if we judge people harshly for their sins against us and others, that is the way our Father will judge us on judgement day.

This does not apply simply to people we know. We read of of a terrible crime in the paper and we think what a horrible person. Pretty hard not to. However you never know all the facts from a paper. Its almost always one sided. Instead of having that knee jerk reaction, we should pray for the people involved. Only God knows the heart of a man or woman and there can be repentance and forgiveness even at the last moment before death. .

I apologize for such a long answer, but I hope it helped. Ill try later for the rest.

My opinion about judging others is that we are not to make calls on whether people are going to hell or not. I believe it is not judging when you tell someone they are sinning. The Bible tells us to rebuke sinners. That is not judgment. It is to let people know they are doing wrong. We go to Church for the same reasons, to find out how we should be living.

My take on “not judging others” is to treat them as Jesus did. Look at how he got into trouble for eating with tax collectors and sinners. But, as he said, “I came not to call the righteous to repent, but sinners.” So, do not condemn or reject them as sinners–because you yourself are a sinner. Accept them, rejoice when they repent.

And, if you are perfect, remember that we only know of one (or possibly three, for Catholics) sinless persons: Jesus, Mary (preserved without sin by God’s grace) and John the Baptist (freed from sin when he leapt in his mother’s womb). None of them rejected or shunned sinners. Rather, they all reached out in compassion.

GmaTippyToes (Is that okay? I call my grandmother Gma when writing.) We must have cross posted the first time. I think your answer was not too long. If something is worth the time to explain it is worth doing well. I will look into those books, although probably not all at once. I understand you have Doc T with you currently, does he really cook his coffee overnight before drinking it?

Hareball Let me restate that so someone can let me know if I understood correctly. - It is okay to let someone know when they are doing something you feel is wrong (in a respectful manner). It is not up to anyone to decide how a person will be ultimately judged.

Bunnyface aka Oh Wise One ( : - Where may I learn more about that story? Because it is you, I am even willing to look in my Gma’s Bible. And I was kidding about being perfect!

I am not able to learn very much by attending church, because I have anxiety attacks in church due to something I only can vaguelly remember snippets of right before my 7th birthday that involved someone who was in an extreme manic episode. What I have been able to recall, is simply sitting in a church staring at a sleeping baby and being terrified to move or make a noise (not knowing why).

Also I have someone became very intolerantly religious who has been judging me for over 13 years for both my mental illness and lack of religious practices. This person used/ taught my monkeys that I was inferior because of those two things. Fortunately (spelling?) they have learned better through me and Monkey 1’s mother. And I find myself reminding them when they get too frustrated with this person, to practice tolerance and to remain open to other people’s belief systems. (They are very good at it in general, but when someone is disparaging people you love it is extremely difficult to be tolerant.)

I am only trying to explain this so that everyone who is being so helpful, will understand why I need to not be too overwhelmed if I am to be able to learn anything about the concepts and other things that come from various religious backgrounds.

I am hoping by understanding more, I will be better able to help myself and my monkeys to become better people.

: ) See GmaTippyToes, you definitely were not too long typed for me!

BTW - I have been saving the page after each time I post to make sure I have everything, including what might be deleted.

Bunnyface I have used you as an example for Monkey 2 of someone who can be true to their faith and still be accepting of others as they are. I hope you do not mind.

LuvH8 You got what I am saying.

Bunnyface - If we aren’t supposed to tell them, why does Paul tell us to? I didn’t say you weren’t supposed to be around them and fellowship with them. The Bible says to rebuke them. That means to tell them so they can correct their actions.

Ok I hope this will not be too confrontational, since Joe dropped out.

bmonk - anyone who is perfect is not in need of a Savior - Christ is that example - sinless perfection. So Mary, if indeed sinless, could have been the savior and not Christ - same with John - why would we have needed a Christ - we had Mary and John as her backup. That is rank heresy and is part of what brought about the reformation. What you are saying is we have a Trinitarian God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), plus now you add two more dieties. Perfection alone is the domain of God. The comment on “I came not to call the righteous to repent, but sinners.” is a reference to self-righteousness. Those who are self righteous are those who believe their works will satisfy God. And since you appear to be Roman Catholic, faith alone is the means of salvation not the work of baptism (Hebrews11 - by faith and nothing else). The 5 Solas are what divide Protestantism for Roman Catholicism.

Quick note to Grandma - Your background of references are Dallas Theological based, Charles Swindoll is the proper spelling. I would not recommend any of the books by Hal Lindsey since he has been shown to make prophetical statements - dating the rapture for example (which is not found in the Bible) that have failed to come to pass - I have older versions of his books and he changes the dates.

Rather than recommending books on prophecy, my recommendations for the request for information on spirituality I would have suggested A. W. Pink’s writings on “The Holiness of God” or “The Holy Spirit”, “Personal Holiness”, “Practical Christianity” and “Sins of the Saints” - none of his writings are “charismatic”.

LuvH8 - I appreciate your openness. Concerning judging - folks were referring to Matthew 7:1 and that judgment was restricted in scope - pointing out faults in others that are your own and failing to forgive. What was allowed and even commanded in judging was shown later in the text - see verses 14 and 15. Verse 16 gives you the standard to judge by - their fruits - what they produce. Lastly in that same context look back at verse 6 - this also gives us the ability to distinguish between belief and unbelief. Matt 7:1-23 is a very good read. My suggestion is to not take anyone’s word for things but go look them up There are resources on line:

http://biblecommenter.com/ http://theword.bibleocean.com/App/ http://www.scripture4all.org/index.php

@LuvH8, do you mean Luke 5:27-32? It was the Gospel for today, or else the last day or so.

@HareBall, true–those who chose to be of our community should live as members of the community; if they do not, we have a duty to remind them of their failings and to call them to repent, or leave (if it’s serious enough). That’s why the greatest punishment of the Church is excommunication: the decision that this person is no longer of our communion. They remain free to find God on their own, or to repent and return.

I believe what Jesus is referring to is the refusal to accept sinners who come to learn better. That’s what the Pharisees were doing: turning up their noses at these tax collectors and sinners, and at those who dared to eat and associate with them.

@DerekA, not so: they were perfect only through the grace of God. And not perfect in the same sense as God, but as creatures, as humans. They still needed God, and looked to God, as Adam and Eve had before the fall. That by no means makes them deities.

We also make a distinction between honoring the saints (including Mary) and taking them as models of how to follow Christ, and worship, which is due to God alone. We pray to the saints – for intercession – not because they have power to act on their own, but because they are windows that show us God and because they also can help ask God for our needs, much as we ask one another in the Church for prayers.

Oh, and HareBall, rebuking them is allowed–if you do it in Jesus’ model, as when he cleansed the temple, or spoke the woes to the scribes and lawyers. It’s a fine balance that is required: to exercise judgment needed for living, but not to go too far, and reject out of hand. “Love the sinner, hate the sin,” is one way to put it.

@bmonk - excommunication is a form of turning the person over to Satan for discipline to drive them back to the church. The example of that is found in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. Interestingly enough in 2 Corinthians Paul had to admonish that church again - this time for not allowing him back after repentance.

Your use of “perfect” does not match the New Testament use of “perfect” - please see any Greek concordance. What I think you are trying to say is - by their expressing faith in Jesus their Messiah, they were also saved sinners. There fore if they are not deities, you should not do anything that appears to be worship to Mary or John. Chirst said to follow Him, not Mary or John. Christ is the mediator and intercessor between God and man, not Mary. When Christ taught us to pray, He did not include any reference to Mary - we are to pray to the father, by means of the Spirit in Christ’s name and no other. There is only one “window” and that is Christ. There is no treasury of merit as Christ alone is the propitiation for our sins. No one has any extra merit because it is all of grace - Romans chapter 9 clearly .makes it all of God and none of man.

Please provide the scripture reference for this quote of your “they also can help ask God for our needs”. I would like to know where it says that the dead in Christ, like for instance Paul, hear our prayers, then bypass Christ or even with Christ, go to the Father and plead the case. Does this mean Christ is too busy? Has He gone to the Bathroom? (Ref to Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al). Is just not Almighty enough and needs man’s help? Where is God’s omnipotence, sovereignty and power that he needs a saved sinner to communicate along with Deity to the Father? That is all fiction.

I have no issue with community prayer of the believers as prescribed in scripture - that is clearly commanded.

@DerekA, we have a slightly different understanding or use of excommunication. As I learned it, it literally means “put out of (the) communion”–that is, no longer of one faith with us enough to join our communion. Do we want to say that nobody but those in communion with us are saved? That doesn’t fit the mercy of the God we know. Or the fact that some of those churches have survived 400, even 950 years or more apart from us. So, we let them go their own way–which has its own dangers.

Also, you say, “What I think you are trying to say is - by their expressing faith in Jesus their Messiah, they were also saved sinners. There fore if they are not deities, you should not do anything that appears to be worship to Mary or John. Chirst said to follow Him, not Mary or John. Christ is the mediator and intercessor between God and man, not Mary. When Christ taught us to pray, He did not include any reference to Mary - we are to pray to the father, by means of the Spirit in Christ’s name and no other.”

That is not quite how we see it. First, while we do not require this faith of others, we believe that Mary was preserved from sin throughout her life, from the first moment of conception to her death, as a special and unique favor of God, to prepare a proper vessel for the birth of the savior. It is not right, then, for us to say she was a saved sinner–but we do still say that Mary was saved through Christ and His grace.

And, while Christ said to follow him, he did not say to follow him alone. We find it helpful to follow and trust others who can bring us to Christ. (This includes our pastors and teachers in the faith.) If Mary or another saint is such a model for us, well and good! If she or anyone gets in the way of Christ, that’s a problem, and we need to let go of such problems. But we, at least, do find it helpful to have other means to come to Christ than the starkness of nothing but Christ.

I do like to listen to our local Evangelical Christian radio station on my travels, to see what they have to say and how they say it. A week or so ago, one preacher was talking about how their worship is often so much focused on the head. Well, some Catholic liturgies can get that way too, but my thought was, “Well, if you are going to remove all the bodily things, like varied postures, holy water, incense, bread and wine, oil, candles, etc., and then remove all the prayers dear to the heart, like the thousands of prayers composed over the centuries, then what is left but the intellect to turn to? It seems perverse to throw out so much, and then complain that nothing is left!”

A wise teacher once pointed out that the Catholic tendency is idolatry, that is, to set other things beside God that can draw us away from God. The corresponding Protestant tendency is blasphemy, that is, to deny that holy things exist and can help bring us to God.

Bunnyface I was asking where I would find out more on this:

“My take on “not judging others” is to treat them as Jesus did. Look at how he got into trouble for eating with tax collectors and sinners. But, as he said, “I came not to call the righteous to repent, but sinners.” So, do not condemn or reject them as sinners–because you yourself are a sinner. Accept them, rejoice when they repent.” - Bunnyface

I do not actually know where to find anything in a Bible.

I read and studied several books on assertiveness. I think some of the information may be helpful if we are to continue discussing religion in a positive manner. Fortunately I have notes on my computer so it is easy to share this information.

Guidelines For Giving Your Opinion

relax before you start; it allows you to think and express yourself more clearly rehearse; go over what you want to say ahead of time don’t signal a lack of confidence; if you are undecided or feel strongly say so feel free to signal your openness to other views own your message; us ‘I’ statements to show you take responsibility for your view don’t apologize for having an opinion; apologies are for when you overstep you rights you are not the source of all truth; avoid wording your opinion as though it is the only one don’t intimidate; do not raise your voice, tower, stare, threaten or make personal attacks consider before justifying; you don’t have to convince others you are right don’t let it slide; sometimes it may be important to give your opinion

recommendations for giving positive feedback:

do not give false compliments whenever possible avoid the backhanded compliment compliment behavior that has already occurred be specific about your compliment use shaping (compliment people for different stages of learning a new skill rather than waiting until they have finished learning)

recommendations for giving negative feedback:

relax - release tension before dealing with criticism avoid retaliation - don’t immediately focus on other person’s mistakes, etc. hold back - some people are actually trying to make you upset consider your safety - some people can become physically violent don’t demand perfection - negative feedback may not be stated well, listen anyway validate their perception - acknowledgement can defuses some of the frustration, can help exchange be more reasonable, you do not have to say they are right, just acknowledge what they said and that you were listening validate their emotions - acknowledge how other person feels agree in part - if you agree with part of the criticism let the person know listen and wait - allow critics to voice their points completely, listen before responding narrow and specify - ask what criticism is really about, specific not vague ask for clarification - when given indirect or nonverbal communication ask them they mean, rather than responding to what you guess explain without offering excuses - if appropriate offer brief explanation of events don’t try to change their mind - you don’t control what others think thank the critic - it is appropriate to thank someone when they have been helpful respond to the style - react to the manner in which the criticism is given ask for time - sometimes it may not be appropriate to respond at the time

WARNING: I have more notes!!!!!!!

I hope we can continue to discuss this topic without people becoming upset. If others become too technical for me I will just assume you are rationally discussing stuff I am not ready to understand yet.

I will ask for clarification as I need it. But I would be a busy & confused person indeed if I tried to learn everything at once.

I know some of this does not exactly apply to typed conversations, but what the flopping fishes. It might help some in the Real World.

@LuvH8 - believe me, I will not become upset - I enjoy the discussion as Joe well knows!.

@HolySmoke - I appreciate the response on Faith and the two sides comment. The two sides are understood by Protestants as first faith is provided by God to the believer - Ephesians 2:8,9 - this is God’s “work” - we receive the faith from God and then we can express that faith - it is all grace. At that point the believer is justified (once for all - Paul’s use of the Greek tense) by God and starts the process of sanctification - this process comes after salvation and is growth toward maturity (This is how perfect is sometimes translated from the Greek). So after salvation we do perform works and this is how James puts it when he said we are justified by our works with is what Paul says by their fruits you will know them. The basis for faith must be rooted in scripture (Sola Scriptura) - not tradition (it is to be respected, but not exalted) and certainly not the magisterium (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1). God’s word to man in the Bible takes precedence - it is described as God breathed (theopneustos).

I am very familiar with Nouwen, Merton and Mother Teresa. All the authors are works oriented Roman Catholics and not grace oriented. Let me explain that - realize the real battle line between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism is the issue of Justification - Rome has never abandoned its position stated at the Council of Trent.

What Rome has done is turned Justification - a one time act - into sanctification - a process of growth over time. See Romans 3:25, 28, 30; 8:33, 34; Galatians 4:21-5:12, 1 John 1:7–2:2. These verses are the scriptural basis for Justification being a one time act.

@bmonk - Excommunication - is in the Greek - removal from fellowship - in this case from a local congregation or from a church body as in my example from Corinthians. In that example, the person is assumed to be a believer, but in gross sin - you would use the term mortal sin. What Paul is saying is that it is better for Satan to destroy that believer that to leave him in the congregation to cause others to fall into sin. That believer cannot loose his salvation - that Salvation depends entirely on God’s veracity and not on man. Jesus has never lost any of His chosen sheep.

Now you applied that to churches - which if you think of it brings the question of who departed from who and what.. Your view appears to be that the Protestants departed from Roman Catholicism, but the Protestants believe Roman Catholicism departed from the historic faith laid down by Christ and the Bible.

Please give me a Bible verse that supports this statement “we believe that Mary was preserved from sin throughout her life, from the first moment of conception to her death, as a special and unique favor of God, to prepare a proper vessel for the birth of the savior.” See Luke 1:38, 46-55; 2:39-50 John 2:1-4; 30; 19:26. Romans 5:12 tells use that every single person born into this world except Christ has a sin nature. Not the use of ALL and again in Romans 3:23 and 3:10 and again in Luke 1:47. Mary presented an offering to the Jewish priest arising out of her state of sin Luke 2:22-24

“The starkness of nothing but Christ”? Such a harsh statement for your one and only Savior. There is only one mediator and that is Christ Jesus. Pastors and teachers if led by the Spirit are live communicators to us and with us face to face now. Saints are dead and in spirit form in heaven and not communicating with us - there is no scripture reference for such prayer communication. The prayers over the centuries should always be directed to the father, through Christ’s mediatorship by means of the Holy Spirit. That makes the prayer Biblical. Any prayer directed to a saint falls on dead ears. Get a copy of the book “Valley of Vision” That book has prayers to last for eternity for a church and all are scriptural.

On liturgy, the Bible also describes what God wants when He is worshiped. Protestants do not deny Holy things - only those things that cannot be demonstrated as Holy from the Bible. Please give me a reference of something that the Bible calls Holy that the Protestants have thrown out. I can provide a list of those non-holy things that Rome has absorbed - recall that relic worship was another issue in the Reformation of the Church. Please cite the “blasphemy” or blasphemies you are aware of - I may be able to explain them.

luvh8 Gma is what my grandkids call me when texting. thats a nice short version. I like it.

DerekA You are right about Hal Lindsey. I did read “Count Down to Armageddon” I was very disappointed when I did. I havent read or looked for his books since. However the 2 books I mentioned are easy to read and understand. I didnt throw out the good with the bad. Should I have? you are also right about my misspelling. Sry.

I havent heard of Your authors. Ill have to check them out. Billy Graham is Evangelical but He is a great church leader and really got Gods word out there. He also wrote some very good books so I cant hold being Evangelical against him. Iam neither evangelical nor RC. I dont currently go to any church, but I do believe in the trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and salvation through Christ Jesus by grace plus nothing. It is a gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. KJV or New American Standard or new KJV.

Wow too much to swallow all at once. I am not RC for reasons DerekA has cited, but it is because Jesus said no one goes unto the Father but through me, and Catholics believe they need as many intercessors as they can have. Im sure they are not worshiping saints and statues but the way things are set up it is easy for outsiders to get the wrong ideas, like when saying the stations of the cross, they walk past all these representations and look at them while praying. Good way to cause confusion.

Well good night all of you. This is a good group for discussing these things. Sry I cant Quote you chapter and verse. I memorized the words but not the books etc. Luvh8 you need a good Bible with a concordance that lists certain Bible words alphabetically. Usually found in the back of the Bible but u may b able 2 buy one separately. Thank you for list of notes. they can b helpful. You are all beautiful people. Good night and God bless each of you.

@Grandma - No Chuck Swindoll is OK and does not get too wrapped up into prophecy areas - mostly family oriented - that is why I did not comment on him. Billy had on very good quality when preaching - he would hold up the Bible and say “The Bible says..” and then quote the verse. Realize though that Theology is not the background of an evangelist. It should be the background of Pastors and teachers though. Your second comment holds to what is known as orthodoxy.

You mentionend worshiping saints - and that is another sticking point. in reconciling the two groups. What Roman Catholics say they are doing is not worshiping but giving honor and respect. But that does not appear to be the case when you talk with many individuals. The Priests seem to understand clearly that we do not worship anyone but God, but the actions of the people make it hard to differentiate between the two. I would take the position iof something offends or causes confusion then cease and desist. Paul said this in a couple of ways in 1 & 2 Corinthians on the issue of meat offered to idols. Because of this the RC are looked upon as idolaters.

One other area that clearly divides is the sacrifice of Christ called the mass. The Latin word describing this sacrament is “sacraficium” which is the word sacrifice. So they get accused of considering Christ work on the cross as incomplete and need more sacrifice. In actuality Christ’s work was completed in 3 hours for all those He chose to save. Protrestants see that as “crucifying Christ afresh”. Blessings

I’m going to print this out at the changing of the cartoons, so I can have something I can take notes on. Then I will be looking into the suggested reading.

One more (for now anyway) question on the judgment issue:

I tend to have a morbid/dark sense of humor sometimes (Big Surprise!) and I use it to help me deal with issues in the real life.Is this something that would be considered a bad thing if it helps me get to a point of acceptance/tolerance or just plain helps me get over negative emotions. I am only human.

@LuvH8 - God has a sense of humor - it would be one of His sub-attributes. Look at the example I used of Elijah poking fun at the God Ba’al and telling them maybe they need to be louder or cut themselves more, or maybe their God is sleeping. I have seen kids say “that that will never happen to me” like their bulletproof and the next day they are dead - so yes, I think we all see a morbid sense of humor at times. We still should show empathy and sympathy.

I will be back by later - have things I need to do and will then try and respond to HolySmoke.

@HolySmoke - Sorry but I had to leave and did not get a chance to followup on the Romans 3:28 section. On the concept of Sola Fide - please treat that just as you would the Trinity. Although the word “Trinity” is not used in the it is a part of the standard for being orthodox. The concept of the Trinity can be shown is scripture just as Sola Fide.

What I suggest is to start reading Romans 3:21 to 3:28 to both get the context and the flow of the text. Note verse 22 - the righteousness of God is through (by means of) faith in Jesus Christ (alone I might add). This is the mechanics by which the righteousness is received. This is to ALL and on ALL who believe - faith applied. Verse 23 makes it clear that ALL have sinned - this includes all humans of which Mary was one. Verse 24 - we have been justified without any cost to us by His grace through (by means of) His blood. Verse 25 - Christ was set forth as a mercy seat (propitiation) through (by means of) faith (again alone) to demonstrate His righteousness. Verse 26 - that He might be just and the justifier of the one (and only One) who has faith (alone again) in Jesus. Verse 27 - There is no boasting - no law, no works, but by the law of faith (that is alone again). Verse 28 - Therefore we conclude that a man is justified (declared righteous) by faith (alone again) apart from the deeds of the law (or works).

Great section and it is all of God and none of man - I appreciate your pointing that out.

Charis

yes repentance is key,and it brings about change so you are able to do what God calls you to do. I will be back 2m. Havent been able to sleep and have a busy day 2m. Have blessed nite.

Some quick thoughts. God did give man free will, but God does the choosing first - Eph 1:4, 5 & 11. God regenerates - Eph 2:1-5 and Titus 3:4,5 and as shown He provides the gift of faith in Eph 2:8&9 - only then then can man repent and express faith in Christ. This is the whole point of Romans 9 - God makes the vessels. Man is dead like Lazarus and only when we are called and made alive by God can we hear his voice. No one chooses unless God first acts. That is the only way you “will feel His presence” in your life is if He acts first - the dead do not respond unless brought to live - regeneration.

Once regenerated you can get to know him. His expression of love comes first - not ours - ever. The repentance that comes from His making us alive opens the prayer gate - until then - the prayer of an unbeliever goes no where. Once you are a believer, then the issue of the candle and bushel has meaning.

Faith is without works for salvation. Faith is with works after salvation and that is what makes sense and that is what Romans 3 was talking about. God does not need our works or anything form us. In fact all thing bring glory to God. Our works have no merit in salvation - they do have an effect after salvation and that is our growth toward spiritual maturity and to bring glory to God - but absolutely nothing to gaining, keeping or ensuring salvation.

At not time have I indicated it was faith vs works - I am making it clear that there is no works in salvic faith. There are works after salvation. That is the Protestant position.

One last thought and 2 verses to support it - I don’t think things are self evident unless they are based on scripture.

Prov 3:5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.

Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’”

The Bible is the only source provided to us from God - everything else - feelings, traditions, church leaders are man centered.

One last thought (for now):

DerekA said:

“The Bible is the only source provided to us from God - everything else - feelings, traditions, church leaders are man centered.”

That is my point on blasphemy.

We feel that many of these are holy, because God made them so. Traditions–such as prayers to saints, Creeds, even matters of how we interpret some words, or words we found necessary to add (homousios, of the same being, or Trinity) can be holy.

Church leaders–as discussed in Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, or in 1 Peter 5, are holy because Jesus gave us such leaders, the Apostles, who handed on their authority to others, including Paul (via Barnabas), Timothy and Titus. We pray for them precisely because they are more critical, more able to do damage with their sins. In one sense they may be human-centered, but the more important truth is that they are God-centered, because they come from and point back to Christ.

As a delayed commenter here - this discussion on faith. DerekA is clearly distinguishing salvation and post salvation. It appears you catholics do not. I would think those verses he quoted were clear enough to know that he was correct at least for salvation. Surely the catholics make a distinction between before and after salvation or is it all works based and not grace at all?

Phil N. DeBlanc said, about 2 hours ago

“As a delayed commenter here - this discussion on faith. DerekA is clearly distinguishing salvation and post salvation. It appears you catholics do not. I would think those verses he quoted were clear enough to know that he was correct at least for salvation. Surely the catholics make a distinction between before and after salvation or is it all works based and not grace at all? ”

Not so. I believe that what you call “salvation” or DerekA “justification” we call “state of grace”–that is, a soul with the grace (as God’s free gift) to enter heaven. The distinction seem to me to be that, for Derek, justification cannot be lost, and after justification comes salvation, the process of growing into a good and holy person to match the gift God has given. The difference for us is that, while we cannot earn heaven by storing up grace on our own–I don’t believe any Christians hold that, or at least I hope not–we still can turn away from God, reject his grace through (mortal) sin. Works do not save us, but our choices (works in that sense) can condemn us.

So, perhaps in that sense, we do not enter post-salvation until we die and are judged.

Which, we say, is why it’s not enough to “accept Jesus as our personal Lord and savior”–that is a good and important step, but until we respond with our lives, until Jesus is really our personal Lord, and we will not turn away again, we are not finally saved,

: )…….to be continued on next comments section.

A quick comment to start - I normally do not track this stuff other than on weekends, but I felt the issue interesting enough to spend some time - please do not take this as confrontational as I read the comments and have responded, but I think as you get to the bottom of the notes you will see there is some common ground or understanding. I will probably have to post this is sections so be patient. Also I would prefer not to have it over flow into the next week’s cartoon.

“Derek said Man is dead like Lazarus and only when we are called and made alive by God can we hear his voice. No one chooses unless God first acts. I disagree. God offers his saving grace to all.” I agree with you in that God does make the offer - in fact He desires that all would come to a saving faith - but there is a difference between desire and what God actually decreed. “He also gave us Free Will and with this Free Will we are free to choose to if we want to enter into a relationship with God.” Yes as I said we all have free will - but without God acting to make the person spiritually alive (regeneration) there will be no response to the offer of salvation. Think of it as everyone is in a box and is perfectly happy in the box and doing everything their freewill allows. They will remain this way unless God acts on them - this is what Christ was explaining to Nicodemus. We are all born spiritually dead and even your baptism does not cause regeneration. “This is the problem with just siting this or that reference in the Bible to suit a specific point one is trying to make. This is why I said in one of my earlier posts that it not JUST the Bible that should direct our course in understanding who God is. The devil can quote the Bible for his own needs. (I’m not saying YOU are the devil!). I’m just saying you have to be careful. God is a living God and He is living through the Holy Spirit and working in and through us.” Actually concerning Biblical quotes, I have tried to keep them in context - note my comments on Romans 3, 9, Ephesians and Hebrews 11. My understanding is that the church is founded upon God’s Word and not God’s Word founded upon the Church. Therefore what God says to us should take priority. After all, if you can’t find support for a doctrine in the Bible, you should be suspicious. ” God is a living God and He is living through the Holy Spirit” - Amen “Of course, God doesn’t need our work. WE need our works…. I can sight just as many texts and correctly and in their correct context, which identify FAITH AND WORKS as what God had intended to secure salvation. . People who SAY they have faith and that’s all they need are cheating themselves from having a deeper relationship with God. Bottom line is to have an argument about faith and works as a separate issue in the first place is just a faulty argument. Human beings in relationship other human beings who are in and practicing real love should grasp this fundamental truth and how it relates to “agape” love.” Let me be very clear - there is no link in the Bible for saving faith and works being together. Provide the verse and let’s discuss it in the Biblical context – what I think you will find is we are talking sanctification when works are involved – that is where the deeper relationship with God comes in. When you look at the tense, voice mood etc in the verses I quote, they are punctiliar in nature – point of time and usually a completed action – not a continuing action. By being a completed act salvation is secured. I fully agree, that after salvation works are part of our growth toward maturity but those are not punctiliar in action that is sanctification not salvation. But the works we do, do not provide us any merit, because if they are done through the Holy Spirit as they should be then God is getting the credit/glory. What I am saying is just as Phil advised - you are confusing the event relating to faith in coming to salvation with the events after salvation (which is a completed act). Protestants see salvation as an event, Roman Catholics see it as a process because they have mixed salvation and sanctification together. A physical example would be bifocal glasses with a distinct dividing line or blended lenses with a blurred line. I find it interesting you use the word “agape” as that word is used after John 3:16 in 3:19 where John says men love darkness and that is same real love you are trying to describe as a fundamental truth - that should be of concern as it means there is something missing in your understanding or definition of the Greek word Agape.

DerekA said: “The Bible is the only source provided to us from God - everything else - feelings, traditions, church leaders are man centered.” Ok, I need this explained: “That is my point on blasphemy.”. What was said that was blasphemy by the definition of the Word? And you followed up right after that by saying this”We feel” Which is exactly my point - putting feelings ahead of scripture. Of the things God has given us as guidelines and guideposts one must be superior. Church dogma changes unless there is a standard to go back to, Traditions change unless there is a standard to go back to, and feelings change. That was my point. Scripture is the only standard to fall back on.

“The distinction seem to me to be that, for Derek, justification cannot be lost, and after justification comes salvation, the process of growing into a good and holy person to match the gift God has given. The difference for us is that, while we cannot earn heaven by storing up grace on our own–I don’t believe any Christians hold that, or at least I hope not–we still can turn away from God, reject his grace through (mortal) sin. Works do not save us, but our choices (works in that sense) can condemn us. So, perhaps in that sense, we do not enter post-salvation until we die and are judged. ”

Correct Justification cannot be lost but what I am saying is the events of Justification and Salvation are all instantaneous and essentially at the same time - What we are talking here is the Ordo Salutis - the logical order of events in Salvation. The calling, the regeneration, the gift of faith, repentance, faith expressed, justification, defini5tive sanctification and about 34 other things that God provides instantaneously (adoption, sealing, etc) all can take place the moment a person believes. after this point we have progressive sanctification - which you are calling justification and we also have the concept of eternal security or preservation of the believer. The last feature is glorification where the believer is rewarded, or not based on that progressive sanctification.

Ok - I am done - thanks for the time I really enjoyed it and please bear in mind written words sometimes come across as harsh and I would hope they are understood not to be that way - just the press of trying to respond to so much in so little time.

See you all next weekend

@DerekA said: (in italics)

My understanding is that the church is founded upon God’s Word and not God’s Word founded upon the Church. Therefore what God says to us should take priority. After all, if you can’t find support for a doctrine in the Bible, you should be suspicious.

We would say that too–as long as God’s Word refers to Jesus himself, the Logos or Word (from John 1). However, past that the distinction is not so clear. The Church remembered what Jesus said and taught, and under the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit wrote it down, recognized it as inspired, and preserved it in the Bible. As Catholics, though, our history goes back even before the New Testament was written and certainly before it was collected. We remember things that did not “make the cut”–not because they were wrong, but because, perhaps, the question did not arise then, but only later. Should we be suspicious of these sort of traditions, some from the earliest days, that have served us generally well over the last 2000 years?

Scripture alone is infallible by Roman Catholic standards and Protestant. Now this does not mean the church is infallible - through the ages the fallibility has been clearly demonstrated for both groups.

By your interpretation of the true judgment. We beg to differ. We have, as we know it, not erred in what matters.

Please note that these books were known for the 1500 plus years before Trent and were not considered scripture.

Not so. One measure of what was considered Scripture was how it was used, including where: if it was authoritative and quoted as Scripture, and if it was allowed to be read at the Lord’s Supper. These books were used without comment from the early days of the Church; they were simply part of the Greek Old Testament. It was not until the Protestants, especially Martin Luther, began to question them that this teaching had to be expressed to clarify the faith that had existed earlier.

Compare this to Arius in the 320s, leading up to the Council of Nicaea. Many earlier authors speak of Jesus as divine, more or less clearly, but it was only when the Arians began to say Jesus was only “like” the Father that the Church had to go back and say, no, our faith is that Jesus is “of the same being” as the Father. Until Arius made a fuss, the earlier faith still existed, but was not so clearly defined.

There is no mediator between God and man but Christ Jesus – there are no end runs.

No, but for some people, unfortunately, Jesus is rather intimidating, or has been presented badly, as a punishing judge. They need someone to help them approach Jesus. Praying to the saints is not an end run around Jesus, but another way to approach him.

Scripture is the only standard to fall back on.

But, in that case, we are in trouble. There are lots of people out there who rely in Scripture. At last count, some 16 thousand churches. How do we know which one, which interpretation, is the standard to rely on?

As Catholics, we also have the Magisterium, established by Jesus in the Apostles and continuing through the Bishops, to help guide us in all the conflicting possible understandings. And in them we don’t rely on human understanding–although they do their best to make good judgments–but on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Which is why they receive a sacrament in Holy Orders, and why we pray so often for them–so they may be good and faithful leaders. We have a stable three-part guide to what God intends: Scripture, which is the best memory, Tradition, which includes other, less critical memories, and the Magisterium, which helps us understand those memories.

Regarding blasphemy, I was using it in the original sense of calling holy things profane or evil. I was trying to make the point that to hold that a thing must be found in Scripture, and explicitly, before we can recognize it as holy is too limiting.

It is like the groups that try to identify what we know comes from Jesus and nowhere else. If we remove all that reflects the tradition before him, and all that the Church continued to hold–since either group may have been the origin of such ideas and sayings–we are left with Jesus calling God “Abba” or “Father”. It rather reduces the Gospel to very little. We can go to that extreme, but it’s not very helpful.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For those who are looking for THIS week’s For Heaven’s Sake, you can find it at;

WWW.CREATORS.COM

FOR HEAVENS’ SAKE and More at WWW.CREATORS.COM

http://www.creators.com/comics/cat-seeall.html