My faith: Josiah (CaliforniaJosiah)

CaliforniaJosiah · May 6, 2016

.

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.

Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."

Historically, Christians have spoken of ORIGINAL and ACTUALIZED sin.....

Original: The inclination, the propensity, that DISEASE that means we are self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, rebellious. It's what is in our hearts that LEADS to sins, it is the root of sin. When a man shoots his boss, the "problem" didn't start with the bullet entering the guys' chest, it began with something deep in the heart of the shooter - which LEAD to the chain of things that ultimately meant his pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. If I have a cold, I may sneeze. The sneeze is not the disease, it flows from the disease (which I may have even if I'm not sneezing at that microsecond; even if I take enough pills to never sneeze I still have a cold).

Actualized: These are the symptoms. They may be our thoughts or our words or our deeds. They may be known (observed) or not (even the sinner may not be aware of them). They may be thoughts or words of deeds we SHOULD have had but didn't (being imperfect)... they may be thoughts or words or deeds we should NOT have had but did (being sinful).

There are different kinds of Law in the
OT
.....

Moral Law: Governs behaviors and our relationships to God, each other and our environment. This still applies.

Ceremonial Law: Governs all the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant such as the building of the Ark, clothes priests are to wear, not eating certain foods, observing certain Old Covenant festivals, etc. This does not apply.

Civil Law: Governs the state affairs of the ancient kingdom of the Jews, the divine mandates to the kings vis-a-vis political and international relations. This ceased when Israel fell in 722 BC and Judea fell in 587 BC.

Thank you.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

Hoghead1 · May 6, 2016

CaliforniaJosiah said:
.

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.

Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."

Historically, Christians have spoken of ORIGINAL and ACTUALIZED sin.....

Original: The inclination, the propensity, that DISEASE that means we are self-centered, egotistical, self-serving, rebellious. It's what is in our hearts that LEADS to sins, it is the root of sin. When a man shoots his boss, the "problem" didn't start with the bullet entering the guys' chest, it began with something deep in the heart of the shooter - which LEAD to the chain of things that ultimately meant his pointed his gun and pulled the trigger. If I have a cold, I may sneeze. The sneeze is not the disease, it flows from the disease (which I may have even if I'm not sneezing at that microsecond; even if I take enough pills to never sneeze I still have a cold).

Actualized: These are the symptoms. They may be our thoughts or our words or our deeds. They may be known (observed) or not (even the sinner may not be aware of them). They may be thoughts or words of deeds we SHOULD have had but didn't (being imperfect)... they may be thoughts or words or deeds we should NOT have had but did (being sinful).

There are different kinds of Law in the
OT
.....

Moral Law: Governs behaviors and our relationships to God, each other and our environment. This still applies.

Ceremonial Law: Governs all the ceremonial aspects of the Old Covenant such as the building of the Ark, clothes priests are to wear, not eating certain foods, observing certain Old Covenant festivals, etc. This does not apply.

Civil Law: Governs the state affairs of the ancient kingdom of the Jews, the divine mandates to the kings vis-a-vis political and international relations. This ceased when Israel fell in 722 BC and Judea fell in 587 BC.

Thank you.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

Some Christians understand the Bible as preaching Original Sin, and some Christians, such as myself, argue it does not do that. If some passages suggest it, others seriously challenge it.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 17, 2016

Law and Gospel....

The LAW:

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

There are at least 613 laws specifically written just in the Old Testament. We think often of the Ten Commandments but actually there are many, many more just in the
OT
- and still more in the
NT
.

What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.

Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."

The word "sin" literally means "to miss the mark." In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target, the therefore "sinned" because he missed the mark, missed the target. The Bible says "ALL fall short." IF you have absolutely, perfectly, divinely, 24/7 "hit" all the targets above, then you are obedient and free of sin. Otherwise...... Well, the Bible would be correct and not lying when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL fall short." "NO ONE is good." "If you claim to have no sin (you hit the mark), then you lie and call God a liar."

The LAW has two functions:

Civil - Our relationships in this fallen world. This was not given until around 1400 BC when the first Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a purpose of GUIDING peoples' relationships. This is very much like our own national laws - they govern relationships. Civil law does not get us into heaven, it helps us get along with others, it helps our society work better.... if everyone kept the law, this would be a nicer place in which to live and die (and eventually go to hell). This applies just as much to non-Christians as to Christians - it applies to all.

The Law cannot save - and in this first use, it's not remotely its intention. Now.... true..... IF we kept all the law, we'd go to heaven (because we would not NEED God or Christ or mercy or forgiveness or salvation or justification or the Cross or the Blood - we'd not need the Gospel - because we'd essentially be God: divinely perfect, divinely holy, divinely loving..... totally, absolutely..... 100%....... 24/7...... but then in that case, we'd not need the civil law because we'd be perfect - in nature, in being, in attitude, in thought, in word, in deed.

We can NEVER achieve the Law (and we don't). Like Paul, we must confess that we are "CHIEF OF SINNERS" and that we are not - not - perfect as God demands.... but we CAN press on toward that. Why? Because Jesus was a joke and Christianity is wrong - we gotta save ourselves? WE save SELF via the Law - by being absolutely 100% perfect just as God is perfect? Nope. We press on toward that because our life and our world would be a whole lot better off. And because it pleases God whom we love.

BOTH of these functions continue after justification..... we are STILL called to be absolutely, divinely PERFECT, we are still called to live civilly in society; indeed Christians have unique commands: to love EXACTLY as Christ did, to LIVE exactly as Christ did, to make disciples of all 7.3 billion people, etc. The Law doesn't disappear or get watered down to nothing (as some Christians insist) when we are justified... but it also has nothing to do with our justification just because we are justified.

Theological - Our relationship to God. This is to drive us to our knees, to drive us to despair, to accuse us, to drive us to God's MERCY, God's HEART, God's FORGIVENESS..... to reveal the need for a Savior, a Cross. We CANNOT and ARE NOT what God intends and commands. That NO ONE is righteous..... NO ONE is good..... every other religion on the planet is fundamentally wrong because we cannot clean up our act and become what God mandates: absolutely perfect, absolutely holy, absolutely loving.... if anyone CLAIMS to be without sin (to always hit the mark), well.... to be blunt..... they LIE and DECEIVE themselves (but no one else - least of all God!). We are SINNERS! We MISS THE MARK! We are FALLEN! We need SALVATION, MERCY, JUSTIFICATION... IF we look to the LAW as the tool of salvation, ALL that happens is that we get slapped down - completely, totally, every time. (Note: THIS is why people want to water down the law SO MUCH as to make it unrecognizable, insulting God and the Law - all to make it so that we can boast "but I keep the Law - I don't need no God, no Christ, no Cross, no Blood, no mercy - I got ME!!!" All as an enemy of Christ, a destroyer of the Gospel, all in an attempt to substitute the theology of Judaism, Islam and Bhakti Hinduism in place of Christianity - to promote THEIR soteriology which is "Self saves self although because of the TIME and HELP which God provides")

The theological use is to ask ourselves, "Am I all that God commands?" The only reasonable answer is: "NO!" And thus to flee to the mercy seat of God, the heart of God..... He who says "Yes" the Bible specifically says is a "fool" and is a "liar"

The GOSPEL

What is the Gospel?

It is the heart of God, the mercy of God, what God has done FOR us, the gifts from God, the promises of God - all in view of CHRIST alone: the Cross, the Blood, the Empty Tomb.

Galatians 2:21, "If justification were through the Law then Christ died for no purpose."

Philippians 3:9, "Not because of our works, lest anyone can boast."

Romans 3:20, "No human being will be justified in God's sight by works of the Law."

First John 4:10, "Not that we love God but rather that He loves us."

First John 4:8, "God is love."

John 3:16, "For God so (unconditionally) love the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life."

Romans 5:8, "God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies of God, Christ died for us."

First John 2:2, "Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins."

Titus 3:5, "God saves us not because of our deeds of righteousness but rather in view of His own mercy."

Romans 6:23, "The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing but rather it is the free gift of God."

John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life."

This Gospel also applies to our lives as Christians....

Hebrews 13:5, "I will never leave you or forsake you."

First John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful to His promise and will forgive our sins."

.... and so VERY much more.... all entirely because of the heart of God, the unconditional love of God, the mercy of God.... in view of the Lamb, the Blood, the Cross, the Christ, the Savior.

The Law does not negate or cancel or diminish the Gospel.... nor does the Gospel negate, cancel or diminish the Law... both are real, both are true, both stand in ALL their force and truth... and they can only accomplish their task if we allow them to stand FULLY - not watering them down, not confusing them, not entangling them, not misapplying them. A Christian (one who is justified, narrow - by Christ ALONE, by the SAVIOR, via the Cross, because of the Gospel!) is still called to absolute, total, divine perfection, holiness, obedience, love... still called to always, perfectly HIT THE MARK, right on, every time, 24/7, as much as God does, in our nature, our being, our attitude, our thoughts, our words, our deeds: both for civil reasons AND so that we realize we fail and need Gods' mercy. We strive forward because we love God and because this is the will of God..... but we never fully attain it, we miss the mark, we fall short more often and more greatly than we realize. And so, thanks be to God, the Gospel remains (FULLY, completely, in all its' power and force and beauty): God is merciful, God forgives, because of the Lamb, because of the Cross, because of the Blood, because of His unconditional love, because of His Son, because there is the SAVIOR - Jesus Christ.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

Hoghead1 · May 17, 2016

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Law and Gospel....

The LAW:

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

There are at least 613 laws specifically written just in the Old Testament. We think often of the Ten Commandments but actually there are many, many more just in the
OT
- and still more in the
NT
.

What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.

Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."

The word "sin" literally means "to miss the mark." In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target, the therefore "sinned" because he missed the mark, missed the target. The Bible says "ALL fall short." IF you have absolutely, perfectly, divinely, 24/7 "hit" all the targets above, then you are obedient and free of sin. Otherwise...... Well, the Bible would be correct and not lying when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL fall short." "NO ONE is good." "If you claim to have no sin (you hit the mark), then you lie and call God a liar."

The LAW has two functions:

Civil - Our relationships in this fallen world. This was not given until around 1400 BC when the first Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a purpose of GUIDING peoples' relationships. This is very much like our own national laws - they govern relationships. Civil law does not get us into heaven, it helps us get along with others, it helps our society work better.... if everyone kept the law, this would be a nicer place in which to live and die (and eventually go to hell). This applies just as much to non-Christians as to Christians - it applies to all.

The Law cannot save - and in this first use, it's not remotely its intention. Now.... true..... IF we kept all the law, we'd go to heaven (because we would not NEED God or Christ or mercy or forgiveness or salvation or justification or the Cross or the Blood - we'd not need the Gospel - because we'd essentially be God: divinely perfect, divinely holy, divinely loving..... totally, absolutely..... 100%....... 24/7...... but then in that case, we'd not need the civil law because we'd be perfect - in nature, in being, in attitude, in thought, in word, in deed.

We can NEVER achieve the Law (and we don't). Like Paul, we must confess that we are "CHIEF OF SINNERS" and that we are not - not - perfect as God demands.... but we CAN press on toward that. Why? Because Jesus was a joke and Christianity is wrong - we gotta save ourselves? WE save SELF via the Law - by being absolutely 100% perfect just as God is perfect? Nope. We press on toward that because our life and our world would be a whole lot better off. And because it pleases God whom we love.

BOTH of these functions continue after justification..... we are STILL called to be absolutely, divinely PERFECT, we are still called to live civilly in society; indeed Christians have unique commands: to love EXACTLY as Christ did, to LIVE exactly as Christ did, to make disciples of all 7.3 billion people, etc. The Law doesn't disappear or get watered down to nothing (as some Christians insist) when we are justified... but it also has nothing to do with our justification just because we are justified.

Theological - Our relationship to God. This is to drive us to our knees, to drive us to despair, to accuse us, to drive us to God's MERCY, God's HEART, God's FORGIVENESS..... to reveal the need for a Savior, a Cross. We CANNOT and ARE NOT what God intends and commands. That NO ONE is righteous..... NO ONE is good..... every other religion on the planet is fundamentally wrong because we cannot clean up our act and become what God mandates: absolutely perfect, absolutely holy, absolutely loving.... if anyone CLAIMS to be without sin (to always hit the mark), well.... to be blunt..... they LIE and DECEIVE themselves (but no one else - least of all God!). We are SINNERS! We MISS THE MARK! We are FALLEN! We need SALVATION, MERCY, JUSTIFICATION... IF we look to the LAW as the tool of salvation, ALL that happens is that we get slapped down - completely, totally, every time. (Note: THIS is why people want to water down the law SO MUCH as to make it unrecognizable, insulting God and the Law - all to make it so that we can boast "but I keep the Law - I don't need no God, no Christ, no Cross, no Blood, no mercy - I got ME!!!" All as an enemy of Christ, a destroyer of the Gospel, all in an attempt to substitute the theology of Judaism, Islam and Bhakti Hinduism in place of Christianity - to promote THEIR soteriology which is "Self saves self although because of the TIME and HELP which God provides")

The theological use is to ask ourselves, "Am I all that God commands?" The only reasonable answer is: "NO!" And thus to flee to the mercy seat of God, the heart of God..... He who says "Yes" the Bible specifically says is a "fool" and is a "liar"

The GOSPEL

What is the Gospel?

It is the heart of God, the mercy of God, what God has done FOR us, the gifts from God, the promises of God - all in view of CHRIST alone: the Cross, the Blood, the Empty Tomb.

Galatians 2:21, "If justification were through the Law then Christ died for no purpose."

Philippians 3:9, "Not because of our works, lest anyone can boast."

Romans 3:20, "No human being will be justified in God's sight by works of the Law."

First John 4:10, "Not that we love God but rather that He loves us."

First John 4:8, "God is love."

John 3:16, "For God so (unconditionally) love the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but has everlasting life."

Romans 5:8, "God shows His love for us in that while we were enemies of God, Christ died for us."

First John 2:2, "Christ is the atoning sacrifice for our sins."

Titus 3:5, "God saves us not because of our deeds of righteousness but rather in view of His own mercy."

Romans 6:23, "The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus."

Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing but rather it is the free gift of God."

John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life."

This Gospel also applies to our lives as Christians....

Hebrews 13:5, "I will never leave you or forsake you."

First John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, God is faithful to His promise and will forgive our sins."

.... and so VERY much more.... all entirely because of the heart of God, the unconditional love of God, the mercy of God.... in view of the Lamb, the Blood, the Cross, the Christ, the Savior.

The Law does not negate or cancel or diminish the Gospel.... nor does the Gospel negate, cancel or diminish the Law... both are real, both are true, both stand in ALL their force and truth... and they can only accomplish their task if we allow them to stand FULLY - not watering them down, not confusing them, not entangling them, not misapplying them. A Christian (one who is justified, narrow - by Christ ALONE, by the SAVIOR, via the Cross, because of the Gospel!) is still called to absolute, total, divine perfection, holiness, obedience, love... still called to always, perfectly HIT THE MARK, right on, every time, 24/7, as much as God does, in our nature, our being, our attitude, our thoughts, our words, our deeds: both for civil reasons AND so that we realize we fail and need Gods' mercy. We strive forward because we love God and because this is the will of God..... but we never fully attain it, we miss the mark, we fall short more often and more greatly than we realize. And so, thanks be to God, the Gospel remains (FULLY, completely, in all its' power and force and beauty): God is merciful, God forgives, because of the Lamb, because of the Cross, because of the Blood, because of His unconditional love, because of His Son, because there is the SAVIOR - Jesus Christ.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

Look, if we are born evil through and through, if evil is our true nature, then let's go be evil. It's bad to tamper with nature.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jul 7, 2016

Why I'm Pro-Life

As slavery was the huge moral/political issue for some 200 years in the USA, abortion has become such in our time.

I'm solidly pro-life. It is my top issue in voting and it is a moral position about which I'm passionate. There ARE areas were I "give" a bit (in case of rape, if continuing clearly threatens the physical life of the mother) but I'm pretty solidly pro-life. I "inherited" this, I suspect, from my parents great respect for life that they instilled in me, their great emphasis on protecting the weak, and from my Catholic upbringing. My parents - one a diehard "bleeding heart" liberal, the other a ditto head conservative - both are strongly pro life (although obviously my mom votes contrary to her convictions on this point). As a teen, as a part of my schooling, I volunteered at a Birth Choice center (an amazing experience that had a profound impact on me) and I still contribute generously to some of these organizations.

My primary reasons are two:

1. Human rights. My sister (who has a Ph.D. in biology and does biological research as her vocation) has stressed to me that biologically, it is absurd to argue that the pre-born baby is not a human. She stresses that nothing happens to the DNA as the last bit of the toes exits the birth canal: in terms of species, what is AFTER the exit of the last toe is no different that what was before the crown of the baby's head began appearing outside that canal. While precise definitions of what is and is not "life" and is and is not "human" are not as precise as we'd all like, however we BIOLOGICALLY define such, birth has nothing to do with it. I believe that all humans are endowed with inalienable HUMAN rights simply as a function of they being HUMAN - and chief among these is life (the ONLY right that ultimately matters..... take that away and no other "right" matters at all, applies at all). Now, we can have discussions of self defense, just war, even capitol punishment (and I have related opinions there) but these are all extreme cases usually related to some guilt or physical threat presented by the one permitted to be murdered, and there seems to be consensus that HUMANS are being murdered in these cases. I think we purposely evade this by insisting that the unborn baby is not 100% a "PERSON" ( an argument taken hook, line and sinker from the pro-slavery position where Blacks were 2/3's a person) or when we people talk about the baby as a parasite or fully dependent - all that simply evades the issue that here is a HUMAN - the same species as we. IF we can deprive a whole class, an entire category of living HUMANS - regardless of their guilt or bad behavior or physical threat - deprive them without any due process - deprive them of the most important, most fundamental, most necessary of all HUMAN rights - life - then the most gross injustice has been made and all other innocent humans are threated and weakened.

2. Defending the Weak. The Bible says we are to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, we are to defend those who cannot defend themselves, we are to be caretakers of the weak. Men - in particular - have often identified themselves strongly with this defender and providing role..... women - in particular - have seen motherhood as one of providing and defending role. We can see some of this even among animals. I reject the premise that those with political power may THEREFORE, as a FUNCTION of that power, trample on the rights, the humanity, the life of those less powerful or less independent simply as a function of their superior power to do so. One does not have some "right" to choose to murder simply because one has the political power to do it with impunity, to get away with it because other powerful ones will allow it. Remember what the powerful did in the perservation 0f slavery, in their "pro choice" political point that gave NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER to the one impacted: the Black man/woman. We must not fall to the morality that whatever those with sufficient power do to others is "moral" simply because they have the power to do it - and get away with it. Power does not equal moral. Indeed, it is a sad consequence of sin that the weak, the less-powerful are often trampled on by the more-powerful - and thus NEED our protection, our voice, our intervention. I realize this point makes a few women very uncomfortable.... since nearly the beginning of time, THEY were often the victims of this.... THEY were the weak, the helpless, the powerless and thus the victims of horrible things. Fortunately, very very recently, they have gained some power as the powerful (that's us white, middle class, property owning MEN) granted such. But IMO, because of that history, they ABOVE ALL, should be the MOST pro-life, the MOST sensitive to standing up for those with less power against those with more, they should be the LEAST 'pro-choice' (the powerful choose.... the powerless suffer). And indeed, I think women ARE a bit less "pro-choice" than men (although it's pretty close). We need laws, etc. to protect the weak from the strong, to permit civilization (so that it's not the animal "survival of the fittest", the prevailing of the more powerful over the less so).

Now, I realize...... there are enormous human, personal issues here. I realize discovering one is now the mother of a baby can be unplanned, unwelcomed - and a genuine crisis. And while most sex is consensual (and thus all know a baby can result), it's not always. And I realize that motherhood (before and after birth) has ENORMOUS implications - physically, socially, emotionally; indeed in every way possible - and that can be very difficult. Parenthood (mother and father) are perhaps the biggest and most difficult roles humans ever have. I don't gloss over that. I realize, too, that pregnancy and giving birth can be physically dangerous and are enormous physical efforts (and that - technically, that baby is a "parasite" - a LOT of parents will say that parasite continues for at least 20 years! Maybe a lot longer, lol, not to minimize the reality here). I'm not at all unmoved by those realities. And as I mentioned, I'm at least open to discussions when the baby is a real threat to the physical life of the other and perhaps also in cases of rape and incest. But, the simple reality is: sex tends to eventually result in a baby - and all (over the age of 8 at least - know that), all that is part of the responsibility to which we must rise. AND (most importantly), it means that we - as family and as society - need to "be there" for mothers (and fathers) struggling. IMO, we have far, far too much sense of abandoning parents. We need to "be there" as family, friends, community - emotionally, medically and physically (this is what motivated me so strongly in my years working with abortion alternative centers).

I am a Republican because that party is pro-life but I rebuke it when it is often weak in supporting parents. While I do not believe governments' role is religious or even primarily moralistic, it IS in part about protecting the weak, the defenseless, the voiceless (especially those who can't vote - meaning looking for human rather than civil or political rights). Just as I strongly rebuke all those years when the government of the USA lacked the guts, the civility to end slavery, so - for identical reasons - I rebuke the USA government today for lacking the guts and civility to end abortion-on-demand. This is the # 1 voting issue for me; I cannot and will not vote for any who is not clearly pro-life when they are in positions to impact that. And while I think it may take 200 years again (but hopefully not bloody war!), someday we will look upon this ugliness in the same way as we now look back upon slavery (or racism or sexism).

.

CaliforniaJosiah · Aug 12, 2016

I think MUCH danger comes from confusing issues....... confusing Law and Gospel, confusing Justification and Sanctification (both in narrow sense).....

When the issue is justification (narrow) - what Protestants mean by "salvation" - then there is ONE and only ONE great Truth: Jesus is the Savior. JESUS! Not me, not you, not the Pope, not the RCC or LDS denominations. Not now, not ever. Not a bit. Not in whole, not in part. JESUS saves us. JESUS!!! We are saved by virtue of GOD'S love, mercy. We are saved by virtue of JESUS - His life, His death, His resurrection... His obedience, His righteousness, His perfection, His holiness.... His works, His accomplishments, His merits..... His cross, His blood, His works. Not mine. Not yours. Not now, not ever. Not a bit, not at all. Because we are CHRISTians and we believe that JESUS is the SAVIOR (and thus NOT me.... the job is taken), salvation is the result of JESUS - not me, not you.

Now, it's undeniably and biblicly true that we are mandated to be PERFECT exactly as and to the same extent that God Himself is. Yup. And don't water that down to nothingness! it's undeniably and biblicly true that we are mandated to be HOLY exactly as and to the same extent that God Himself is. Yup. And don't water that down to nothingness! it's undeniably and biblicly true that we are mandated to be OBEDIENT exactly as and to the same extent that God Himself is. Yup. And don't water that down to nothingness! it's undeniably and biblicly true that we are mandated to be LOVING exactly as and to the same extent that God Himself is on the Cross. Yup. And don't water that down to nothingness! it's undeniably and biblicly true that we are mandated to be RIGHTEOUS exactly as and to the same extent that God Himself is. Yup. And don't water that down to nothingness! All true.... ALL TRUE.... even more so than most detractors of the Gospel state, even more so than those who confuse things state.... NO! The Law is NOT "try really hard - and that will do." It's NOT the Mormon theology from the Book of Mormon: "Try your best and God will overlook the rest." It's NOT the Jewish, Muslim and Bhakti Hindu teaching that God sufficiently empowers us to eventually be good enough but we gotta "tap" this empowering to our credit. No. It's BE PERFECT - 100% - all the time - from the moment of conception to the moment of death (and beyond). It's LOVE just a much as Jesus died as He died for us on the Cross - 100% - all the time. Yes. That's Christian. That's biblical.

THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN THE TWO ARE CONFUSED. When either the Gospel is used to eliminate the Law or the Law is used to eliminate the Gospel. When one is made subject to the other. When one (or typically BOTH) is watered-down to next to nothing. When CHRISTIAN teachings are abandoned and what is proclaimed is a confused, entangled, blended MESS that essentially holds that we save ourselves by sorta, kinda, in a tiny way KEEPING the Law and thus not needing God or mercy or forgiveness or The SAVIOR - we just need sufficient time and help so we can save ourselves. News flash: "Do your best and God will overlook the rest" comes from the Book of Mormon, NOT THE BIBLE! It is a foundational teaching of ISLAM, not Christianity. It renders Christ a joke. It negates the Gospel. It destroys CHRISTianity.

HERE'S THE REALITY: We are justified (narrow) - "saved" to use the usual Protestant terminology - by CHRIST, which is why we are CHRISTians and not modern Jews or Muslims or Bhakti Hindus. NOT, NOT, NOT by our own puny attempts to sort of, kind of, not really do what God commands ( being PERFECT, being HOLY, being LOVING, being RIGHTEOUS) - making Christ a waste of time, a bad joke, His blood just an unfortunately consequence of Roman politics and Jewish egoism. When we proclaim JESUS as THE Savior that means that JESUS is THE Savior. Not SELF is the Savior of self because it depends on what self does..... Not Jesus is PART Savior but the really important part is ME.... Not Jesus is the POSSIBILITY-MAKER but not SAVIOR. Not Jesus is the HELPER who empowered SELF to sorta save self but not the SAVIOR. But.... but..... but..... just because we are saved is not a license to sin, is not an exemption from the Law. The Gospel does not negate the Law just as the Law does not negate the Gospel. Just don't CONFUSE the two..... blend the two..... water down the two..... cancel one in view of the other. BOTH are true! Yes, Christians are STILL commanded to be absolutely, totally, constantly, divinely PERFECT, HOLY, LOVING, OBEDIENT, RIGHTEOUS.... in fact, Christians have MORE law because each of us also has to make disciples of every living human on the planet earth, a MANDATE given to each Christian (not a sort of suggestion we are expected to ignore). BUT, BUT, BUT...... our NOT doing what we are commanded to do does not save us. Nor need it - since we are CHRISTians and thus have The SAVIOR who forgives...... saves.

When the two are CONFUSED, you end up promoting modern Judaism, Islam and Bhakti Hinduism - and destroying (or at least greatly endangering) the VERY POINT of CHRISTianity: we NEED saving..... we have the SAVIOR. When CHRISTianity is abandoned and in it's place we echo MORMONISM'S "Do your best and God will overlook the rest" (it comes from the Book of Mormon AND the Koran - not, not, repeat NOT from the Christian Bible!), then Houston - we have a very big problem. When CHRISTianity is abandoned and in its place we echo BHAKTI HINDUISM's "God helps us because good enough - we just gotta tap that help and do it" (which comes from BHAKTI HINDUISM, not the Christian Bible!), then Houston - we have a very big problem.

Yes..... LOTS of things are true. Just don't confuse the application of those. Yes, it's true that a car needs some kind of a power-plant (engine, motor, whatever) AND brakes. But they do NOT have the same function, they do NOT supply the same thing. Saying, "you gotta apply the brakes to make the car go" is wrong. True - brakes and engine are needed - but not for the same thing. Brakes do not make the car go. They are necessary - but not for propulsion. When the topic is propulsion, it's confusing at best to mention (dwell!!!) on brakes! Especially when this dwelling is to diminish the role of the engine. Follow?

Example: I was born (by C-Section) on January 23, 1988. I had nothing to do with it. I did not give myself life (God did - mediately via my parents). I did not cause myself to live (God did). I didn't not cause myself to be a human being. I did not cause myself to be born. All these were GIFTS to me..... GIVEN to me.... the "work" of OTHERS. BUT, once I was born (and thus FULLY a human!!!!! FULLY a human!!!!!!) almost immediately, I was called to grow, to mature, to become a civil (not necessarily PERFECT), contributing, responsible, caring person (a process I'm still working on, lol). BOTH are true! What is NOT true is: "I'm alive because I was a good enough student." "I'm a human because I usually obeyed by parents." "I breathe because I have a good job." Do you see how false that is, how misleading it is, how it destroys the affirmation that God GIVES life, that we are a creation of God? In the same way, insisting we are saved BECAUSE we sorta, kinda TRY to keep the Law (but fail)....... insisting that we are saved because of OUR works, OUR accomplishments, OUR surrendering, OUR trying, OUR.... OUR...... OUR...... is absurd, confusing, and just plain WRONG. And of course, an abandonment of CHRISTianity.

When the discussion is justification (narrow) - "salvation" in Protestant parlance - then the ONLY thing to mention is CHRIST, who is THE one and only and exclusive SAVIOR. He GIVES salvation. He GIVES spiritual life. He BESTOWS on us the position of Christian, child of God. ANY mention of self - of self being good enough, of self trying sorta, kinda, sometimes hard enough - that ( at best) confuses things and far, far, far more likely - destroys Christianity and promotes instead Mormonism, modern Judaism, Islam and Bhakti Hinduism. Such may be unintentional but it's exactly, precisely what happens, what results.

Nothing is more important.....

Pax CHRISTI

- Josiah

brinny · Aug 15, 2016

Thank you. Subscribing.

'Tis good to see you posting again.

brinny · Aug 15, 2016

Hoghead1 said:
Look, if we are born evil through and through, if evil is our true nature, then let's go be evil. It's bad to tamper with nature.

It's bad that Jesus threw "nature" into a tailspin? That He "tampered" with it?

CaliforniaJosiah · Sep 30, 2016

.

Main Reason I NO LONGER post regularly at CF and have moved to ChristianityHaven....

CF has forbidden my stance regarding the RC Denomination's De Fide Dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary - banning me from expressing it on the forums. My view is disallowed to be expressed.

IMHO..... We should love and respect Mary - for her great faith and for her role as the mother of our Lord. IMO, that (in and of itself) suggests to ME that we should not proclaim as dogmatic, uber-essential, important, necessary fact what is not shown to be true; in other words, truth should matter BECAUSE we love and esteem Mary AND because gossip is a violation of The Big Ten and generally bad policy (and of course, unloving and disrespectful).

It amazes me and greatly disturbs me how some seem to be completely unconcerned as to whether what they shout about her is true or not, much less appropriate, much less documented to the level claimed (a matter of greatest importance and necessity possible). I know mine is a very, very controversial stance (it has gotten me in GREAT trouble at a couple of websites..... indeed, I'm here in part because one website - one most of us were once VERY active act - issued me a ban of sorts because of this view). I just believe that truth SHOULD matter - even when we are shouting about Mary (no less than any other person; probably MORE than any other person!).... and especially when the issue is something ALL agree is normally a supremely private, intimate, personal issue that is RUDE to discuss in public (especially without CLEAR permission from the people involved)..... LOVE and RESPECT suggest that to ME (although I seem completely alone in that feeling and have been banned because of it).

Frankly, I don't KNOW whether Our Lady did or did not have private, intimate, loving marital relations after Jesus was born. God chose not to tell us that normally very, very private matter in His Scriptures to us..... it seems Mary chose not to tell us, Joseph chose not to tell us, Jesus chose not to tell us, all the Apostles chose not to tell us, no one who even could have met Mary chose to tell us - even if any of them know (except Mary, obviously). Maybe we don't NEED to know????????? Maybe it's NOT a matter of highest importance possible, greatest necessity of affirming possible as one denomination claims that it is?????????

I AM aware historically that the earliest Tradition was silence. Respectful, understandable, biblical, Apostolic silence. I AM aware, historically, that some men who had NO WAY TO KNOW this typically very, very private, personal matter eventually came to speculate on this matter. None of them seem to indicate why it mattered or seemed to care if it was true - but a few did speculate. Some that She did have sex.... some that she did not. This - for a FEW - came to replace the biblical, apostolic, original Tradition of respectful silence. And I AM aware that centuries after anyone could have gotten this bedroom tidbit from Mary and permission to make it public, there can to be a consensus that She did not ever have sex, although none of them seemed to care if that actually was true or why it mattered, but it did become the common speculation. Centuries later still, the TITLE "ever virgin" was used at an ecumenical council (around 7 centuries later) although the doctrine itself was never proclaimed or the status thereof - just a TITLE was used. Again, with no definition or with no indication of the status of this ("MOST important POSSIBLE" "MOST necessary to affirm possible") and with no indication (or concern) as to whether this actually was true or not.

I have NEVER (not once) indicated the speculation is true or false. My position is: I DON'T KNOW. I don't condemn ANY position. I've only suggested that positions (pro and con) should be defending to the level claimed in a way that is suggested for others (a level playing field). For this stance, I have been flamed, berated, condemned, ridiculed, accused of hatred for Mary, accused of being "Anti-Catholic", accused of being "hateful," even partly banned by CF. I can't tell you the HORRIBLE private messages I've gotten over the years from top CF admins and advisors over my stance, from a few Catholics (and one Orthodox) for this stance. I have been essentially banned from CF for this view and officially forbidden to share it anywhere in the forums (although I'm assuming it's okay in this "testimony" thread - we'll see, lol).

- Josiah

.

CaliforniaJosiah · May 28, 2017

When sin or wrong exists....

SOME SCRIPTURES.....

Matthew 18:15, "If your brother sins against you, you go and tell him his fault, just between the two of you.

Galatians 6:1-2 "Brothers, if someone is caught in some kind of sin, restore him - but do it gentle, for you too have sinned."

Ephesians 4:2-3 "Be completely humble and gentle. Be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."

Leviticus 19:18 "Do not bear a grudge or seek revenge."

Ephesians 4:26 "Do not let the sun go down on your anger."

SOME THOUGHTS....

1. All sin. And all seem determined to prove it. Since all there are are sinners, there is bound to be sin going around. And thus conflict.

2. ATTITUDE is key. Let me say that again, ATTITUDE IS KEY. We need to come with humility.... love...... in FULL knowledge (to our core) that I'M a sinner, I hurt people, I misunderstand.... what I deserve is God's sternest judgement, what I deserve is a sudden, swift kick into hell. I need to be aware of the LOG in my own eye before I get all obsessed about the speck in my brother's eye. If we come with an "holier-then-you" attitude it is absolutely GUARENTEED we'll make a royal mess of things and make matters worse. GOD is the only one who can have that attitude, and I ain't God. I may have misunderstood...... The real problem could be ME...... My only, sole, singular motive here is to help my brother and WITH HIM celebrate the mercy and grace of God and the forgiveness that is ours in the Blood of the Lamb. If my attitude ain't that, I MUST SHUT UP before I make matters worse. Just shut up. And then don't hold a grudge because it's MY fault it's not getting resolved....

3. If I feel someone has offended or wronged or sinned against me..... it is MY responsiblity to tell him/her. It is NOT (repeat NOT) his/her responsibility to read my mind via some "mind melt" or to "read" my body language or "notice" I'm not smiling at them much anymore. It must not be ASSUMES (there's that word!) that they KNOW what they did and WHY I'm hurt, angry or whatever. Jesus says TELL THEM (re-read point # 2 above, re-read it several times). TELL him/her. PRIVATELY. Don't send an email to everyone on our account, don't tweek the 7.5 billion people on the planet, don't whine to your spouse (they have enough problems on their own), don't kick the dog. GO to them.... TELL them.... PRIVATELY..... in a spirit of humility and love.... with the SINGULAR goal of sharing forgiveness and rejoicing in God's mercy, grace and forgiveness. I think most of the time (I said MOST) it gets resolved right there. And we learn something in the process. And our faith grows.

4. Now.... Jesus goes on to share what to do if resolution doesn't matter at that step, but I think most of the time people never do that step so the remaining ones are kinda irrelevant. Do step one first.... and if you ever do, THEN we can discuss other steps.

PAX CHRISTI

- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah · May 29, 2017

Theological conflict....

SOME SCRIPTURES:

Importance of sound doctrine:

Titus 1:9

Jude 3

Philippians 1:27

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

Need to correct false teaching/teachers:

Titus 1:13

Titus 3:10

Jude 4

2 Timothy 4:9-10

2 Timothy 1:15

1 Timothy 1:18-20

Ephesians 5:11-14

Need to avoid false teachers:

2 John 9-11

Romans 16:17-18

Need for Humility:

Acts 1:7

1 Corinthians 4:1

Deuteronomy 29:29

Need to Avoid Speculation:

1 Timothy 1:4

2 Timothy 2:16-18

Titus 1:10-11

2 Corinthians 10:5

Titus 3:9

SOME THOUGHTS.....

1. Doctrine matters! Sadly, especially since the Enlightenment, relativism is the religion of the day. To quote Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?" MUCH of Christianity is awash in relativism, that truth is irrelevant and unknowable. There are churches (and websites, such as Christian Forums) where truth is entirely irrelevant and all that matters is how everyone FEELS and how worldly "successful" they are (especially in terms of finances and relationships). The Bible affirms that truth matters! False teaching is wrong! We live in a world dominated by "PC" and "Mr. Roger-ism" and "Kumbyah-ism" where it is better to have heresy than hurt anyone's feelings.

2. "Humility is the father of all sound theology" - Martin Luther. MUCH of problem has been the propensity of individual persons and denominations to proclaim self smarter than God, to proclaim self alone to have a brain bigger and better than God's, to proclaim self to be the Official Corrector of God whose job it is to make God make sense and "jibe" with human philosophies and theories, to "connect the dots" so that self adds what God MEANT to say but didn't. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church simply will not shut up but insists on messing things up with its endless speculations." Frankly, I think that observation applies to much of Christianity, not just that one denomination. Scripture calls us to be "Caretakers of the MYSTERIES of God." Much of the focus of the Reformation was on the endless, amazing stuff the individual RC Denomination invented (especially in the middle ages): INFALLIBLE Denomination's Bishop in Rome..... Purgatory..... Transubstantiation...... etc. Interestingly, the problem of the EOC with the RCC is largely the same: the endless speculations, inventions, theories, additions..... But I don't think this is limited to the RC Denomination, etc. Protestantism has been just as willing to turn new inventions into Dogma, insisting God must agree with their new idea in order for God to be as smart as they are: Millennialism, adult baptism, metaphoric Communion, etc. Many a Protestant theologian has filled books with their creative speculations, all to make God make sense to them and seen right to them.

3. Individualism/Egoism is often at the root. Scripture characterizes false teachers as prideful. See point #2 above. But the problem is closely related to individualism. Scripture describes the church collectively - the Body of Christ, the church catholic, the "oikos" of God. But a characteristic of false teachers is individualism (whether this concerns a person or a single denomination or cult): SELF declares SELF to be the one God leads, the one God protects, the one God teaches, the one the Holy Spirit works with. "God told ME" is stated in a variety of pious sounding ways. There is an underlying claim that it (again a person or a denomination or a cult) IS the church, IS the One God teaches and leads and protects, self is the Mouth of God. "Just trust/obey ME uniquely" is a common denominator among false teachers. "I'M the one really smart one whom God naturally agrees with or God would be wrong and that's unthinkable" is an underlying message.

4. Scripture proclaims that WE are to be CARETAKERS of the MYSTERIES of God. Not me but we. Not correctors of God. Not inventers of Dogma. God is NOT mandated by man to explain everything to us (and especially not to one person or denomination!!!!). God is NOT mandated to "make sense" to us (much less to any individual person or denomination). God is NOT mandated to agree with whatever scientists or philosophers or psychiatrist happen to opinionate about at that moment. But this proclamation indicates that there IS a corpus of affirmations that God has delivered! God likely has not revealed EVERYTHING (even if our puny, sinful, fallen, extremely limited brains COULD remotely begin to understand it!), but God has taught us, God has revealed things. There is a corpus we are to PROTECT. I believe that is found in His inscripturated words - the Scriptures, the Bible. Just as God literally wrote the Law on stone tablets (pretty much as soon as writing and reading came into being), so I think that pattern exists today: God has revealed things in writing, His writing, His Scriptures. Over and over, we are told to search the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 1:13, 1 John 4:1, John 17:17. Never are we told to docilicly swallow WHATEVER Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or the RCC or LDS or LCMS or URC claim or state, we are directed to what God says in His written words - Scripture.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

brinny · May 30, 2017

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Theological conflict....

SOME SCRIPTURES:

Importance of sound doctrine:

Titus 1:9

Jude 3

Philippians 1:27

1 Corinthians 15:3-4

Need to correct false teaching/teachers:

Titus 1:13

Titus 3:10

Jude 4

2 Timothy 4:9-10

2 Timothy 1:15

1 Timothy 1:18-20

Ephesians 5:11-14

Need to avoid false teachers:

2 John 9-11

Romans 16:17-18

Need for Humility:

Acts 1:7

1 Corinthians 4:1

Deuteronomy 29:29

Need to Avoid Speculation:

1 Timothy 1:4

2 Timothy 2:16-18

Titus 1:10-11

2 Corinthians 10:5

Titus 3:9

SOME THOUGHTS.....

1. Doctrine matters! Sadly, especially since the Enlightenment, relativism is the religion of the day. To quote Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?" MUCH of Christianity is awash in relativism, that truth is irrelevant and unknowable. There are churches (and websites, such as Christian Forums) where truth is entirely irrelevant and all that matters is how everyone FEELS and how worldly "successful" they are (especially in terms of finances and relationships). The Bible affirms that truth matters! False teaching is wrong! We live in a world dominated by "PC" and "Mr. Roger-ism" and "Kumbyah-ism" where it is better to have heresy than hurt anyone's feelings.

2. "Humility is the father of all sound theology" - Martin Luther. MUCH of problem has been the propensity of individual persons and denominations to proclaim self smarter than God, to proclaim self alone to have a brain bigger and better than God's, to proclaim self to be the Official Corrector of God whose job it is to make God make sense and "jibe" with human philosophies and theories, to "connect the dots" so that self adds what God MEANT to say but didn't. In the words of my Greek Orthodox friend, "The Roman Church simply will not shut up but insists on messing things up with its endless speculations." Frankly, I think that observation applies to much of Christianity, not just that one denomination. Scripture calls us to be "Caretakers of the MYSTERIES of God." Much of the focus of the Reformation was on the endless, amazing stuff the individual RC Denomination invented (especially in the middle ages): INFALLIBLE Denomination's Bishop in Rome..... Purgatory..... Transubstantiation...... etc. Interestingly, the problem of the EOC with the RCC is largely the same: the endless speculations, inventions, theories, additions..... But I don't think this is limited to the RC Denomination, etc. Protestantism has been just as willing to turn new inventions into Dogma, insisting God must agree with their new idea in order for God to be as smart as they are: Millennialism, adult baptism, metaphoric Communion, etc. Many a Protestant theologian has filled books with their creative speculations, all to make God make sense to them and seen right to them.

3. Individualism/Egoism is often at the root. Scripture characterizes false teachers as prideful. See point #2 above. But the problem is closely related to individualism. Scripture describes the church collectively - the Body of Christ, the church catholic, the "oikos" of God. But a characteristic of false teachers is individualism (whether this concerns a person or a single denomination or cult): SELF declares SELF to be the one God leads, the one God protects, the one God teaches, the one the Holy Spirit works with. "God told ME" is stated in a variety of pious sounding ways. There is an underlying claim that it (again a person or a denomination or a cult) IS the church, IS the One God teaches and leads and protects, self is the Mouth of God. "Just trust/obey ME uniquely" is a common denominator among false teachers. "I'M the one really smart one whom God naturally agrees with or God would be wrong and that's unthinkable" is an underlying message.

4. Scripture proclaims that WE are to be CARETAKERS of the MYSTERIES of God. Not me but we. Not correctors of God. Not inventers of Dogma. God is NOT mandated by man to explain everything to us (and especially not to one person or denomination!!!!). God is NOT mandated to "make sense" to us (much less to any individual person or denomination). God is NOT mandated to agree with whatever scientists or philosophers or psychiatrist happen to opinionate about at that moment. But this proclamation indicates that there IS a corpus of affirmations that God has delivered! God likely has not revealed EVERYTHING (even if our puny, sinful, fallen, extremely limited brains COULD remotely begin to understand it!), but God has taught us, God has revealed things. There is a corpus we are to PROTECT. I believe that is found in His inscripturated words - the Scriptures, the Bible. Just as God literally wrote the Law on stone tablets (pretty much as soon as writing and reading came into being), so I think that pattern exists today: God has revealed things in writing, His writing, His Scriptures. Over and over, we are told to search the Scriptures. 2 Timothy 1:13, 1 John 4:1, John 17:17. Never are we told to docilicly swallow WHATEVER Joseph Smith or Jim Jones or the RCC or LDS or LCMS or URC claim or state, we are directed to what God says in His written words - Scripture.

Pax Christi

- Josiah

Josiah!!! 'Tis good to see you posting. Thank you for sharing your insight and wisdom.

God bless you my friend.

Naomi4Christ · May 30, 2017

One of my favourite members! GBU

brinny · Jun 1, 2017

Naomi4Christ said:
One of my favourite members! GBU

Mine too!!!

Hi Naomi. :wave:

CaliforniaJosiah · Feb 17, 2018

The sudden, out-of-the-blue, invention of the Anabaptist centers in two things:

Anti-Paedobaptism.
"Paedo" = children.
The whole point is AGE.
It's anti-infant/child baptism.
It's "Those under the age of X are FORBIDDEN to be baptized."
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to give baptism to those under the age of X"
We must use "X" because the Anabaptist "anti-paedobaptism" folks will never say what age "X" is, which means the whole prohibition is meaningless since no one knows at what age the prohibition expires.

Credobaptism.
"Credo" = I believe.
The whole point is what they believe and that they give adequate, public proof of such.
Those who don't believe right or who have not adequately given public proof of their choices here are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.
It's "Yes, BUT, thou art FORBIDDEN to baptize any who hath not first chosen Jesus and adequately and publicly proven that."

Some Anbaptists add other things too to the ever-growing list of prohibitions, limitations, mandates and prerequistes. Among these are....

"Must FIRST repent of their sins - and give adequate public proof of this." They disagree on HOW repentant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ. But some place ENORMOUS emphasis that this is a prerequiest to baptism and that it must be PROHIBITED to any who has not first achieved and performed this.

"Must FIRST attained an adequate level of biblical and theological training." They disagree on HOW much training and knowledge and education MUST be in place, or how it is to be proven, but many will place ENORMOUS emphasis that the reciever MUST be knowledgable and not ignorant. They disagree on HOW educated and non-ignorant they MUST be and how this is to be proven, making this requirement impossible to employ, but they STRESS that those who are biblically ignorant are FORBIDDEN to be baptized.

Where is the support for these sudden inventions of this German Anabaptist in 1523? He gave none from Scripture; these are applications of his radical synergism in reaction to the claims of Catholicism that Baptism is a "Means of Grace." His point was God CANNOT bless or give faith to one who is not FIRST able to contribute his part to the salvation process; babies and children CANNOT do what they need to do to gain salvation; they are too young to choose Jesus and too young to repent and too young to do good works - thus too young to be saved. What is too young? He'd never say. What about these too young? He invented the idea that children have no sin or at least aren't held accountable (thus the "Age of Accountability" notion often found among radical synergists).

There is nothing in Scripture that states these prohibitions, limitations and requirements. And so no one until 1523 ever thought of them or applied them.

CaliforniaJosiah · Feb 22, 2018

What is the Law?

The Law is the will of God - flowing from His absolute perfection and justice. It is, in essence, that we be as He is - not in terms of essence but character.

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

First John 3:4, "Sin is lawlessness"

Romans 3:12, "There is no one who does good, not even one."

Mark 10:18, "There is none who is good but God exclusively."

First John 1:10, "If we claim we have no sin, we make God a liar and His word is not in us."

There are at least 613 laws specifically written just in the Old Testament. We think often of the Ten Commandments but actually there are many, many more just in the
OT
- and still more in the
NT
. The Law is not "thou shalt try" or "Be better than the idiot bozo next door." It's be equal to God in morality, love and holiness. There's NOTHING in Scripture that says, "If you didn't mean to sin, ergo you didn't." There's NOTHING in Scripture about "If you don't feel remorse for your sin ERGO you never sinned." There's NOTHING in Scripture that says, "But those under the age of X cannot sin cuz they are equal to God" or "But those under the age of X aren't accountable for their sins."

What does the Law mandate?

Essentially, that our character be identical to His.

Matthew 5:48, "You must be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

1 Peter 1:16, "You must be holy even as God in heaven is holy."

John 15:12, "Love all people just as I (Jesus) first loved you."

Ephesians 4:32, "forgiving one another, just as God in Christ first forgave you."

First John 2:6, "Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did."

Philippians 2:5, "You must have the same attitude that Christ did."

What is "Sin"?

"Sin" literally means "to miss the mark."

In ancient Greece, if an archer missed the target, the therefore "sinned" because he missed the mark, missed the target. The Bible says "ALL fall short." IF you have absolutely, perfectly, divinely, 24/7 "hit" all the targets above, then you are obedient and free of sin. Otherwise...... Well, the Bible would be correct and not lying when it says that "NO ONE is righteous, no, not even one." "For ALL fall short." "NO ONE is good." "If you claim to have no sin (you hit the mark), then you lie and call God a liar."

Sin = "Falling short" "Missing the mark"

Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, missing the mark."

What is the consequence of sin?

Romans 6:23 "For the result of sin is death."

Romans 5:12, "Sin entered the world through one man's sin, and death through sin, and therefore death came to all men for all have sinned."

Isaiah 59:2 "Your sin has made separation between you and God."

Galatians 6:7-8 "Whatever a person sows, such will he reap"

Galatians 5:19-21 "Those who do such things will not gain the kingdom of God"

Obviously, non-homo sapiens die too but the Bible states that for humans anyway, this is a direct result of SIN. So, if a person dies obviously they had sin. Since people can die even before they are born, well.....

What are the functions of the Law?

1. Civil - Our relationships in this fallen world. This was not given until around 1400 BC when the first Law was given to Moses on Mount Sinai, with a purpose of GUIDING peoples' relationships. This is very much like our own secular laws - they govern relationships. Civil law does not get us into heaven, it helps us get along with others, it helps our society work better.... if everyone kept the law, this would be a nicer place in which to live and die (and eventually go to hell). This applies just as much to non-Christians as to Christians - it applies to all.

The Law cannot save - and in this first use, it's not remotely its intention. Now.... true..... IF we kept all the law, we'd go to heaven (because we would not NEED God or Christ or mercy or forgiveness or salvation or justification or the Cross or the Blood - we'd not need the Gospel - because we'd essentially be God: divinely perfect, divinely holy, divinely loving..... totally, absolutely..... 100%....... 24/7...... but then in that case, we'd not need the civil law because we'd be perfect - in nature, in being, in attitude, in thought, in word, in deed. We can NEVER achieve the Law (and we don't). Like Paul, we must confess that we are "CHIEF OF SINNERS" and that we are not - not - perfect as God demands.... but we CAN press on toward that. Why? Because Jesus was a joke and Christianity is wrong - we gotta save ourselves? WE save SELF via the Law - by being absolutely 100% perfect just as God is perfect? Nope. We press on toward that because our life and our world would be a whole lot better off. And because it pleases God whom we love.

2. Theological - Our relationship to God. This is to drive us to our knees, to drive us to despair, to accuse us, to drive us to God's MERCY, God's HEART, God's FORGIVENESS..... to reveal the need for a Savior, a Cross. We CANNOT and ARE NOT what God intends and commands. That NO ONE is righteous..... NO ONE is good..... every other religion on the planet is fundamentally wrong because we cannot clean up our act and become what God mandates: absolutely perfect, absolutely holy, absolutely loving.... if anyone CLAIMS to be without sin (to always hit the mark), well.... to be blunt..... they LIE and DECEIVE themselves (but no one else - least of all God!). We are SINNERS! We MISS THE MARK! We are FALLEN! We need SALVATION, MERCY, JUSTIFICATION... IF we look to the LAW as the tool of salvation, ALL that happens is that we get slapped down - completely, totally, every time. (Note: THIS is why people want to water down the law SO MUCH as to make it unrecognizable, insulting God and the Law - all to make it so that we can boast "but I keep the Law - I don't need no God, no Christ, no Cross, no Blood, no mercy - I got ME!!!" All as an enemy of Christ, a destroyer of the Gospel, all in an attempt to substitute the theology of Judaism, Islam and Bhakti Hinduism in place of Christianity - to promote THEIR soteriology which is "Self saves self although because of the TIME and HELP which God provides")

The theological use is to ask ourselves, "Am I all that God commands?" The only reasonable answer is: "NO!" And thus to flee to the mercy seat of God, the heart of God..... He who says "Yes" the Bible specifically says is a "fool" and is a "liar"

BOTH of these functions continue after justification..... we are STILL called to be absolutely, divinely PERFECT, we are still called to live civilly in society; indeed Christians have unique commands: to love EXACTLY as Christ did, to LIVE exactly as Christ did, to make disciples of all 7.3 billion people, etc. The Law doesn't disappear or get watered down to nothing (as some Christians insist) when we are justified... but it also has nothing to do with our justification just because we are justified.

What are the two types of sin?

Original Sin

Psalm 51:5 "I was sinful at birth"

Genesis 8:21, "Every inclination of man's heart is evil from childhood."

Romans 5:12 "Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people for have sin."

Ephesians 4:22, "Put off the old man which corrupts."

Ephesians 2:3, "We all were by our very nature objects of God's wrath."

Ephesians 2:1 "You were dead in your sins."

Romans 8:7 "The sinful mind is hostile to God, it does not submit to God Law because it cannot do so."

"Original sin" is a spiritual disease. It is universal. Let's say I have the disease of a cold. And thus, I likely (at least at times) have symptoms of that - coughing, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat. Now, does the coughing result in me having a cold? No, it's the cold that (may) result in the cough. "Original sin" (usually spoken of in Scripture by the singular "sin") is the disease, the spiritual defeat that humanity got at the Fall. If I shoot my neighbor, the "problem" is not limited to the microsecond when I pulled the trigger.... there is a HISTORY here, chain of things, that goes all the way back to my heart, my nature and how it sought to hurt and hate. "Original sin" is that heart problem, that spiritual disease. But the disease not only can lead to symptoms (read the next section) but it also results in our spiritual DEATH and being hostile to God and our inability to believe in God.

Actualized Sin

Matthew 7:17 "A bad tree bears bad fruit" (note, it's not the other way around.... something BAD exists, and ERGO bad fruit exists)

Galatians 5:19 "The acts of our SINFUL NATURE are......" (Ditto)

Matthew 15:19 "Out of the sinful heart come ....."

"Actual Sin" is the symptoms of the disease. If I have that cold, I may well have symptoms of it. The symptoms may vary... they may be severe or slight.... I may be able to control some and perhaps not others.... I may have times when there are no symptoms at all... but I still have the disease, the sickness. The "evil inclination of the heart" (as Scripture puts it) - the disease ("Original Sin") may lead me to shoot my neighbor (the actualized sin) - the symptom.

By the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, Christians have a rich advantage in controlling the symptoms, but Paul insists that the "old Adam" still exists in us.

- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah · Feb 28, 2018

The Passover.....

See Exodus 11:1 - 12:36

It's the account of the last plague..... that of the first born of all..... and the whole reason and lesson of the Passover. This was/is a HUGE and extremely IMPORTANT event for Jews (and should be for Christians).

The First born of humans of course could have 80 years old or 8 hours old.... it made no difference whatsoever (age isn't mentioned.... it didn't matter). Age was entirely irrelevant. There almost certainly were "first born" of all ages.

Exodus 12:21-23

The Angel of Death came to all first born
God provided a way for the first born of the faithful to escape and be saved.
The parents of the first born did this .... in obedience and faith.... parents trusting God.
When the Angel of Death came, the Angel recognized the blood and the faith and obedience of the parents (that of the first born seems to have been irrelevant)
Thus their child (whether 8 hours or 8 years or 80 years old) were saved.

Some questions -

COULD God has just deleted the whole bit about the Passover, the Lamb, the Blood, etc., etc., etc. and just said "I'll exempt all Hebrew first born?"

COULD God have said, "But don't do this unless the first born is over the age of X because the Angel wouldn't do anything to those under that age?"

COULD God have said, "The faith and obedience of the parents means squat, it's the faith of the first born that is all-important, so forget all about the Passover, the Lamb, the blood, the door?"

The Angel of Death was coming.... the first born of the faithful would have been swept away.... how did God provide salvation for the children of the faithful? By what the child did or the parents? By some quality and/or action of the first born or of the faithful?

Observations....

1. Obviously, God wanted to save the children of the faithful. And rather than doing it by "fiat" (without any means or process or involvement of people or things; just by His willing it and declaring it so), God instead used a means - one He gives ENORMOUS meaning to. And He placed all this in the context of families and communities rather than a purely, radically individualistic thing. This was to be an act of the family, the community.... one of faith and obedience.

2. I wonder if placing this in the context of family and community.... making it a matter of faith and obedience of the family and community.... was to stress that this child of the faithful is to be raised in and surrounded by faith? After all, it would have been just as easy for God to snap His finger and bingo, all Hebrew first born would be saved. But He didn't do that. He placed all this in the context of faith, family, community. Interesting.

3. I think we can see here a very communal, family emphasis here.... the whole point seems to be the faith and obedience of the parents, family, community of believers not on the receiver of the saving. We can see that here children are saved because of what their parents believe and do. In one of the grandest, most important events in all the Bible. Interesting. Perhaps God saves these.... who would very likely be raised in the faith by the faithful.

4. Did the parents save their first born or did God? Well, God USED a process of faith and obedience, but certainly it was GOD (not the parents) who caused the Angel to pass over the homes of the faithful.... The Angel is not taking directions from the parents (and certainly not the child) but from God. Did the blood save the child? Not exactly, God is always the one and only Savior and God gets 100% of the credit in Exodus 11-12. The blood (many would say a "type" of the Blood of Jesus) is not the point but rather than God uses, accepts, acts in light of it.

5. I see a possible connection to Baptism in the
NT
. I'd not be dogmatic about that, and I don't think we can form dogma out of an example (even one of the most significant and important in all the Bible). I DO think we can learn from Exodus 11-12 that God can (and at least once DID) work through the faith of the parents (and an act they did in trust). I think this very powerful, very important event undermines the very radical individualism of modern Christianity since the Enlightenment and reveals that God has a very contextual, communal, family perspective. I think it affirms that while God CAN work purely by fiat, He equally CAN work through means (the means itself impotent) and through the faith of the parents, family and community. In the case of the Passover, its the faith of the faithful that is effectual, not of the first born.

- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 14, 2018

Some points on Anti - Paedobaptism....

1. Infant baptism will never be acceptable to synergists. This new dogma was invented (altogether out of the blue) in the 16th Century by some very radical synergists NOT because of some verse about baptism but because it seemed undeniable to them that babies can't jump through the hoops we must jump through in order to be saved - and from that perspective, they're right..... I wasn't even awake or conscience or breathing when I was baptized, so I have to agree: IF everything is about MY adequately jumping through a bunch of hoops, OBVIOUSLY I could not have done so prior to my baptism. But while the argument focuses on baptism (because that IS the distinctive new invention of Anabaptists/Baptists) that's not really the issue, synergism is.

2. For those who are NOT radical synergists, the issue is different: They hold that what is normative for dogma is NOT the teachings of the Bible (the honest ones agree there is no stated prohibition) but the EXAMPLES found in the Bible. They are focused on one and only one issue: Where in the Bible is any baby baptized? Aren't all the examples of adults who FIRST came to faith, FIRST repented, FIRST consented and requested baptism? In other words, what the Bible TEACHES is irrelevant (they conceded their prohibition is nowhere taught) but what is EXAMPLED or ILLUSTRATED by the few cases of baptism that happen to be recorded in the
NT
. There are several problems with that, which sadly never get discussed because all focus on baptism rather than the rubric used in this argument.

A) It's false. And eventually, Anabaptists/Baptists will admit it. Actually, there are examples where we simply can't know what was the age or faith of the receiver. YES - no one can prove these 'househoods' included children or not-yet-believers but that's not the point. The point is it destroys their premise: that every case is of adults who FIRST repented, FIRST chose Jesus, FIRST consented. The whole apologetic is simply false. Some will admit this - finally admitting they are ASSUMING but then rebuke others for ASSUMING the opposite. They whole apologetic is thus declared to be wrong.

B) They THEMSELVES reject their own argument. They declare this point that we can only do what is consistently illustrated as done in the
NT
by posting on the internet, lol. And perhaps during a worship service where 90% of what they are doing is never once (much less consistently) illustrated as done in the
NT
. Since they so boldly reject their premise, why should others accept it?

3. In this UBER-individualistic milieu that has infected Christianity since the Enlightenment, the strong embrace of community and family in the Bible has been abandoned by many. Thus the argument, "The faith and actions of parents and the community can have NO relevance! It's Jesus and ME!" In terms of uber, radical individualism, this "rings" with a lot of people - but not with the Bible. I gave just one example: the last of the Ten Plagues of Egypt where the faith and obedience of PARENTS and the community is what literally saved the first-born child; God used the blood and the faith/obeidence of the PARENTS/COMMUNITY to save their child (who evidently didn't believe or do ANYTHING in this regard). I bring up that example - but there are SO many more. But this is a "hard sell" today because of the very, very radical embrace of individualism and the complete abandonment of any sense of community, family, church, chosen people of God. In truth, anti-paedobaptism just "fits" with this "It's Jesus and ME!" mentality SO entrenched in our socieity, as well as the synergism also SO popular today.

- Josiah

CaliforniaJosiah · Jun 12, 2018

Baptism: Immersion, Sprinkling or Whatever?

1. Although again, the burden is on anabaptists to show that in the Bible, "to physically and entirely immerse under and in" IS the only possible meaning. I'd like to know how one baptizes a table.... or how one is baptized in the Holy Spirit?

2. Curious.... Baptists often use little plastic cubs of Welch's Grape Juice and little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread in Communion.... where in the Bible does it say that, or is that Baptist Church Tradition? Where does the word "Eucharist" or "Supper" or "Communion" mean plastic cups?

Oh, there were no dictionaries in the First Century.

The Didache was written A.D. 70 - 110, and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. Now friend, the writer and all the readers of that, living somewhere between 70 - 110 AD, all knew Koine Greek... and it's written in Koine Greek... so they likely knew the meaning of words in koine Greek (the language of the NT and the language of the word we are discussing.

In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Now... obviously in the period of 70 - 110 AD, Christians did not understand the situation as was insisted beginning in the 16th Century with the Anabaptists (none of whom spoke koine Greek). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: To physically and entirely immerse in and under" because he specifically states that it may be by pouring (he PREFERS immersing in living water, but he ALLOWS pouring). And the Didache does NOT insist that we must do it according to the primary meaning of the word or as Jesus was Baptized. Both your points are contradicted by the Didache (written when people knew, understood and used koine Greek)

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the people are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled." (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form.

It appears, those that knew and used koine Greek disagree with you. And so did those who lived in the early age of the church. Indeed, it seems all until the 16th Century Anabaptist movement began.

CaliforniaJosiah · Jun 12, 2018

It is undeniable that Christians tend to use terms variously - which can lead to a LOT of misunderstanding (and occasionally intentional abuse). Theologians, however, try to use the terms precisely - especially in discussions with those of different theological traditions.

CHURCH.

"The one, holy, catholic community of saints" as most Christians proclaim each Sunday. This is PEOPLE, the PEOPLE of God. ALL those to whom God has given the divine gifts of faith, spiritual life, justification (narrow) and the Holy Spirit. It is the entire corpus of such (both on earth and now in heaven). It is "invisible" in the sense that it is not a human/geopolical/legal/economic entity but is "visible" in the sense that faith among the faithful is observable. It is ONE (because we are one body, one family, brothers and sisters in Christ), united in our faith in CHRIST as THE (one, only, exclusive) Savior. It is HOLY because all in it are forgiven via that faith in that Savior. It is CATHOLIC because it embraces ALL believers everywhere and in every time, it is a communion because we are united into one spiritual entity.

Ephesians 2:19-22
Ephesians 4:4
1 Peter 2:9
Romans 12:4
Ephesians 1:1
Luke 17:21

CONGREGATION/PARISH

A congregation is a gathering of Christian people in a given place and time. They gather together by their Lord's direction to worship, study, serve/minister, grow, support, love and hold each other accountable. They MAY put institutional aspects into place (name, constitution/by laws, articles of corporation, budgets, officers, property, etc.) so that that association has institutional aspects or simply may be Christians who gather in some living room. While the word "church" is often used for this too, it is NOT to be confused with THE Church - the one, holy, catholic, communion of saints: these associations are at most a tiny and current subset of THE Church. There are tens of millions of congregations in the world, very few last more than a century so they tend to have a beginning and an end. It is NOT divinely mandated that all Christians associate into some congregation/parish, but many do and many believe this is a good thing but there are hundreds of millions of "non-congregational" Christians.

Galatians 1:2
1 Thessalonians 1:1
Revelation 1:4
1 Corinthians 1:2

DENOMINATION

At times, a group of congregations MAY choose to associate together - forming an institution of them, an association of congregations.

This USUALLY is a formal institution - but it can at times simply refer to a common creed among congregations (as in "the Lutheran denomination" - there actually are over 300 Lutheran denomination institutions, but theoretically, most share a common creed, the Lutheran Confessions). These congregations associate together into denominations for similar reasons that Christians associate into congregations: for the purposes of mutual edification, ministry, support and accountability. Some of these are extremely "loose" (the "United Church of Christ" in the USA would be an example), the most radical forms are very strong they even may actually legally own and operate the member congregations (the Catholic Church or the Episcopal Church USA are examples of very radical, extreme denominations). Examples would be "The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod" "The Greek Orthodox Church" "The United Reformed Church in America". There are thousands of denominations in the world currently, the largest (by far) being the Catholic Church although it is highly diversified into dioceses.

Congregations can be denominational (as most are) or non-denominational. Denominational ones are associated with other congregations - with a common formal statement of faith and often with some governance above and outside itself, whereas non-denominational ones are independent and autonomous. There is no divine mandate that a congregation be denominational (and millions aren't) but most are and most believe this is a benefit.

There are no Scriptures that mention denominations. Many hold that none clearly existed until the Roman Empire formed "The Roman Church" in the early 4th Century, created by itself for itself in the image of itself.

The term "Faith Community" is sometimes used for a group of congregations (or even individual Christians) who share a common statement of faith (although not an institution) - thus "the Lutheran Faith Community" for any and all denominations, parishes or individuals who embrace the Lutheran Confessions, or "The Anglican Communion" for examples. Occasionally, "denomination" is used in this sense, too.

Some definitions:

From religioustolerance.com
Denomination: an established religious group, typically uniting a group of individual, local congregations into a single administrative body.

From thefreedictionary.com
Denomination: "A group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy."

From onlinedictionary.com
Denomination: "a group of religious congregations having its own organization and often a distinctive faith."

From Allwords.com
Denomination: "a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith."

American Heritage Dictionary:
Denomination: "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy."

Is the RCC a denomination? It is unless one insists that it has no Catechism or beliefs, that is has no bishops or archbishops or cardinals or pope, that each priest is entirely autonomous, that each parish is absolutely independent and has nothing to do with ANY other parish.

Again, I don't deny that these words CAN be used in very sloppy and confusing ways, but it is clear there are these 3 very different aspects being addressed - even if some title is used.

- Josiah

.

My faith: Josiah (CaliforniaJosiah)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

not a nutter

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads