Tuesday, March 22, 2005
oh blah blah blah
Right now, I feel like I am spinning out of control. My mind is going about 50 million directions and I am not sure which thing to think about. This basically makes me not be able to think at all. I don't know what is going on. I used to think I had everything figured out. I went away to college like this. I think most people do. I remember clarifying that I was INDEPENDENT baptist and not southern baptist at the school I was at. Do you remember that Matt? Oh those were the days. Now, I am no longer Baptist and I can't figure out what I am. One thing I know is that I am a Christian, or rather a Christ follower. I bet people are sick of me preaching on this, but I wish that the body of Christ could be unified and we could truly be one holy, apostolic, catholic church. Right, that will happen. What spurs all this you ask? Well, I can't find a church. I need a church, and I can't find one I fit in with. I love my small group, and right now, that is the closest thing to church I have. I like Common Ground, but then again, I don't. I liked College Park, there was something very familiar about it. It was very much so back to my Baptist roots. I like the Catholic churches I visit most. Here is the deal: I AM NOT CATHOLIC!!!!!!!!!! Seems that when you aren't Catholic, you can't really participate in the main part of mass: the Eucharist. I do want to learn more about the Catholic church. There does seem to be something about it. It has been around for quite a long time, and there a quite a few of them. I do like what they have to say. The thing is I spent my whole life being taught that Catholics are going to hell...or something like that. I would have heated discussions with some of them, trying to get them to "come to Christ." Of course, this would mean coming to the Baptist church. If I turned Catholic, bunches of people would freak out. The thing is, I would like to have the body of Christ be unified. MOST of the body of Christ would associate themselves with the Catholic church. I consider myself a catholic, but I am definately not a Catholic. I do have some doctrinal issues. I haven't studied up on them. Of course, I really haven't found a church that I do agree with one hundred percent. Oh well...I just wish my head would stop spinning. I talked to a priest for about 2 hours (at a bar...how great is that) and since then my life has been blurry. I don't know what to do...please help!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Yeah, it's really frustrating. My wife and I grew up Baptist (Southern Baptist in her case, Free Will Baptist in mine) in the south. We had a hard time finding a church we liked down there. The one we ended up in wasn't all that great, and we ended up not going 2/3 of the time. Now we live in the Chicago burbs. Fortunately we stumbled across a church that we really love for a lot of different reasons. We plan on moving back down south in four or five years. I honestly don't know what I'm going to do then.
But I think your small group is your church. Christians think too much of church as a building you go to, instead of thinking of it as a community, which is what it really is, or should be. Church buildings as we know them didn't spring up until the third century. So it's OK to buck the trend. But then again, if you like the worship in large groups part of going to a church building, you're probably going to have to cave.
Kevin is right. The small group is your church. The greek word for church is ekklesia. It literally means assembly. You can belong to many assemblies. Christ said, "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am also."
Your small group is literally you congregation, Ekklesia, or assembly.
As for your Church, well that is the body to whom all true and obedient believers belong whether Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, or Restoration movement.
JB
Oh yeah, I remember those days. I distinctly remember a heated argumemnt over me using the NIV and you railing about FBC-Williamsburg because they had women deacons. You've come a long way BABY!!!
Believe me when I tell you try Anglican or Episcopalian. I nearly converted last semester, and it's something I still consider from time to time. I know they're schismatic, but really, EVERY Protestant group is schismatic. And really, depending on your vantage point, so is Ole Rome. Just ask the Greek and Ethopian Orthodox and/or the Nestorian and Monophysite Churches of African and India. Or those groups with Roman loyalties that did not accept the Tridentine resolutions or much later, Vatican II.
I feel like a fish out of water that's in the same boat as you Rose. Religion is something I seldom like to talk about because I don't really know where I belong except that I worship God and follow/believe in Christ. I have yet to find a church that I feel I fit with, but regarding you, I feel that what's said is right: your community worship of small group is your current church.
As far as being Catholic goes... if you're that die-hard about participating in the Eucharist (I love card games too), then frickin become a Catholic. No pun intended, but "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." It's what you believe, and I don't think God pays attention to labels so much as what the ingredients are. I would say to just be absolutely sure about this, because jumping from religion to religion is most certainly not healthy. Stability on a foundation of beliefs and morals, not a sea of confusion of ideals.
OOOOr, if you don't want to become a Catholic, go to a traditional Christian church. They're out there, and they sound very much up your alley thought they are a bit boring, but most people think mass is boring. The church I went to growing up had a service that, if you ask me, is very much like a mass (not that I've ever been to a mass, but from what I've heard and what I know they're similar). We have a set order of events that are named differently but the idea's the same. That's one thing I've noticed about new churches is that they are so geared towards appealing to the youth and being "cool" that they lose a lot (in some cases I've seen, ALL) of the tradition.
Maybe you should go second generation protestant and start your own hybrid religion that finds a common ground where you want to stand. It's not like you're dismissing or editing anything in the Bible... but perhaps a committee would be better suited to handle such a task.
Wow, all of this talk about it really makes me miss my old church. I can't wait until Easter. Sorry about the length of this comment... and I know what the Eucharist but I couldn't resist.
...and Schism is a really cool song by an amazingly talented band that is very outspoken about religion... not in a good way.
To Everybody...I am not denying that my small group is my church. I actually would say that all Christians are part of my church. We are all one body of believers with different parts. I guess I need to clarify. I haven't found a gathering place. To Asher...I like the idea of starting up a new kind of church, but I dont want us to be divided more than we already are; therefore, I will just be a New Kind of Christian...
Just thinks of each type of belief as a different part of your body. Catholics, protestants, Baptist, Methodist are just like your arms, legs, feet and hands. They all have a purpose. I like to think of them as a check and balance system to what the early Catholic church in Rome and England did not have. Think about that. There is some Truth in what I said.
As far as when you say religion.... Let's clarify some things for you...
Christian, Budist, Anarchist, Muslim, etc... I don't want to mix my church with theirs... Let's not combine religions.
Oh.. you met different Christian beliefs you say... Well it comes down to are you Christian or not. You just have to find your church congregation you like. United Methodist are like Catholic Church if that helps you. The beliefs are different and I think that is what you are looking for.
JB is right... I don't go to a congregation, I am tired of the bickering and back stabing and two faced crap that goes on in power hungry people who should just shut up and sit down. I like church, I dislike the people.
I have my own church at home. I have church with GOD and that is all I need. That is all you need. I think you are confused with what you want or what you thing it should be. You should be humble and at peace with your self like the discipels were on the Mount of Olives.... There was no church congregation there.. just prayer.
You probably need to re-evaluate what you are looking for and what you want. I don't think you know what you want or are looking for.
If it were me, I probably would pray on this and let God lead you where he wants you to be. If you ask him be prepared because the Flood gates will open and you can't shut them! Who care about beliefs, religion and what ever if God gives you what his will is for you to do.
Wolfe
Sorry for rambling on.....
A couple points if I might.
1. Somebody today called the restoration movement churches (Christian Church/Church of Christ) denominations.
I can see her point, although I disagree to an extent. If a congregation is autonomous and holds scripture as their highest authority, even over tradition, I hold that this congregation would not be a demonination, but a congregation restored to the New testament ideal. THAT is what we as Christians must strive for. To be a New Testament Christian unfettered by by-laws, Diets, Papal injunctions, or creeds. The Bible gives us everything we need to live as a New Testament Christian.
I heard a minister once say, "Christ did not die so that clergy could have carreers"
I don't remember my other point. I started writing this two hours ago.
JB
Watch "What in the bleep do we know" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399877/ It WILL blow you away.
I don't believe a blessing really makes wine into blood (anyone taste blood? there is no fucking way at is blood! cheap wine maybe, but not blood.)
I self commune with a bottle of red and loaf of bread. I figure since God created everything nobody should mind if I dress up the body with a little butter and crushed garlic.
No apologies today!
-thom
Ok...I am just going to throw this out there...Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our foundation. It mentions Christ as the foundation, the church as the foundation, and some would say it also calls Peter the foundation. Now, this would be a reason why the Catholic church is so big on tradition. Maybe we should look a little more at tradition also...I think it is great to be a New Testament church, but maybe there is more to it than that.
Oh yeah...
also...I think a lot of churches would argue that they are solely following scriptures and that by-laws and such just help clarify it. I personally love the apostle's creed...I think it is amazing.
Here it is...I think this is how it goes:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell; the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
Now I would say that is DEAD ON!
The Lutherans say this creed also
jb,
I'm pretty sure that rose is right. Even if it was true that God wanted us to be "new testament Christians" (whatever that means) it would be impossible given that all we have are situational letters and scattered pieces of history to go off of. Tradition is what gives us everything that you would consider "New Testament Christianity". Throw out tradition and you throw out the Trinity, you throw out every theory of atonement that exists, Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Pneumatology, yep, gone. Worst of all, the Traditions are the ones that finally gave a the Scriptures that you carry around with you. (The fact that they canon wasn't finally finished till around 1500's is a different issue). Plus, like rose already mention, we are followers of Jesus correct? Why are people so concerned with worshipping the bible?
Rose,
There is something so very beautiful about traditional churches. I've fallen in love with the Episcopal church. I really enjoy the Catholic faith as well but I find them to be too exclusionary and I also don't like having to swallow some of the Meta-physical pills I would have to to confess to be catholic. But at the same time, the meta-narrative of catholicism is much richer than any other tradition, except maybe the eastern orthodox.
I'm sorry to hear about your struggles. It is incredibly discouraging and makes one feel incredibly lonely at times. I hope that you find a place that you feel valued and worthwhile. I've tried this desparately and only been dissappointed. I finally decided that Christ vision for the "Church" was to live in meaningful, life-giving, relationships with each other. I'm trying to do that outside of the walls of institutions now. I hope good things for you.
Adam,
Well said. From what I gather from your blog, I think that you and I may be having some of the same struggles.
Adam,
Well said. From what I gather from your blog, I think that you and I may be having some of the same struggles.
Christology, Soteriology, Ecclesiology, Eschatology, Pneumatology, yep - throw it all out. It is all man trying to help GOD. Just follow Christ as GOD has revealed through the scriptures.
The pharasee's were big on tradition - and they held tradition over GOD's word. In fact the spirit of HIS word. This displeased GOD.
What is wrong with basing your standards of living on the Bible as you follow CHRIST? If you don't have an absolute standard, and wish to follow man's traditions you are likely to have "religious" crises and be blown around by every wind of doctrine.
I categorically reject the concept of higher criticism. Who are we to judge how GOD should behave and cram him into some doctrinal box.
For instance, here is a Doctrine:
GOD can do anything.
Absolutely false although doctrinally fettered Christians will espouse this.
Anyway. Rose I am sorry you are hurt. I wish I could help, but I think you will just have to work it out.
JB
Adam. It seems as if you are doubting the inerrancy of scripture. That saddens me, though I don't know you, if you are a Christian.
I don't worship the bible. I don't worship the Holy Spirit. I am not sure that I even worship Christ.
I am simply saying that we should live our lives based on the principles taught in GOD's inerrant, infallible word. Rather than some creed made by men, no matter how good it sounds.
Someone brought up the Episcopals as a great "church". They allow homosexual ministers. How can that be pleasing to GOD when he clearly considers that activity an abomination? The Episcopals have evidently put what they thought over what GOD said to do.
That is what I mean by "New Testament" Christian. Breaking the subservience to organized religion, and living a full Christian life instead. How to do this is by living by principles that are taught in the scriptures.
JB
I wouldn't say that I am hurt. I am just on a journey looking for something, and I am not sure what. I am a follower of Christ, and that is most important. I think we get WAY mixed up in what religion people are...I don't care if it non-denominational or not. The problem I have with the episcapaleon church is that is the from the Anglican church, which was started because King Henry the whoever wanted a divorce. What a crazy division. I would rather be Catholic.
Rose,
I understand your struggle. Since I moved to indy 2 years ago I havent found a church either. And being out of a church has definently had my mind wondering if baptist is the way to go. My problem with some of these churches is that they will get all this money from the congregation and build this huge beautiful church right in the middle of a poverty strucken neighborhood. And typically the church is the only thing that is prosperous. I have some moral issues with that. Oh BTW what does a priest drink at a bar?
Have you ever been to an Episcopalian church? You may find the liturgy that you like in the Catholic church but a more open, inclusive, and decidedly protestant theology. For example, they allow any baptized believer to take part in the Eucharist. I have an Episcopalian church that I get the privilege of visiting every so often, and I love it.
- Janie
Josh, the priest had some kind of dark beer.
Janie...thanks for commenting!! Good to hear from you. Maybe I will visit an Episcopalian church, but my comments about how I feel about it are above.
Rose,
I think your right about us. As for throwing out something because of its roots. You better not go Catholic then. You can think Constantine for the Catholic church being as dominant as it is and since Constantine was making a political move that led to institutional Christianity as we know, which also led to more deaths in the name of God than any other cause in history. You might consider, ummmm, give me a second, ummmmm, maybe Anabaptist, yeah thats just about it.
JB,
You are a pretty amazing person I must say. You obviously have some supernatural power to read the scriptures in all of its ancient context without any interpretive tools. You should teach. I don't think anyone, ever, has been able to do that. I'm bitting sarcasitc obviously but my point is that you can't throw out all of the "ology" stuff I said because then you don't have any interpretive tools left. The nature of language involves instantaneous interpretation and therefore instantaneous error. Even if I was an inerrantist I would still need all of my interpretive tools. Plus we don't have the original autographs (if they even existed for most of scripture) so what we have is flawed with no way to conceptually get back to the meaning.
On a different note, how do you even know the bible is inerrant, infallible, etc.? Because it says so? Well A)it doesn't B)I could use the same reasoning to and tell you I'm inerrant and infallible and you therefore should accept everything I say as Truth. Bad idea really. It might be helpful to you to not try and fit everything into artificial categories. There are more options than either A)The bible is infallible, inerrant, and contains all absolute truth. or B)Man nasty, irresponsible, corrupt way. Also, (this is getting long) "Word of God" is always agreed upon to be talking about Christ when its mentioned in the scripture. To understand this you would need to turn to Theology and more particularly Christology (since it doesn't explain it in the bible) but you've alredy thrown those out. It's a good thing you don't need those interpretive tools then I guess.
p.s. I hope your not offended at this. Any sarcasm was meant in jest to make things interesting.
Good point Adam. I think that there has been a real generational loss between Christianity today (When I say Christianity I don't mean Christ follower, I mean this thing we call Christianity) and Christianity in the early church. I think we can say we have it figured out as much as we want, but the only interputation of the Bible that matters is God's interputation, and none of us have that. To the Catholics, this is why tradition is so dear to them, I think. Again, I am shooting in the dark. I wish the one Catholic that reads this would put some input in. Don't worry about making people mad Big C!
Adam:
You will not offend me. I don't even know you. I say the bible is inerrant because in 30 years of studying it and looking for errors and contradictions, I have never found one. Any that I find listed in books, seem to be wrong after some study is applied. I have found errors in other texts, such as The Book of Mormon, for instance.
What I say is not some knee-jerk reaction. I actually have studied. We are free to disagree on what we should base our lifestyle on. I will base mine on the bible. You can base your on the color of your turds if you like. That is about as permanant as anything man will come up with.
JB
JB,
I know lots of people who base their lifestyles on the bible and are misogynistic, racist, hateful, and anti-intellectual. But, I'm sure these people haven't studied the bible for 30 years and scoured its pages for errors and contradictions. Because, and I'm sure you know, that the point of Holy Writ is to put forth a historically, mathematically, logically, socially, scientifically, meta-physically, etc. accurate detailed account of provable, verifiable facts. So many of us are confused.
also, have you ever heard of a "straw man" fallacy. You might want to look it up. I think you might be doing it to everyone that doesn't "base their life on the bible" in the same way you do.
Adam, you are being sarcastic right? I don't think we need to prove the Bible at all (not saying we don't need it, we just dont need to worry about proving it)...we just need to have faith that the scripture is the word of God. By the way (and I have said it before) A New Kind of Christian by Brian Mclaren is awesome. Read it everybody! The book talks about modern vs. postmodern, and it seems that the need to prove is very modern, which is very in the now, transitional periods are always rough i do belief.
Adam, I found strawman in the dictionary. I didn't quite get your point:
strawman: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds
Oh well. The meaning is probably found in escatology.
I DO like strawberries, though.
It seems you might be implying that I am setting people up for failure by "living by the bible". Well, who cares what I think. Really!! The person whose opinion one must worry about is GOD's.
When we are before him during judgement, we all have to answer for everything we've done. What standard will HE use? Probably not Christology, or any of the ologies. He is more likely to use what HE has written as a standard.
On a positive note. I think you have degraded the power and supremecy of the scriptures in your own mind that you are probably a great candidate for seminary now! Actually, with as far as you have degraded them, you may have already graduated for all I know. lol.
Seminary = "Where 90% of Theological Errors come from"
lmao
JB
Rose,
McLaren has some good things to say but I've found his take on Modern vs. Postmodern to be weak and artificial. I haven't read a new kind of Christian but he touches on it in "A Generous Orthodoxy". Yes, I was being sarcastic. I don't, in any way, think the purpose of the bible is to give us facts. I think that at times is does, but this is only and accidental (secondary) feature of the literature.
JB,
Again, your pretty amazing. You have such a profound grasp of Theology that you know what theological errors are and where 90% of them come from. We don't need real educated people anymore, we just need people like you that already have the answers. Let me know when you are signing up people for your class because evidently I need some correcting.
As a matter of serious point I would say that I take the scriptures seriously, even more so than you, by not turning them into an argumentative power play.
Stanley Hauwerwas (sp) at Duke said that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was putting the scriptures in the hands of the lay person. But of course what does he know, He's only professor of Theological Ethics Emeritus at Duke Divinity School. Stupid Educated people, there screwing everything up.
Straw-man fallacies, is a fallacy in which a person sets up a very weak version of an opponents argument so as to easily destroy it as if it were a "straw man". Nice investigative work on that term.
Oops. I guess I should have researched better. Your guy with all the letters after his name is probably right. The inquisition, where only the "educated" were supposed to have the scriptures were SURELY much better times for the lay people who happened to disagree with a specific organized religion. I am sure they were quite cozy while burning at the stake. Educated people made those decisions based on how their "interpretative tools" indicated.
You may believe me to be uneducated, and that is OK. Peter was not educated, though. I think some of the conclusions you have drawn about are me are actually quite funny. About my education level, my understanding of strawman, my great singing voice.....
Tee, hee. I love your answers. They are so dripping with sarcasm. This is a lot of fun. I can almost see your disdain dripping out of the computer screen. Sarcasm is such a great idiom. You can look up idiom just as you mentioned I should lookup straw-man. You will find it under the letter "I". hahahahahaha.
Also, it would be very hard to prove anything in the Bible, because according to Scientific Method you have to be able to take measurements in the environment. That is where faith comes in. Analyzing the evidence and believing what the results are.
Josh:
Excellent point about the church being the nicest building in the community. Inward focus is a major downfall of the modern, organized church.
JB
oops I guess so. I don't remember saying anything about what I thought about you. Like you said, I don't know you. I thought we were talking about ideas, didn't mean any of it personally. I tend to talk in sarcasm alot when I think something is absurd. Its not very helpful and doesn't help with the dialogue, but its funny.
I'll leave the subject alone, I don't really have a dog in this fight. As well as the fact that I have such distaste for the Inquisition that whenever someone feels they can trump me with it, its time to talk about something else. Besides, I don't think I have a clue what your trying to say anyway.
JB,
1 Kg.4:26
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots."
2 Chr.9:25
"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots."
That's an error.
rose, i totally feel you. my older sister and i have discussions about this all the time. and the more josh and i read and learn, the less we fit into any church, especially those that meet in a "building". i'm glad for those, otherwise, we might not know each other.
a presbyterian or more traditional lutheran church might be a good middle ground. i've read some great stuff by robert webber who is presbyterian, and they observe liturgy and make a bigger deal out of communion but many will also mix in some contemporary music. there's actually one here in indy i've been wanting to visit called redeemer. maybe we can check it out with you.
love ya - see you soon!
ps - jb, this is right up your alley, this thread of posts, isn't it? :) hope all is well, man!
Hello everyone! I was eavesdropping in this almost extinct kind of conversation; at least in the public venue, Christianity, the Trinity, etc. , is hush, hush. From the numerous comments I've read relating to Rose's soul searching and the advice given within the content, I must say this spark that Rose ignited is teeming with passion and the quest for truth.
Pilate asked Jesus, "Truth? What is that?" when Jesus said, "I came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice."
I'm quite tired, as it is 12:06 am
and I have work in the morning, go figure. But, I would like to make just a few points, and then tomorrow, if time permits, I can elaborate on those points. Feel free to comment as you wish (I guess I didn't have to say that:) Here they are:
-Rose, you will NOT find a church which is PERFECT. By that, I mean people of the same belief are the body of the church and therefore, it will be imperfect, in that human beings are imperfect. Find me a perfect body of believers, then you will find a group of people who don't need The Church, because they would be sinless, full of grace and in full communiion with God, which only Adam and Eve experienced before the fall (Mary the Mother of Jesus also). They wouldn't need baptism, and the other sacraments to be One with our loving Father. Therefore, look at finding the Truth. Jesus came to show us the Way, to show us how to live, to serve God. Jesus doesn't want division. And whether we want to believe it or not, we do have division amongst Christian brothers and sisters. Truth cannot contradict itself. Truth is absolute. Therefore when it comes to faith and morals, what church has the authority to teach us the truth ? The authority and Church establish by Jesus, Himself? He didn't come to confuse us, to divide us. Human beings are complex creatures. We make mistakes. We sin. We see it in the Apostles. Jesus, was with them, they saw Him perform miracles, etc. Yet, Peter denied Him three times, Judas betrayed Jesus and ended up losing hope. Should have Jesus given up? NO!! an emphatic NO!! Of course He didn't. So, go ahead and talk about the Christian Crusades (which was primarily started to stop the Muslims from killing more Christians,pilfering and acquiring the Christian lands , and to stop the advancement of more attacks from the Muslims). Go ahead and talk about the selling of indulgences that Martin Luther rightly opposed (even though his ultimate goal wasn't to have a schism with the Church). The Catholic Church forbids such actions and nobody has practice that for who knows how long now?, so there isn't any need to protest on that subject (protestant = protest). So, Rose look for the Truth, the fullness of salvation.
-Secondly, I read about the apostles and how they were martyred and all the saints who suffered much. We, as Christians, are to suffer and share in Christs salvation. We are to "Carry our Crosses" everyday and follow Him. To suffer can mean to be patient with someone who tests our patience, or to give away something to someone in need even though we hold that position dear to us, or even unto death, like the early Christians who were burned alive, etc. Sooo, what I'm trying to say is that when you seek for the Truth, a church, don't rely necessarily on your "feelings." Yeah, it would be nice to go to a church and have butterflies and a sense of community. That's good and all but feelings come and go. They are fleeting. I mean, I can go to the Indianapolis Philharmonic and get those feelings. Or talk about God under the stars. That's nice and all but Christ wants our hearts, our lives to be rooted in Truth (permanance) and love (loving someone else takes sacrifice; just look at Jesus' love for us).
-Pray,Pray, Pray.Pray..Pray..and did I say Pray? Ask Jesus to lead you to Him. Have trust and faith.
Jesus said,"Truly I say to you, ask and it will be given you, seek and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you."
-You are a beautiful young lady. YOur faith and search for the Truth is truly edifying. Be patient. As you can see, you have many friends and strangers willing to help you in your journey.
Much Love,
C. Brian Anthony
(what does that C. stand for??) :)
To Brian,
I don't want a feel good religion. I think you know that already. I think too many people are looking for that feel-good emotional high "oh the service made me cry" kind of thing. They only go where the music is what the want, where they can dress how they want..on and on. Although I like the newer praise and worship music, I can get that anywhere. I don't really need to go to church for that. Now the thing that is hard is that I love singing and I love to be involved in the worship ministry, so a more traditional music kind of church makes it hard for me to be involved. (those songs are WAY to high) However, this is not the point. I don't care! I am searching for the truth, that is right. I do think, that since I am a Christian, I have the truth in me. Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life, no man comes to the father but by me. I always am confused when you mention fullness of truth. Anyway, the whole point of this is that I don't want a feel-good faith. That is not what I am looking for. If that is all I wanted, I would have already found a church. Thanks for the words Big C. I dont know what the C stands for....
Give God all the Glory, I have woken up today and had a safe trip to work. I had a safe business trip yesterday and he has blessed me to be able to come to work one more day and see my family one more day! Oh well, it is raining now! Someone has upset the Lord almighty and he is crying!
Let me take a day off and go to Chicaco for business and all hell broke out!
Rose-You need to stop looking for a church and start looking for a teacher who will educate you on what you need. Pastor, Reverand, Minister, Clergyman.... all the same thing. I have learned this even switching from one minister to another in the same church. Now, what do you all have to say to that?!?
Now for this "New Testament Christian" crap!
The Old Testament was based on eye for an eye. If you did something you had to cut off what caused you to sin. If you were smart enough you were suppossed to sacrifice and ask for forgiveness.. that does not mean you get to do it over and over again. In this period of time you did not die and go to heaven.
The Old Testament was God giving his only Son (Jesus) up as this sacrifice to open the gates to heaven to forgive you of sins without having to perform a sacrifice. (The Jews to this day still perform this sacrifice because the rejected the son.) This is why God gave him over to the Gentiles (Us) because he did not reject him. But because we are man and God, he like to distort the truth and believe what we want.
As it does say... "All say my name but yet do not know me.."
The Bible was not a replacement of God or Jesus. It is an extention that men like you and I through the ages have wanted to believe what we want and have distorted the truth. The Bible is the word of God, and a history of his people for us to learn and grow from. We should be priveliged to have this since the early Catholic church did not allow non-clergy to have a copy. We the people had to falsly believe what we were told by Sinful Natured Priests who told kingdoms what they wanted them to believe.
This is why we have more than one church now. This is why I think this is important that we do. This is to keep a check and balance system that we maintain and keep Satan out of our Church.
The Church is us the members.
The Building is a structure built by man to congregate.
God is the Father.
Jesus is the Son.
The Bible is the Word of God, written by men for us to pass on to generations and for us to have for learning and growing.
"1 Kings 4:26 Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses, and twelve thousand horses"
"2 Cor 9:25 Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses, which he kept in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem."
I suggest you check your type errors out before you start letting Satan pull God's word and create things out of context! If you were a Christian, then you would not be so bold as to falsly create stubling blocks to other persons... You will not enter the Kingdom of God for creating stumbling blocks.... I suggest anyone on here should refrain from pulling the word out of context to prove meaningless points that do nothing but cause one to lose their faith in God. How dare you!
Have you not heard the word? I forgot it does state in the Bible that they have heard but have chosen to not listen, and understand!
Please people we are all on the same team here! Should you not be out gathering the flock on non-believers and show them the way onto the Lord?
Shame on you all for your petty thoughts on how I don't like this creed and I like this one. I like this song and not this one! Shame on you for not giving God all the glory. Torn over what church to congregate just to sit and talk about someone else's hard times and gossip about what people wear.
If you really want to go to church then this is what your religion should be.. and I repeat this from an early blog...
Listening and Doing
James 1:19 My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it–he will be blessed in what he does.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. "27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
Did anyone not understand that? Sitting in your big churches and not hearing the word. Shame on you!
You should be sitting in an inner-city church and walking up and down the streets and help others. Drugs, prostitution, this goes on. And yes I do recognize that this goes on in the suburbs also.. and these do need to be walked.
I do not agree with the Jehovah's Witnesses.. but I do give my hats off to them for walking up and down the streets and doing "Gods Will".
I hope I have not offended anyone here. Again we have all different backgrounds and we should not be trying to conform others to our own personal beliefs but trying to help them to God!
Wolfe
God Bless everyone and have a good day.
Surely wolfe...you were not quoting from the KJV...that is the only Bible..
Again, the Bible was written by men. All these men have interpretted what they think they understand or they believe..
Open your ears so you may hear the truth, not what you want. Listen to the word not your interpretation.
The NIV is a laymen term for 8th grade readers. You obviously don't understand the bible so we are here helping you with this.
Wolfe
1 Kings 4:26 Following Masoretic Text and most other authorities; some manuscripts of the Septuagint read four (compare 2 Chronicles 9:25).
This is for the uneducated who want to be but run their mouths... Do some research.
Googlized!
Wolfe
27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (KJV)
27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (NIV)
Do you see a difference..? Duoh
Wolfe
Again stop debating with Christians and go seek the non-christians. I think you have your priorities backwards!
Kevin:
Well, I was going to answer your "contradiction". But it seems I won't have to. Wolfie seems to make a good point.
And whomever had the precociousness(sp) to say the KJV is actually the best translation or whatever, please at least have the fortitude to sign your name. The KJV is OK, but has many textual inadequacies. To be sure about what you are discussing, you must read them in the original languages. Engllish just misses so much.
Thanks,
JB
JB
A reply, a rebuttal to "The Bible is the word of God, and a history of his people for us to learn and grow from. We should be priveliged to have this since the early Catholic church did not allow non-clergy to have a copy. We the people had to falsly believe what we were told by Sinful Natured Priests who told kingdoms what they wanted them to believe' by Wolfe.
-First. It was the Catholic Church that preserved the Bible and determined what was inspired by the Holy Spirit and what was heresy. It was the monks who kept it preserved before It was distributed and translated. Without the Catholic Church, we wouldn't have the Bible. The Bible, I mean the New Testament, was written years upon years after Christianity started. Jesus did not say the Bible is the sole source of truth and faith. That's why, in Jesus' own Words, "YOU ARE PETER AND UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH." I don't question Christ's words. The lineage from Peter to John Paul II, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, is what it means to be Apostolic: Tying our Faith, our Tradition to the apostles.
We are faced in this modern time with questions the Bible doesn't explain in detail. For example, euthanasia, abortion, birth control (which most major Protestant churchs were against, Martin Luther was firmly against, and only recently in the 1900's did some accept and proclaim as permissable), capital punishment, homosexuality (which to me, the Bible tells the purpose of sexuality and the consequences of perversion, yet some Christian Churches accept it as normal behavior), etc.
-The Catholic Church has in its liturgy two readings from the Old Testament, a reading from the Gospel at every Mass, hymns, etc. They did so before the Bible was distributed to the laymen and before Martin Luther came out against the Church not permitting the distribution. In three years, the liturgy covers the entire Bible. So, to say that they weren't able to hear the Word of God because they didn't have a copy is false.
-Please fill me in on how you get that "We the people were told by Sinful Natured Priests who told kingdoms what they wanted them to believe." What was it, exactly, that the Sinful Natured Priest wanted the people to believe? Please let me know. I'm all ears. Is this truth I hear from you? Did priests have their kingdoms,and everybody was just puppets being pulled by a string by the Priests? Are you judging these priests, whom you have not met. Give me a name. One priest that was during that time period.
I'm writing not to start a feud, but to edify and to make clear of Truth. If what you speak is the Truth, please expound. Yes, Priests are sinful. Yes they make mistakes. Yes they have crosses to carry, as we all do. What is the Truth your trying to convey? If it is to lambast the Catholic Church. Then by all means go ahead. But i'm sure you know that St. Paul KILLED Christians at a point in his life. Are you going to judge him as well. No Paul, Peter and the apostles weren't perfect, just as priests aren't.
Please Wolfe please convey your point. Finally, I don't believe it is good to say that having 2,000 different Christian "denominations" is good for the body of Christ, us members. It has caused divisions rather than working through tough times and coming out in unity. It has caused much confusion among our non-Christian friends. They (Christian "Denominations") all have some Truth in them, but not the fullness of Truth that has been passed down for over 2,000 years.
God Bless!
C. Brian
...everybody knows that is what the apostle paul preached out of...
I was just making a funny comment in reference to an earlier post of mine. I will identify myself!!!
Rose
Before I offend anyone.. I have no problems against the Catholic Church. I actually wish I went to a Catholic school growing up just for at least the discipline they offer. I commend the Catholic Church on how the have grown and prevailed through the turmoil that the world has put it through.
When I am talking about the Catholic Church...... We are talking histroy back in the Dark Ages of Europe and the history of the Kings of Europe and the Catholic Church. (You have to admit at this time in History this was the only Church)
The Kings and the Clergy fought back in forth for power and wealth.
Obviously the Catholic Church is not like that to this day. There are alot of Corupt Churches and Clergy out in the world who have been tainted by Satan.
So again as Christians we should not fight amoungst each other. I am not here to debate.
Yes the Catholic Church led the way in putting the Word together into a book for all to read. Evolution of man....
Yes others came along and did put the Word into the hands of people like you and I so we may understand and read the word and live it not rely on what clergy-men were telling us... Even Jesus refered to these Clergy in his own time of the New Testement..
Wolfe
Regarding my earlier post. Sorry I didn't read that you had commented on Episcopalians earlier.
In regards to their origin. You are right, that they started because Henry VIII wanted a divorce, but there is much more. They are not simply "catholic lite" like a lot of people think.
MUCH of Baptist and Methodist heritage and theology developed from Anglicanism. In fact, many Baptist historians would argue that it developed more from Anglicans than from Anabaptists. Because early Methodists and Baptists find their roots in the Anglican church, therefore most EVANGELICALS can trace their theological identity to the Anglican church. That rift identified American Religious movements in an undeniable way. Don't be so quick to pass them off.
Theologically, they are more like Baptists than Catholics. Traditionally and Practically, they have more in common with Catholics. We are so quick to equate the two in a brother-sister relationship when they are really more like cousins...
And BY FAR, not all of them are pro-homosexual. Among Anglicans worldwide, there is great division. IT all depends on what diocese, etc., you find yourself in. IN addition, is that a crucial enough issue, especially for a heterosexual? I don't think it is. Some think it is, but I don't. I disagree with homosexual clergy, but that doesn't stop me from worshiping with my friends who don't feel the same way.
ANYWAY... good luck on your "quest". The Baptist church has let me down time and time again, and I've really thought about changing. (Mostly to Methodist). Who knows. Perhaps one day I will... but through it all I've just realized how INTERNAL my relationship with God really is...
I admire your honesty. I think God appreciates your honesty. If only more would be honest about their uncertainties.
PEACE OUT, GOSH!
Thank you Janie. I am glad to hear your opinion. You are someone I can relate to easily (being Baptist and all) and I have a lot of respect for you (you were one of the very first people I met at Cumberland..you should feel special), so thanks for the input.
P.S. I caught you a delicious bass.
Well said Jane!
Wolfe
Holy Fuck! I skimmed most of this page and didn't really read all of it. I'm almost ashamed to leave my name on this post because of all the shit being tossed around. Theology is not a combat sport. It is a tool to understand what you believe to be true about God. If you disagree with the charismatic homosexual female pastor, disagree and give to the poor and stop polluting the earth. Life is not about distinguishing the nuances of academic understanding of religious texts. Is it important to dialogue and discuss? Sure, and it's probably enjoyable too, but the spirit here sucks shit, especially wolfhead and mr. beernuts (jb) with his "if you are a Christian..." comment. Who the hell are you to toss that weak-ass judgmental putdown? I mean really!!! I hate those kind of statements.
Way to throw it down McCormick. I agree that Christianity is not a combat sport. I think that is one of the reasons that Christianity has a bad name. We are too worried about fighting with each other...
Janie:
You may have misunderstood my point about the Anglican church. They are probably fine as organized religions go. At the time, I was wrangling with Adam because he was of the opinion that man's creed and "education" should supercede and thereby destroy the authority of scripture. I used the Anglicans (technically Episcopalians, I think) because they have endorsed a homosexual clergy. Homosexuality is clearly an abomination to GOD. Yet these "educated" leaders used their higher criticism and "interpretational tools" to make this decision. I was only using them as an example of how departing from scripture based on human wisdom is not a good idea.
What the Anglican Church decides is between them and GOD. I think, perhaps, the problem arises from the need to love homosexuals but despise homosexuality. That is a tough line to walk. GOD loves homosexuals, liars, adulterers, and so forth, but that does not mean he likes what they do or will tolerate their sin. We, as humans, sometimes fail when loving someone to make them realize their are consequences for the actions. We fall into the trap of trying to take away consequences to demonstrate love. Rather than saying, "You know, I love you as a brother, and will help you as I am able, but until you conquer your homosexuality/adultery/lying/(whatever sin) LIFESTYLE, you cannot be a Church leader." Notice the idea is with lifestyle rather then individual sins that are repented of.
Catholic Brian:
I am trying to word this carefully because I know you are a man of great faith and I don't want to diminish that in any way.
1. The bible came about, not because of the Catholic Church, but because GOD ordained it. I will admit, he used the Catholic Church to help that.
2. Jesus is the truth.(also the way and the life)Not the pope, me, Oral Roberts or any man.
3. Peter was not, in my opinion, a pope. Jesus said "You are Peter(gr. for pebble) and upon this Petra(gr. for massive boulder) I will build my Church. It was a play on words. The Church is not built on Peter, but on who Jesus IS!!.
4. If you really want names from that era, I can provide them, but I assume your comment was rhetoric. The point is, when you have one leader controlling many congregations, one bad apple ruins the lot. That is the only issue. I don't think anyone is calling all priests evil, but an evil priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope can derail a lot of people.
JB
Mr. Beernuts???? That is hilarious. I don't know what it really means, but it really strikes me as funny for some reason.
Please refer to my use of commas, McKormick. My point was that if you deny scripture as a Christian, that saddens me. If you deny scripture as a non-Christian, it does not sadden me in particular. I said that because I don't know Adam, and don't know which area he falls into.
The ENTIRE point Mr. Beernuts is trying to make is this: I am not judging anyone. Who cares what I think? I certainly don't. The important thing is what GOD thinks. That is the sum of my points.
I am neither threatened nor particularly put off by homosexuals, for instance, but that does not change GOD's opinion of what they are are doing.
JB
Too bad God isn't hospitable enought to show up and tell us what She thinks. Perhaps God is too weak, or else she just doesn't care about us all that much so would rather us throw babies in trash cans and condemn each other to hell and use scripture as if it were the end all be all of knowledge. Or maybe God doesn't want us to know what She thinks. I mean, there are enough people here that seem to have enough problem thinking on their own.
gay people are funny. and in that way they'd probably make great preachers.
Hope everyone had a wonderful Easter Celebration (Jesus Has Risen!). I'm just replying to JB's comments regarding The Catholic Church in general and the Pope in particular, from above. JB, I appreciate your explanation of why you believe what you believe. I have reasons, too, why I hold my faith to heart. I believe Jesus Christ entrusted the Apostles to continue his work on earth and preach the Gospel and faith to all. The reason why I believe the Bible is God's Word is because the Holy Spirit has guided it. Otherwise, it's merely man's intelligence at work, not the Holy Spirit working through men. The Church is what Jesus left us to know Him, Love Him, and serve Him. The Church is catholic: she proclaims the fullness of faith. She bears in Herself and administers the totality of the means of salvation. She is sent out to all peoples. She is missionary of her very nature. The Church is apostolic. She is built on a lasting foundation: "the twelve apostles of the Lamb." She is indestructible. She is upheld infallibly in the truth: Christ governs her through Peter and the other Apostles, who are present in their successors, the Pope and the college of bishops. They don't replace Who Christ Is, for they all are but men. Rather Christ left the Holy Spirit which would guide the Church, through the apostles and their succcessors. Why do I believe this?
Let's first, just for this comment focus on what was said in Matthew 16:13-19, particularly verse 18. Please meditate on it first before reading on.
OK. They arrive in Caesarea Philippi, which the location has significance.
-Jesus asks who do men say that He is
-The Apostles reply (John the Baptist, Elias, etc.)
-Jesus asks the Apostles who they think He is
-Simon Peter answers by saying,"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus praises him and says that flesh and blood haven't revealed this, but Jesus' Father in heaven.
-"And I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church."
In their daily lives, Jesus and the Apostles didn't speak to each other in Greek, but in Aramaic, the common language of the Jews during that time.
What we read in Matthew 16:18 is the Greek rendering of the Aramaic conversation between the Lord and Simon Peter. How can we know for sure this is true? Scripture tells us that the word Christ chose for Simon's new name was "Kephas", the Aramaic word for rock. When Jesus and Simon met for the first time, the new name was foretold. St. John was careful to help the Greek-speaking Christians who knew no Aramaic or Hebrew by translating into Greek two key terms he had preserved in Hebrew and Greek: "Messiah" (Hebrew) and Kephas (Aramaic). This is a clear indication that although the Greek-speaking Christians came to know Simon the Fisherman-Apostle as "Petros", that was actually a translation of this actual new name, Kephas. This is clear from other passages of Scripture that refer to Peter as "Cephas," such as John 1:42 and Galatians 2:9,11. This is why the reminder that there was an underlying Aramaic original of St. Matthew's Gospel, from which the Greek version was translated, is so important.
-I took Latin for four years in high school (my Dad was the teacher, he forced me to take it...just kidding), so I understand the masculine and feminine endings of words. The whole Petra/Petros confusion can be explained. Any linguistic distinction between Greek nouns petros and petra, the masculine and feminine forms, was confined to examples found here and there in ancient Greek poetry, but there was no longer any difference in meaning at the time of Christ. Even prominent Protestant Scholars acknowledge this (Oscar Cullmann and D.A. Carson, to name a couple).
-When the Lord renamed Simon, he named him Kepha, not Petros. In Aramaic, there is no masculine or feminine distinction for the noun Kepha, and it has only one meaning: a rock. Christ said to Simon, "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build My Church." Why does the Greek text have Jesus using different words for Peter and the rock on which He would build His Church, if there is no difference? In short, it doesn't. Jesus utilizes two forms of the same word. In Greek, unlike English, nouns have gender. In greek, "petra" is a feminine noun -unsuitable to be used as the name of a man. To rectify this, Matthew changes it to the masculine form of the word: "petros." That's all to it.
-The construction of Mathew 16:18-19 leaves no room for the possibility that Christ renamed Simon "Petros", as a way to show how insignificant and useless he was, rather than in comparison with identifying the "petra" on which He would build His Church. Why?
-The context won't allow it. Because, if Jesus had intended that meaning, He would have engaged in a bizarre and inexplicable wordplay: a.)Jesus calls Simon "blessed." b.) He tells Simon he received revelation from God the Father. c) He gives him the new name of Petros. d.) He turns right around and mocks Simon by telling him that he's really just a pepple, and that He intends to build His Church on a real rock, a big rock, not Peter. And, finally, e.) after his moment of mocking Simon and his ironic new name, Christ shifts back to praising him, saying, "I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven."
-I can't concur that "You are Peter(gr. for pebble) and upon this Petra(gr. for massive boulder) I will build my Church." If you can explain otherwise, please do. I want Truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me God.
-The Bible has much to it when it comes to discerning the meaning behind the words. Considerations have to be in place: context, location, language , translation, etc., etc. That's why, in my opinion, the principle of "sola scriptura" (Latin: the Bible alone) for faith and truth lacks foundation. It would pretty much, in my opinion, mean "every man for himself" path that leads only to divisions, fragmentations, and disunity. The Church that Christ Himself established, wrote the Bible, translated the Bible in many languages, preserved it against heresy (Gnostic writings, etc.), and it was the Church that taught the faithful what the Bible, the Word of God, was conveying. It had from the beginning and it continues to this day. I rely on the Church, lead by the bishops and pope, to teach what each passage is really saying. Without that guidance, which the Holy Spirit presides, I could have thousands and thousands of ways to interpret the Bible. The interpretation has to be done by the Church, lead by the Holy Spirit. Now, I read the New Testament every night. I get knowledge and inspiration from the readings, but I also rely on the Church for guidance when something doesn't make sense and for the full meaning behind it all.
-I hope this lengthy comment isn't too much to digest. Thanks for your comment and clarification regarding Wolfe. I realize that a 2,000 year -old Church would have many complications and scandals at times. You are a good and faithful man. Please keep Rose in line at work :)
Brian Scheidler
I forgot to mention also that if the Lord had wanted to designate Simon a small rock or pepple, His words would most certainly have been rendered using the Greek term "lithos", which means pepple or small rock.
Brian Scheidler
Well, Brian:
Actually I agree with most of what you say.
This is going to be difficult to write in the right spirit because I just got done reading the other post about Terry Shiavo and Sacul's comment.
Anyway.
The only parts I really disagree with is that Peter was the first Pope, and in fact I disagree with the papal heirarchal setup. I guess I also disagree that you have to take culture and all that stuff into account when reading scripture. The HS wrote the scriptures for all people for all time. If you read it in the original languages, that should be all you need, in my opinion. Does this mean I hate Catholics or the Catholic Church? No. I just disagree. The Catholic Church has also done a lot of good in spite of some of the bad stuff we have been discussing.
I do not want to fight you on this though, because you are not denying the authority of the scriptures. You have laid out a well constructed, well thought out, meaningful and convincing argument based on scripture and language. I want truth as well. I would suggest getting my email address from Rose. It would be delightful to talk to you more than this medium allows.
Actually, our disagreements are minor, to me. However, I realize they are probably major to you. I believe in, and am in fact dedicated to the catholic Church, for instance.
So. Here are a few points of disagreement.
1. The Holy Spirit knew Greek, and he was the one who wrote the Bible.
2. In true JB fashion, I have overstated the difference in the meaning in Greek. I implore your forgiveness, but I was overstating it for those of us who are not language scholars. You are right, Petros does simply mean "rock". However, Petra does still mean "a large mass of rock"
3. *MY OPINION ALERT* Jesus was not mocking Peter, in my opinion. He was just saying, "As great as you are and as influential as you will be in the early Church, the Church is based on something greater than you. That is who I am. The messiah, the resurrected lamb, HE who restores fallen man to the Holy GOD" Surely you would not be of the opinion that Peter was greater than who JESUS was?
4. The HOLY SPIRIT wrote the New Testament in Greek and HE used many plays on words. That is why one never finishes reading the bible. I discover new things almost every day. For instance look at John 21:15-17. Jesus keeps asking Peter if he loves him. Peter keeps saying yes, I love you. On the third time, Peter was grieved. Why? Because Jesus was asking about agape(unconditional love) and Peter was responding with phileo(brotherly love). The third time, Jesus used the word phileo. Were they actually speaking greek there? I don't know, but the HOLY SPIRIT chose to make a subtle nuance that is totally invisible in english. But it doesn't invalidate that nuance if the original conversation was in Aramaic or Hebrew.
5. Who has the authority in the Catholic Church to rebuke the pope? A cardinal? An Arch-Bishop? I don't really know, but Paul rebuked Peter as he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11) What was Paul's position in the Catholic Church?
6. Ex Cathedra pronouncements. Example: Why was it wrong to eat meat on Fridays when I was a child but now it is OK. If the pope is speaking with the voice of GOD Ex Cathedra, does this mean GOD was wrong? Or did HE change his mind?
That is about it. Sorry for the legnth of the post, but this is obviously important to both of us. You might consider sending me an email.
To close, my respect for you continues to grow. Not that that is important to you or anything. Our differences are actually sort of minor, though admittedly major in scope and they can be summed up in two thoughts.
1. I don't believe ANY sort of clergy system is authorized in the bible, because we are all priests now with Jesus as the high priest.
2. A couple doctrinal issues where the Catholic Church has, in my opinion, let tradition and rituals supercede scripture. (Every organized religion has that, though, not just Catholics)
Amyway, keep on building your faith, and being a force for the CHRIST in the world.
The grace of our Lord JESUS CHRIST be with your spirit,
JB
I would just like to say that I am impressed with both of your responses (J.B. and Brian). You guys both responded in a very mature kind of way. Thank You!
Post a Comment