as far as the word  'day' from gen 1 well God gives us a 'time frame'    So  is dont see a million years there....


 Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

this is matter for another thread.. i was just making the example that depending on the usage a word can have various meaning.

Mike,  Maybe you did not understand me.   "How ever we read the verse it says God created evil"  Simpely read the words. The verse quoted says God created the evil. If you read the word evil to mean "ugly evil" or clamity which ever the verse says God created it.  I did not say the word freewill was not in scripture..

 Isaiah 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

i may have misunderstood you...
i am not disputing the fact that it says god created evil, but rather what that word means... for instance if god created evil =calamity, entropy, the chaos that must exist in a freewill habitat, that is one thing, to claim that evil in this case is meant as a moral evil, "God created murder, or God caused the holocaust, or God causes satanic ritual abuse" is an entirely different matter. again it is important to define what a word means and in what sense it is to be taken. God is love could mean that God is sex, agape, affection, friendship, desire... depending on the way we mean love..



mike

How ever we read the verse it says God created evil i have yet to read a verse that says God created freewill. Any one know of one? My 'search' did not bring one up..

actually it doesn't... depending on the way evil is meant (moral, natural, or metaphysical) it can mean a lot of different things. kind of like the word day in genesis 1.. it can mean that the earth was created in 6 12 hour periods, 6 24 hour periods, or 6 undetermined lengths of time possible millions or billions of years.

as for the word freewill not being found in the bible... try reading it rather than do word searches..

mike

[NOT]

Raphu said:

I began to understand why God had created evil.

God did NOT create evil.
God defined evil.
God created freewill.  God expelled Satan from His presence.  Satan is the father of evil.  Not God!
The scripture you present

Isaiah 45:7  I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:

is better translated to say "...created disaster".  To me - it is a totally different thing.

Saying God "created evil" is the same as saying "God can lie" - which is impossible.  

Please show me more scripture to back up your theory, and please check the translation you are reading with other, more accurate translations.

Yours in the Lord,
JN

there are several meanings of the word evil... in this verse it is not talking about moral evil but rather metephysical.... in this sense the very construct of the universe has evil in it. a thunderstorm, decay of energy, falling and scraping a knee.. none of these are the design of the enemy or our own immoral leanings, and all of these would have happened in eden if we really had a freewill before "death" entered the world.

as for the initial question.. i am not a calvanist or arminian... i believe in predestination as well as freewill and these concepts were around long before either of  john calvin or jacobus arminius. i am a paradoxicalist.... if there is such a thing.

mike

Ok everyone....I've gotsa question for you
 Col. 1:24
"Now I rejoince in what was suffered for you and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body which is the church."

What in the world are CHrist's afflictions lacking? And how can a human Paul fill that in his flesh?

the only think lacking in Christs afflictions is our participation.
Paul fills it by serving...thus serving even to the point of suffering.

this is one of those verses that brings in the paradox of freewill and predestination and makes a little sense of both.. it adresses in a way the problem of pain as well as defines a little bit what "it is finished" really means.. It also makes sense of how works do play a part in our christian walk as well as provides some grounds for such doctrines as purgatory and indulgences.

the very sad thing about this verse is that it contradicts much modern evangelical thinking that removes our participation, our suffering and our continuing need of purification... it's sad because it gets ovelooked or ignored or rationalized in light of more poplular doctrines. so when a christian is suffering these days the church doesn't know how to properly respond other than imply that they are lacking faith... the very thing that is causing the suffering.

mike

Hi all,

I know that when I prayed to accept Christ as my savior many years ago, that I was forgiven of all my sins to that point. I know because I asked for it. My slate was wiped clean. Yet - like all of us - I continue to sin. And I faithfully continue to ask for forgiveness of these sins. But recently, my mother brought up a very intriguing point...

She told me that her Bible study leader - a very learned and well-read Christian - has come to believe that upon salvation, we are not only forgiven of all our past sins - but for all our future sins as well. I asked why we then still ask for forgiveness of our sins on a daily basis, and she said God appreciates a persistant spirit.

My mother was an educator for many years (including Sunday School teacher), and has a vast Biblical knowledge. But this concept (of being forgiven for all our future transgressions) was as new to her as it was to me. Her study leader presented such a compelling argument for it though, that she now believes he's right. She didn't have the Scriptures on hand to share with me; but promises to send them.

I'm very perplexed... How could such a thing have eluded me for all these years? Does anyone here share the belief of have Scriptural reference to support it?

As always - thanks for a push in the right direction!

fastback

i once held to such a position but do not any longer. paul handed over a person to the devil for sinning. john speaks of a sin unto death...peter rebukes simon (the sorcerer) and tells him to pray to God for forgiveness. Christs sacrifice has the capacity to atone for all our sins, but we do still need to repent of them... as the baptists say if they fall away maybe they weren't saved to begin with....
mike

I know that God created us, but why did he put us on earth?  And if he is all knowing, then why did he allow Adam and Eve to fall?  What is the purpose?

i'll take a few stabs at this one.

why he created? maybe for the pleasure of creating, like an artist paints for the pleasure of painting.. maybe it is just a part of His nature, of what God is. The nature of Cause to have and effect.

whe He created us? Love, someone to Love and return that Love. Like a parent, we want children, something that is a part of us but different, something that we can pour our vastness into and watch become.

earth? a place to exist. a place to exhibit His wonder and greatness. the framing, and background of the object of a painting, the house for children to grow in.

And if he is all knowing, then why did he allow Adam and Eve to fall? What is the purpose?

Theodicy.
I think that being 'all knowing' God knew that in the end the good would outweigh the evil sufficiently enough to allow adam and eve the freedom to fall. freewill and predestination are a paradox... they both exist and both are active in our lives,, it is not an either or. the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world,,,, implies at the very least that God know the potential of this new creature to "fall", and that in spite of this the lamb was enough of a solution to this problem.

it is interesting that hell, purgatory and heaven all kind of address this question. These all have specific relation to Gods justice and His mercy.

mike

Who Makes Your FAVORITE - PIZZA

 i grew up in new jersey and i just love east coast style pizza.. but now i live in Homer Alaska, and for a while there were only west coast varieties here... but all that changed when Fat Olives opened up.... ahhh... thin crust, sauce, and cheeze..... no need to add anything else...

btw, colleen, there used to be a pioneer pizza up here too... maybe we could discuss which pioneer pizza it the true pioneer...

mike

I agree with Jesus about wolves in sheep's clothing. I'm as angry about the teachings of the catholic church as Jesus was in the temple when they were using it as a den of thieves. The catholic church is passing on their own claptrap in the name of Christ. I'd much rather relate to sinners who are honest about their sins than hypocrites who follow the Pharisees and Sadducees disguised as sheep. That is pure sacriledge.

that's ok heidi... you should be angry... i was angry too until i started to truly investigate catholicism... not just accuse them but see why, how  and what they believe.. now i am angry at people like you.. mostly for lying to me and everyone else about the catholic church. i have met very few people that truly want to deal with truth but that takes a certain humility that is lacking in many people.  If there is any honest person out there reading this post.... do your own investigating. stop listening to what people tell you about catholicism, especially those that have a bias, and look into it for yourselves.. seek truth not popular opinions.

i mentioned the hypocricy of accusing catholicism of works, while evangelicals and baptists condemning christians for smoking or dringking alcohol, dancing or watching r rated movies.  i could easily add to that list, but it will do not one bit of good. you guys are experts at pointing out what you think are specks in other peoples eyes....

i took the plank out of mine.

mike

[Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.]

Mike
Thank you for your reply.
Let me address your last point first.
I said:

Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.

This is not saying that the church had fallen away because of the Schism as you seem to have understood me.
I am saying they were off track before the great Schism.
Throughout their history they have had significant flaws in doctrine.

right that is what i understood you to be saying and what i was disagreeing with.

1. As early as at least the 3rd century the Church had taken the stand that if you were separated from the Church you were joined with an adultress. You couldn’t have God for your Father if you didn’t have the Church for your Mother. That is not biblical.

could you provide reference for this please? not that i doubt you but I would like to see the context in which this is written.

Luke 9:49  And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

that is all fine and dandy but there is a crucial difference between someone who is not againgst us and someone who is. most of the heresies were against orthodoxy not only in attitude but promoting an entirely different belief.

2. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Letter to all his People, AD 251, in Jurgens, 1970: 229).
This doctrine was established by a misunderstanding of Mat 16:18.
By the way the first “Pope”, Peter, was married.

yes peter was married, it doesn't mean anything, celibacy is a discipline and not a formal doctrine. as to who is misunderstanding matt 16:18 i disagree with that as well. it makes perfect sense to me, not only in that such a thing promotes unity but that even the churches that disagree with catholicism still have the same system set up within their local little fellowship. a pastor and elders.

3. In the 4th century the $$$ of the church began to be paraded. Gold and silver and color vestments, candles and incense, added to the pomp and pageantry of worship.
A much different church than the church of the apostles.

i just do not have a problem with this. it was in the 3rd and 4th centuries that the major persecutions ended and allowed the church to be more artistic. but again look at the church today in protestantism,,,, suits and ties, crystal cathedrals, mega churches, millenium cruises.... this too is a much different church than the apostles...

4. St. Ambrose (340-397) introduced the so called mysteries. Twisting the scripture to add magic to water.

“The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away.”

John 1:7  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

All our sins are washed clean.

to me it is a mystery any way you look at it. ambrose isn't talking about magic at all he is merely pointing out that there is a reality to our faith that is not quite understood perfectly.... the trinity is a mystery even though it is defined it is still bigger than our definition.

This is also the problem with purgatory. A totally invented concept with no real scriptural support. Consuming fire in the bible always represents judgment, not purging.
I am not sure when purgatory became a Church doctrine but I bet it was before the Great Schism.

except that the jews understood gehenna to mean a 12 month period of time after death of purgation. if it was invented it was invented before the christians.

This is already getting long.
God does not promise an infallible church with infallible doctrine. That doctrine is not founded on scripture. It is in itself a flawed doctrine.
There is no need for an infallible church with infallible doctrine except for wielding power and control over others.

again i must disagree... in my experience much more power was wielded over other in the protestant churches. without all the doctrines and dogmas and everything layed out straight there was much more room for manipulation. that is not to say that things are perfect in the catholic church.. as you pointed out there were schismatics before the reformers, and yet i have to point out that again it is our reliance on the teaching authority of the church that has kept us together for 2 thousand years. if there were no infallibility there would be no bible, and without both there would have been no defense against the schismatics you mentioned. even today we base our knowledge of cults upon what was offerd through tradition.

Matthew 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Help me out here. How do you understand Matthew 23:9?

John

first i start a few verses back and then i end a few verses later. I don't think christ is really making a prohibition here, rather he is trying to point out a principal about those in religious authority.. thus it really doesn't matter if the word is teacher, father or master.. it could just as well be reverend, pastor or worship leader.... i have seen the arrogance in priest as well as pastor. i have also seen humility in both. but what i think this is really all about is jesus telling us what our leaders are really all about...and that is service..

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.  
 Mat 23:12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

it really is not about religious titles at all, rather it is about being humble..  the pharisees regarded their title and authority as above others... the concept surrounding the priesthood is service to others... and yet i know this is the ideal and that there are many priests that have probably been more like a pharisee...... that is between them and god though.

btw... thanks for the conversation so far... it is good to be able to discuss some of these things without having to deal with personal attacks......... but in the next few days my computer will be turned off for a huge cross country move... just letting you know in case i disappear.


mike

i remember countless times hearing from baptists that you cannot smoke cigarettes and go to heaven... isn't this a work?

mike

Yes, you are absolutley right - those Baptists are legalistic and don't know their Bibles and if you run into one then please send them my way and I will tell them so.  If I run into them I will ask them to not call themselves Baptist!

Thanks - have a blessed day  

It's a problem, but so is anticatholicism. it is the idol of the baptist church, and seems to me to get even more airplay than jesus christ.

as for your initial question, yet catholic do believe that works play an essential part of our salvation.... but if you are familiar with scripture the way you say than you should already understand that. faith without works is dead...

are you familiar with how the word works is meant in the scripture? the difference between works of torah and works as the fruit of the spirit and acts of love? i find that all these are kinda lumped together by protestants, but differentiated by catholics... for instance a catholic does not believe that a work of Torah such as circumcision is of any value any more, but it does believe that baptism (sacramental grace recieved by faith based action), which is not a work of Torah, is necessary. In the end the works that catholicism speak of are all responsive, they accompany faith and make that faith real rather than intellectual assent. our works are not brownie points with god or something to exalt ourselves with especially works that are sacraments, since they are all supplied by God in the first place.

 maybe you should ask this question negativeley...like could a catholic be saved without works?

the answer is yes.

mike

It's simply a fact that most churches contain false teachings but the RCC is the Holy Father of them all. Afterall, they say they're the one true church so therefore, they're taking responsibility for the views they have passed on to the Protestant churches. There are much fewer "teachings that are but rules taught by men"(Christ's words) in any church but the catholic church. They are the king of rules and regulations.

give it up heidi... take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to scapegoat the catholic church.  good grief. the catholic church is responsible only for it's own beliefs whether they are right or wrong.... how they hell can they be responsible for someone who wants to believe different..? that is just plain silly. by the way, as far as rules and regs they don't base salvation on whether you smoke drink or dance like many evangelical and baptists churches do.

mike

1.  Strong's Concordance
2.  LOTR Trilogoy (It can be found in one book form!   )
3.  Dummies Guide to Surviving On A Desert Island

 

1. ditto on the LOTR... (can we take the dvd set too???)
2. something from GK Chesterton
3. something from C.S. Lewis

In case these are on the wrong side of the boat

4. collected short stories of Flannery O'conner
5. all hallows eve - Charles Williams.

mike

i also read the pilgrim's regress by C.S. Lewis.

mike

i remember countless times hearing from baptists that you cannot smoke cigarettes and go to heaven... isn't this a work?

mike

I find the doctrine of infallibility essential to the church.

Why?
Salvation is dependent on Gods work. He can use even those that are unsaved, and those that teach false doctrine to save. The tool God uses is the word. Any church or witness that quotes the bible can be used by God.

God can truly use any means he wants to lead us to salvation, and to truth. I don't see how infallibility is in conflict with this, especially if this gift is truly from Him.

God can use imperfect doctrine to bring salvation.
The bible tells us we will not have perfect understanding. We are fallible.

again this concept is not in conflict with infallibility... if God can use imperfect doctrine I see no reason why having perfect doctrine could not be used. further I don't think that God would leave us without correct knowledge.

1 Corinthians 13:9  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

right. infallibility doesn't mean that the pope knows everything.... It really does mean that we know in part.

I understand what Catholic infallibility is, problem is it fails. And it is unnecessary.

I believe it is. I believe that a correct understanding of what it is, it's very biblical roots, and how it has defined essential christian doctrine would in a very real way to end the constant splitting and dividing in the church. The topic of this thread is "why so many". the answer is at it's most practical is a lack of authority. by removing the pope we are left with no option but assuming that we are infallible in and of ourselves and thus the domino effect begins.. and it did begin right with the reformers themselves scquabbling over their new doctrines.

Catholic infallibility imprisons your church.

I can say from personal experience that this is not true. after spending about 15 years in evangelical/charismatic church I can honestly say i am experiencing freedom in christ for the first time as a catholic christian.  with all it's seeming rules and doctrines that seem so binding I am finally breathing deep that breath of God that was lacking in the protestant world.

In some ways it is good because they stick to some good moral points. However because they cannot admit they could have made a mistake on doctrine they are forced to maintain doctrines that are not true. It is discouraged to even consider the possibility doctrinal error because then the Pope would no longer be infallible.

i have found that catholicism deals with history... the good the bad and the ugly. though there have been bad popes I have yet to find anything that i would consider a mistake in doctrine. what is interesting is that while there seems to be a healthy criticism and historical outlook in catholicism, I find your charge would be better fit for the bible believing protestant. I have found more discouragement there questioning the bible than i have as a catholic questioning the infallibility.

actually there is evidence that peter was in rome. this is funny because there actually is no evidence that he did not go to rome.

What is this evidence? Your argument sounds like I would have to prove someone didn’t commit the crime. Guilty until proven innocent. Why would I have to prove he wasn’t at the scene?

what I am getting at is that there are written statements from the first century that make the claim that peter was at rome... what is lacking is someone from that time period challenging the claim.  some people question whether or not there was ever a custom of letting a prisoner free at  passover as claimed in the gospel, but no one living when the gospels were written seems to have claimed differently... ultimately your argument is one of silence but I believe that there is nothing silent about it.

as i mentioned above, the historical evidence is imortant to what we believe today..... but here is a question for you.... what will you say when i tell you that what God revealed in my heart was that the catholic church with it's infallible leader was the truth? you cannot simply assign everyone in disagreement with you to putting faith in men...

2 Thessalonians 2:11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

how convenient. and yet it could actually be you under this delusion.. really though unless you were infallible it would not be wise to hack away with scriptures in this manner.

1Cr 4:15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet [have ye] not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

paul refers to himself as father..

He is not referring to himself as Father the one who has leadership. It is a metaphor. As in the originator. It would be more fitting of a missionary to be referred to as a father because they planted the seed.

sorry but it shouldn't matter... he is in conflict with what christ says about calling no man father.

Jesus was not a Nazarite, He was a Nazarene.

i wasn't making that claim only that people did have long hair in jewish culture and it was not a shame.. there is the chance that paul is speaking to the gentile culture in his comment about hair...

While someone was performing the vow they would obviously be exempt from the command to cut their hair. If they were not a Nazarite and had long hair it was a shame to them. It was a sin. A Jesus with long hair would be a sinner.

is this your definition or eastons?

Those in charge of the church must be the husband of one wife, AND must have raised obedient children. This is not talking about a sacrament, this is talking about having a family. Are you saying the church does not teach that their priesthood cannot marry?
If they change this doctrine, you are calling discipline, then it was flawed. Flawed doctrine cannot be tolerated. So it is unlikely to be changed, if it is I am sure they will put a spin on it, to sell it to the people.

priests in the roman rite are required to remain celebate. priests in easter rite churches are not under this discipline. a discipline is not a doctrine and so it can be changed... this discipline was in place for several reasons. one it was practical, and two Christ and paul speak of it in a beneficial way.

oh sorry. who did? it was on your post.

Where?

message 34

Concerning The Great Schism the Catholic Church had already fallen away.

mike