Is homosexuality something God can redeem?

[SilenceInMotion]

So all the people in China, all the people in asian countires who have never even heard of Christ, are doomed to Hell. All you have to say is that a person who never got the chance to know God can be saved, and your entire principal that faith is required falls in on itself.

Protestantism is dark. It was started by dark men. Infants and those who do not know Christ go to Hell. That is the finality of the Protestant doctrine. They paved their way through the reformation with blood and heresy. It became accepted because people wanted independance. Much of society had gotten rid of God by then anyway, it merely became an object of culture.

There are Catholic saints who were barely Christians, and they are venerated by Roman and Greek, even Anglican Catholic for their benevolence, not their faith. It's pretty much just Protestants who are left with their bitter arrogance. I trust that the Church, who is much more disciplined then any denomination, makes a better case then what a Protestant presents. Honestly, if you find joy in walking down golden streets while your beloved, good atheist cousin is burning in Hell, then all the power to you. Teach that legal fiction, it's the only thing people outside traditional Christianity can do anyway.

The Church has a far more better understanding of Scripture. All I see others do is pretty much masquerade a lie as a truth, either for the separation from Church belief or to propel their own agenda. If solo scriptura were really so right, there wouldn't be 20000 different denominations failing to agree with what 1500 hundred pages of Scripture that has been examined for 2000 years states. It's a bit ironic as well- one would think if you replaced the pope with a book, you'd figure it out after 400 years of drivel and scattering.

 

[williemac]

So all the people in China, all the people in asian countires who have never even heard of Christ, are doomed to Hell. All you have to say is that a person who never got the chance to know God can be saved, and your entire principal that faith is required falls in on itself.

Protestantism is dark. It was started by dark men. Infants and those who do not know Christ go to Hell. That is the finality of the Protestant doctrine. They paved their way through the reformation with blood and heresy. It became accepted because people wanted independance. Much of society had gotten rid of God by then anyway, it merely became an object of culture.

There are Catholic saints who were barely Christians, and they are venerated by Roman and Greek, even Anglican Catholic for their benevolence, not their faith. It's pretty much just Protestants who are left with their bitter arrogance. I trust that the Church, who is much more disciplined then any denomination, makes a better case then what a Protestant presents. Honestly, if you find joy in walking down golden streets while your beloved, good atheist cousin is burning in Hell, then all the power to you. Teach that legal fiction, it's the only thing people outside traditional Christianity can do anyway.

The Church has a far more better understanding of Scripture. All I see others do is pretty much masquerade a lie as a truth, either for the separation from Church belief or to propel their own agenda. If solo scriptura were really so right, there wouldn't be 20000 different denominations failing to agree with what 1500 hundred pages of Scripture that has been examined for 2000 years states. It's a bit ironic as well- one would think if you replaced the pope with a book, you'd figure it out after 400 years of drivel and scattering.

What is this crap? I have already spoken to these things in one of my replies. It seems that you are bent on judging me for what you think I am saying or connecting me with what others say, and not really reading what I am actually saying. You have been promoting the believeing of the words of Jesus and yet you do not believe all of them yourself. I am merely quoting Him in places and you are not replying to these quotes. I think this conversation is more about your allegiences than anything resembling a discussion of truth or scripture. Goodbye!

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Christ died for the sins of mankind, with the requirement of this absolution be to follow the New Covenant. Traditional Christianity believes in synchronization which you must maintain, not once saved, always saved. Of course you and I are not going to see eye to eye- Protestants have an entirely different doctrine of justification.

 

[Foreigner]

Christ died for the sins of mankind, with the requirement of this absolution be to follow the New Covenant. Traditional Christianity believes in synchronization which you must maintain, not once saved, always saved. Of course you and I are not going to see eye to eye- Protestants have an entirely different doctrine of justification.

-- Silence, you have a pretty pathetic habit of lumping all Christians who are not Catholic into this group of "protestants" you so freely criticize.
The "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a farce. Most Christians know that.
Joseph Stalin had been in the seminary and had given his life to Christ before he went on to oversee the murder of 60 million people.
According to the OSAS people, he would still be saved.

Please quit with the idea of only two groups: God Catholic or Bad Protestant.

It is as unfair as it is dishonest.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

-- Silence, you have a pretty pathetic habit of lumping all Christians who are not Catholic into this group of "protestants" you so freely criticize.
The "once saved, always saved" doctrine is a farce. Most Christians know that.
Joseph Stalin had been in the seminary and had given his life to Christ before he went on to oversee the murder of 60 million people.
According to the OSAS people, he would still be saved.

Please quit with the idea of only two groups: God Catholic or Bad Protestant.

It is as unfair as it is dishonest.

The original doctrine of OSAS tells that a saint is secured in their perseverance, whether it be in purity or martyrdom. It also states that if one stumbles, they were never saved in the first place. This is Calvin's predestination and Luther's imputed righteousness put into a single, contradictory format for non-Catholics to labor under for 400 years distorting and redefining.

What Protestants promote today isn't even what the founders put into doctrine, and no matter how much the doctrines are changed, you still end up with nothing but legal fictions.

Catholic teaching is the only way it can work, and there is 2000 years of consistency to show for it. What's unfair is Catholics being pummeled by the notion of 'solo scriptura', having Protestants constantly trying to preach to the Church the book that the Church put together in the first place.

Therefore, you all pretty much are the same. The Church doesn't define Protestants as Lutherans, Calvinists, etc., they define them as anyone contrary to Catholic theology. Christianity is split between Roman/Orthodox/Anglican Catholcism and Protestants.

What's pathetic is not my stance, it is others protesting against the Church, becoming independant, teaching different doctrine and still protesting against the Church, and then feel all persecuted for being labeled Protestants.
Way to go.

 

[Rex]

What's pathetic is not my stance, it is others protesting against the Church, becoming independant, teaching different doctrine and still protesting against the Church, and then feel all persecuted for being labeled Protestants.
Way to go.

What I find pathetic is Catholic's that masquerade like they believe as protestants do.

For example the OP question "Is homosexuality something God can redeem"?

You and I both know that the complete official catholic answer to that question, from the catechism of your church, is far different than you share or say.
Confession -> sins forgiven by the church
Mass -> taking communion from the only communion that is valid catholic and believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
baptized-> in the catholic church though they now recognize others it's what do they call it
Being a member -> in good standing with the catholic church

Why? because you don't believe in salvation outside of the RCC
The Lord is able to save anyone he chooses and certainly doesn't need the catholic churches help or bullet points.

there's a start, and that's why I see the witness for your church as pathetic

 

[SilenceInMotion]

What I find pathetic is Catholic's that masquerade like they believe as protestants do.

For example the OP question "Is homosexuality something God can redeem"?

You and I both know that the complete official catholic answer to that question, from the catechism of your church, is far different than you share or say.
Confession -> sins forgiven by the church
Mass -> taking communion from the only communion that is valid catholic and believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist
baptized-> in the catholic church though they now recognize others it's what do they call it
Being a member -> in good standing with the catholic church

Why? because you don't believe in salvation outside of the RCC
The Lord is able to save anyone he chooses and certainly doesn't need the catholic churches help or bullet points.

there's a start, and that's why I see the witness for your church as pathetic

I don't know if you got the memo, but the Church recognizes Protestants as Christians. It is stated in the Catechism. So what you find 'patheitc' can't even be found, because it doesn't even exist. Since the word 'pathetic' is being put to ample use, let me state what's pathetic: bearing false witness to demonize something. That is what Protestants have gotten atrociously good at doing. Such as what you have just done, or accusing the Church of idolatry which is a big one, and tens and hundreds of other nonsense that Protestants shamelessly put foward every single day.

The Church finds homosexuality contrary to nature and deems it a mortal sin. Confession or asking God, forgiveness does not save you if you do not change your ways. You simply just bring back those sins again and again, and in the end God is going to ask you what made you think you could use Him in such a manner that you could continue living in evil and still be saved.

You don't know anything about Catholciism it seems. I guess that is the sacrifice of constantly badgering the Church with ham handed accusations and shallow interpretation- you end up showing your ignorance of the Church and how Protestant bias warps your mind into thinking the historical, biblical church can simply be so obviously wrong. It's THE CHURCH. Get in touch with reality and know your history- find out the origins of your belief and see if it stacks up.

 

[Rex]

No ignorance is opening with this the Church recognizes Protestants as Christians.

Does the catholic church now recognize salvation of equal value outside of its membership?
If the answer is yes please post the official document. Then we can talk about how the catholic church doctrine is "NOT" infallible

Other wise we're going to have to visit catechism 811 then go down the page.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Does the catholic church now recognize salvation of equal value outside of its membership?
If the answer is yes please post the official document. Then we can talk about how the catholic church doctrine is "NOT" infallible

The Church recognizes any establishment with the basic ordinances of baptism, the trinity, and things of the nature as Christians. That does not mean that their doctrines are accepted or deemed right. According to the Church, the Protestant doctrines of justification are completely wrong- As Christian as they may be, failing the New Covenant or committing mortal sin requires satisfaction and refusion; no concieved doctrine is going to change that.

 

[williemac]

The Church recognizes any establishment with the basic ordinances of baptism, the trinity, and things of the nature as Christians. That does not mean that their doctrines are accepted or deemed right. According to the Church, the Protestant doctrines of justification are completely wrong- As Christian as they may be, failing the New Covenant or committing mortal sin requires satisfaction and refusion; no concieved doctrine is going to change that.

I had the occasion the other day to listen to a co worker rant about Christianity and his distaste for it. Why? His wife is Inuit, and was schooled in a Catholic run school and residence, during which time she ( allegedly) expereinced and witnessed such atrocities as physical abuse and sexual abuse. As well, during an extended period of time, many children went missing. Apparently she knows where some are buried. Allegedly, they were among those who were a little too vocal in their protest of the abuse.

His wife was recently giving testimony to some related finacial investingations and this brought up the whole memory of her past.
Unfortunately these kind of allegations are not rare. They are not uncommon in Catholic history, both past and present day.

The connection that I see is their strict policy that a priest must not marry. The irony of this is that Peter himself was indeed married and allowed his wife to travel with him in his days of ministry after Jesus was gone. So we have an unbiblcal rule that puts unbearable stress on the weak few who cannot control their urges. And presto! Scandal after scandal.

So while you insist that protestant doctrines are in error, I suggest you look in your own backyard. My co worker will be very hard to reach, thanks to his wife's past history with the Catholic church.

That having been said, the so called protestant doctrine of justification comes from the bible. You should try reading it sometime, if they are allowing that these days. Start with the book of Romans. 5:1, comes to mind. 10:9,10 does as well. Not to mention Gal.3:24, John 3:16, John 6:50,51. That last reference concerns His body and blood. They actually are partaken through faith, not through the sacraments of bread and wine. Those, in Jesus' own words, are merely a reminder of His sacrifice. ("do this in rememberance of Me") They are symbolic of His body and blood. If you believe that they are literally His body and blood, you have no proof other than taking His words as though they were literal. And then ironically, you kaka on faith.

It is no secret scripturally, and certainly no surprise, to see faith coming under the attack that it is in these last days. It was prophesied. Faith in the context of salvation, is merely the humble accepting of a free gift from God by believeing that it is according to His promise rather than by way of working for it or earning it through man's own effort or resources.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The reason the Church carries the discipline of priests not marrying is based on the spirit of the Church itself- the clergy serve in the ministry of Christ, and the ordainment is in and of itself a sole commitment to that ministry.

1 Corinthians 7:32
But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.

Nobody is forced into serving the Church. Priesthood is voluntary, so there is no 'keeping someone from marrying', 'keeping from meats', or any other discipline forced unto others. If you think you have what it takes, you join the Church and try your spirit. You start out as a deacon, and then if you prove yourself, go to the rank of priest in which you granted power to execute rites. It goes all the way up to cardinal, and then pope.

The Church is not a closed ministry. It is directed by the Spirit, which works through men. Therefore, God elects the pope. Scripture is just one side of things, the Spirit is alive and working, revealing divine knowledge and instruction.

There is a difference between 'sola' and 'solo' scriptura, and Protestants today are almost unanimously ignorant of that. Sola Scriptura means that Scripture is the final authority. Solo Scriptura means 'Scripture alone'. The Catholic Church can back everything with Scripture. Anything. All you have to do is go to the Catholic Encyclopedia, type in whatever you think is unbiblical, and BOOM. Scripture- scripture everywhere. The veneration of Mary, for example, is deduced through roughly 200 cross examined verses in the Bible.

The claim that the Church is unbiblical is simply a lie. In truth, the Church just doesn't mesh with the Protestant interpretation of the Bible and instead of being honest, they convict the Church of being idolatrous. If you look at how Catholic doctrine is defended, you'll realize that Protestant interpretation is simply nearsighted. The Protestant handling of the Bible resmebles more like a blunt object rather then the finely crafted complexity that it is, cherry picking Scripture and black and whiting everything.

 

[williemac]

The reason the Church carries the discipline of priests not marrying is based on the spirit of the Church itself- the clergy serve in the ministry of Christ, and the ordainment is in and of itself a sole commitment to that ministry.

1 Corinthians 7:32
But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God.

I don't have a problem with this reasoning. The problem lies in that this has become a non-optional qualification for priesthood. It is not enough to say that the priesthood itself is optional, therefore leaving the decision to serve at the condition that the person does not marry. It is all too common to create a rule or restriction, or doctrine from an out of context quote. The rest of the context allows a person to marry if self control is not possible for the individual. (vs.9). Marriage therefore, is not forbidden for anyone serving the Lord. It is written right there in plain language. Paul understood the consequences of the dilema of a person who did not have the same gifting he did, not having self control over their sexual needs. Others apparently keep their head in the sand, possibly too stubborn or proud to admit they may have been wrong or mistaken.

Hear therefore, Paul's statement to Timothy in 1Tim.4:1-3..." Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry........forbidding to marry (in case you missed it)...." You are only fooling yourself, my friend.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

If one wants to serve and be married, they can be a deacon. It is the lowest rank n the clergy, but still clergy. Once you enter priesthood, you are transcending the ordinances of men. You are administering supernatural, Christly rites and such, working around the clock day after day. They are on call all the time, and not in the way a maintenace man might have to fix someones heat in the dead winter either. You don't even have time to raise a family. The Church simply puts foward the fact that you are living for Christ, of Christ, and should be like Christ.

Paul is speaking about the people who are not taking that charge. The layfolk; people who are not administering directly the charge Christ put on Earth which IS the Church. In the same way Paul teaches, or any apsotle for that matter, so does the Church. It's a continuation- the papacy itself is a succession from Peter.

Therefore, what that verse is really saying is that some in clergy will demand others to do as they do which is to not marry and abstain from meats, giving heed to false teachings and whatnot. This has happened many times in history with certain clergy. It does not, however, reflect in any of the core doctrines and disciplines of the Church.

 

[williemac]

If one wants to serve and be married, they can be a deacon. It is the lowest rank n the clergy, but still clergy. Once you enter priesthood, you are transcending the ordinances of men. You are administering supernatural, Christly rites and such, working around the clock day after day. They are on call all the time, and not in the way a maintenace man might have to fix someones heat in the dead winter either. You don't even have time to raise a family. The Church simply puts foward the fact that you are living for Christ, of Christ, and should be like Christ.

Paul is speaking about the people who are not taking that charge. The layfolk; people who are not administering directly the charge Christ put on Earth which IS the Church. In the same way Paul teaches, or any apsotle for that matter, so does the Church. It's a continuation- the papacy itself is a succession from Peter.

Therefore, what that verse is really saying is that some in clergy will demand others to do as they do which is to not marry and abstain from meats, giving heed to false teachings and whatnot. This has happened many times in history with certain clergy. It does not, however, reflect in any of the core doctrines and disciplines of the Church.

So, the papacy is a continuation of Peter is it? You seem to forget my mention that he was a married man, as seen in 1Cor.9:5. That verse also mentions the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord. So much for the reasoning you just shared. I'm sure these did not have the so called 'lowest' rank, as you call it.

Just a comment about this; As far as ranking the ministries, Jesus said that the least is actually the greatest. He gave example by humbling Himself and taking on the form of a servant, washing His disciples feet, and gave Himself for His bride. The Catholic church , and OTHER denominations rather put their clergy on pedistles, giving them special status as though they are above everyone else. And then they excercise authority, prance around in extravagant robes, looking down on all the pions that they serve....oh pardon me...that serve THEM. Backwards theology. It seems to me that the original intent has been somewhat lost in translation.

BTW, did you get that from 1Cor.9:5? Jesus had brothers, which means that Mary did not remain a virgin after He was born, as confirmed in Math.1:25. How many Catholics would rage at such a suggestion? How about you? Do you wish to continue quoting passages from out of their context and continue to ignore the evidence that you are believing conclusions that are false?

The facts remain, that many in the clergy have shamed their office by way of lack of sexual control, just as Paul warned about. Keep your head buried in the sand, brother. Ignore the elephant in the room. As for me, I will go on contending for the faith that you continue to deny. Justification by faith is a biblical truth.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

So, the papacy is a continuation of Peter is it? You seem to forget my mention that he was a married man, as seen in 1Cor.9:5. That verse also mentions the other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord. So much for the reasoning you just shared. I'm sure these did not have the so called 'lowest' rank, as you call it.

Just a comment about this; As far as ranking the ministries, Jesus said that the least is actually the greatest. He gave example by humbling Himself and taking on the form of a servant, washing His disciples feet, and gave Himself for His bride. The Catholic church , and OTHER denominations rather put their clergy on pedistles, giving them special status as though they are above everyone else. And then they excercise authority, prance around in extravagant robes, looking down on all the pions that they serve....oh pardon me...that serve THEM. Backwards theology. It seems to me that the original intent has been somewhat lost in translation.

BTW, did you get that from 1Cor.9:5? Jesus had brothers, which means that Mary did not remain a virgin after He was born, as confirmed in Math.1:25. How many Catholics would rage at such a suggestion? How about you? Do you wish to continue quoting passages from out of their context and continue to ignore the evidence that you are believing conclusions that are false?

The facts remain, that many in the clergy have shamed their office by way of lack of sexual control, just as Paul warned about. Keep your head buried in the sand, brother. Ignore the elephant in the room. As for me, I will go on contending for the faith that you continue to deny. Justification by faith is a biblical truth.

Justification by faith is a legal fiction.

Legal ficton- a fact assumed or created which is then used in order to apply a legal rule which was not necessarily designed to be used in that way

That is the official Catholic stance on the Protestant doctrine of justification. When all is taken into account, the doctrine simply does not work. Even by it's own standards, it contradicts itself. If the atonement was complete, then works are more applicable then faith. The satisfaction for sacrifice throughout the entire Bible has always been toward repentance, not faith.

Jesus and the apostles taught to Jews who were under the Old Law, and to Gentiles who were pagan. They had to believe in Christ to obey the New Covenant, because otherwise they would have been definitively against it.
A humanitarian athiest does not have that problem. They are in line with grace, they just don't have the faith. Jesus' sacrifice was not complete if one is sent to Hell by no fault of their own.

Ther eis a term you should become familiar with, as with all Protestants really. It's called 'invincible ignorance'. Good and evil are self-evident in the souls of men, but Christianity is not. People cannot be forced to believe something, even by their own force. That is part of the meaning of 'one not being able to save their self', as you are elected by the choice of God, you do not really choose God. Your free will only goes so far- if you were born in the Middle East, you would probably be a Muslim.

Protestants constantly fight over free will and predestination, but the irony is that they both lose. If you argue predestination, you argue against the free gift of Christ, and if you argue free will, you argue an impossibility of salvation for others in that faith is required.

There you have it. That is why the Church calls yoru doctrine a legal fiction, because that is what it is.


As for the Church, it was not even formed when Peter was alive. The Church was put together through time. The Spirit built it, and it became the magisterium which would contnue the fraternity going all the way back to Moses, with Peter as the new rock and God as the keystone. The Church is a music box, and the keystone makes it sing. That's pretty much the central dogma of the Church- Peter and the Keys. Whether Peter had a wife or not is irrelevant, that's just drawing straws in trying to complicate Church ordinance, the Protestant's favorite pastime, it seems.

 

[williemac]

What is irrelevant to you is the bible. This is a bilble study and debate website. I don't care to hear about all the opinions and conclusions that you have been told to accept by your religion. Show me some biblical proof for the things you say. I suppose this won't work for you, as you may have to tell me just what Rom.5:1 means in your delusional little sphere of understanding.

I now know that you have not really read my posts seriously nor do you care to understand what I have to say. You have not replied to my comments about the scandals in the clergy. But if you did, you might comment that there are always a few so called "bad apples" in any organization, but they do not represent the majority. This should have been an easy comeback. This is also what my comeback will be to your rant about how the protestants disagree on certain things. Who cares about them? I am not anyone else but me. Why not just talk to me about what I am saying?

The fact is, most of my understanding on these things have come to me through my own personal study, prayer, and meditation, with the bible as my guide. I am not a puppet of an organization or religion. I know and understand what the bible says about the things that I comment on. I have my own understanding, not someone else's that was handed down to me. I bet you can't say the same.

To get one thing straight, I have said that faith is not a qualification for eternal life. Weren't you paying attention? The bible has never said it and neither do I. Faith is not a qualification for justification either. It is a response to God. It is a means by which one receives a free gift from God.

The qualification is something else altogether. It is humility. In Jesus' own words, He told of two men praying on a corner, and compared the two. The first, a Pharisee, exalted himself. The second, a tax collector, beat his breast, and said "have mercy on me, a sinner" (Luke18:10-14). Jesus said that it was this second man that rather went away justified.
For those who exalt themself will be humbled and who humble themself will be exalted (Vs.14).

So, if you insist that we believe Jesus, maybe you should put your money where your mouth is. There are religious people, or even good people by your standards, who will be disqualified by their pride and self righteousness if they have that heart attitude. There are sinners who will be justified by their humility. You have not correctly identified the real issue between man and God, and neither has some of the Catholic church, and neither has a bunch of protestants. The labels mean nothing to God or to me.

The first rebellion was that of Lucifer. His iniquity was his determination to have his own agenda, forsaking his God given role, and decision to be like God himself. This is an issue that arises out of free will. It can be seen as pride, self righteousness, or self exaltation. So while you wish to defend a good athiest, I suggest you rethink what it is that God is looking at or for in a person. This is found in His word, not in a religious organization.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

You're the one who doesn't trust Jesus' decision on the primacy of Peter's Church, the same church who put your canon of Scripture together in the first place and has been the staple of Christianity for the past 2000 years.

Protestantism is 400 years old, and makes up only 1/4 of all Christianity on Earth. It's doctrines are completely opposed to any sort of Christianity that was around the 1500 years before and the other 3/4 today. It was started by a German monk at a convenient time when Christendom and nations were going through a rough patch.

His false doctrines became prominent because it gave people an excuse to escape everything that was going on. It's no coincidence that they all saturated into America, which is still today the Protestant capitol of the world and yet has too many ties to Anglicanism to keep even more desecrations at bay.

These churches are toppling, because the only church which Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against is Peter's. That is why the Church has always been on top. I don't know if you noticed, but what other institution could survive what the Church has and IS surviving, without even so much as a struggle?

Exactly. My church is in the Bible. It is the historical, biblical church. To say that it can be so easily taken down with Scripture is nonsense- in fact, if it weren't for the traditional chrurches, you wouldn't even have a canon. You'd probably be Muslim right now.

 

[dragonfly]

Hi williemac,

Here are my further comments in reply to post # 13.

Quote
The reality is that God is well aware of our humanity and the varying issues and strongholds that beset His chidren. He is not surprised by these. He had a solution. The cross. This gave us forgiveness. It is a starting point in our new life with Him. But is is not fickle or conditional to our own ability.

Really our own ability has nothing to do with the power of the cross, which is to slay the old man completely if we will allow it.

Quote

We have this treasure in earthen vessels (2Cor.4:7). Some are stronger than others. Some are weaker than others. Does He break a bended reed? Does He snuff out a smouldering wick? No. He has compassion; something many fellow brothers are shy of.

His compassion heals us, if we will allow Him close enough. The very real difficulty for those who have been sinned against repeatedly, or who carry deep wounds from childhood, is that these are difficult for the adult believer to access. His responses to them have become a way of life, and the unrenewed mind which tags along with them reasons that it has coped for this many years, and why shouldn't it keep managing to hold the aching inner man together indefinitely? The fact is, that this kind of lifestyle is one of increasing strain and hairline fractures. The whole construct leads to one of a weaker person than a stronger person, and it's only a matter of time before something has to give. Oh people make all sorts of excuses to themselves, to others and to God, but the reality is that while they are using willpower and practice to hold their outer man together, that energy is not available to God or fellow man for service.

You might think this a harsh analysis, but I don't see anywhere in scripture that the wounded individual is supposed to limp through life with forgiveness of sins only, when the example of Christ was that He blessed children and healed everyone who came to Him whether demonic, tormented or sick, and He did so with no conditions that we know of. All the had to do was ask. In fact, He went to some people because they couldn't even make the journey they were so immobilised by their condition. It's interesting that repentance is not mentioned in any of these situations, but to some of those whom He healed, He specifically told them to not sin again. Nevertheless, I put it to you that repentance is part of the deal. The 'bended reed' and 'smouldering wick' have to repent of holding on to their inner pain; they have to change from a person who tries to cope with it on their own, into a person who invites the Lord Jesus to heal it.

Quote
With the proper mindset, we can be in a position of no condemnation IN SPITE OF ANY SIN THAT MAY BE PRESENT IN OUR LIVES.

As you know, I don't accept this proposition as scriptural. The apostles make clear that victory over sin is expected; that giving up every habitual sin is expected; that repenting when one has sinned against God, against a brother, or if one discovers an unacceptable attitude in one's heart, is par for the course and course must be followed.

We are supposed to be walking in the light - not any light - but the same light as Jesus Christ is in. He said:

JOhn 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.

John 8:12 I am the light of the world: he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.

And He said:

Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

And this was preceded by a connecting statement:

Matthew 6:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. 2 Corinthians 3:18, Hebrews 12:2

1 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.



One quick way to induce spiritual blindness, is to look at an idol.... any idol .... gold, self, sin, flesh.

2 Corinthians 4:4 '... the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.



2 Corinthians 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.


I believe we should be looking to the Lord the whole time, and not to our fallen flesh which is being renewed in a measure through our obedience and discipline/discipleship.

Quote

This goes for the homosexual as well. Does anyone think for a moment that these gays who come to the Lord for forgiveness would refuse His work in their heart to take away their homosexual desires? Think of the struggle each one was facing when these desires reared their ugly head in their lives in the first place.

They were faced with the very thing that the law was given to show us....WE CANNOT CHANGE OURSELVES. Some stay in the closet, ashamed and afraid of their dilema. Others give in and give up. These poor people have suffered a horrible and tragic heart wrenching mental anguish over that which they could not control. And then what do they get from Christianity? Condemnation rather than compassion and forgiveness.

The spirits which drive a male into the arms of another male are extremely strong. For the most part, 'homosexuals' need deliverance, and the acceptance they receive while they are in bondage, should be both wise and consistent in how it is pitched, so as not to give the impression that Christians believe pink propaganda and rhetoric. Christians have a very definite message of hope for homosexuals, but bear in mind that some homosexuals prefer to be in bondage.

This is precisely why the gospel assures us that forgiveness is real and sincere. It is not fickle. Jesus solved the things that He encountered while on earth. The covenant of grace did not begin until after His death and resurrection. However, it is a beginning, not an end. There will be a resurrection for all believers; a day when we will all be changed. So here's the deal; If there is a further change coming, then maybe we should show a little patience, because in the case of every last one of us.. further change is needed.

I'm not sure that in the case of homosexuality, which is a spiritual condition primarily, that the issues faced by the sufferer can all be solved by 'forgiveness'. The message of forgiveness is important, of course, but it is only part of the answer.

 

[williemac]

You're the one who doesn't trust Jesus' decision on the primacy of Peter's Church, the same church who put your canon of Scripture together in the first place and has been the staple of Christianity for the past 2000 years.

This whole precept is based on an assumption of the meaning of a passage. Jesus said to Peter. that his revelation of who Jesus is came from God and not man. Then He said on this rock I will build My church. Just because He called Peter a rock, are we to believe that He was telling us that He was building an organization on Peter????

Or was He referring to building His church on the foundation (rock) of Himself and the revelation of who He is? Sounds more like it! From one passage, there would be no outright proof of either to build a doctrine on. But the real sad fact here is that in the first place, the true church is not even an organization. It is rather all the people that make up what is called the body of Christ. And we know from other scripture that Jesus is the chief cornerstone, as confirmed by Paul (Eph.4:11), and Peter (1Pet.2:7), and Jesus (Math.21:42, Mrk12:10), and Luke (Acts 4:11). Jesus Himself is also called a Rock (1Cor.10:4, Rom.9:33) by Paul and by Peter (1Pet.2:8).

The evidence is overwhelming and even completely logical that the rock that the church is built on is none other than Jesus Himself, and not a mere man. The wording.."on this rock" does not even make sense if He was referring to Peter while talking to Peter. He would have said "on you". How stupid. How pathetic that men would hold men on a pedistle, praying to dead people, worshipping a woman, and making a man their head rather than Christ, who is actually even called the Head of the church. (Eph.5:23)

This is why there is a protestant church of people. It finally ocurred to someone that the Catholics were off their "rock"er. :blink:

 

[Axehead]

You're the one who doesn't trust Jesus' decision on the primacy of Peter's Church, the same church who put your canon of Scripture together in the first place and has been the staple of Christianity for the past 2000 years.

SIM, the non-catholic canon of scripture did not come from the Roman Catholics.

Protestantism is 400 years old, and makes up only 1/4 of all Christianity on Earth. It's doctrines are completely opposed to any sort of Christianity that was around the 1500 years before and the other 3/4 today. It was started by a German monk at a convenient time when Christendom and nations were going through a rough patch.

Christianity is 2000 years old, Catholicism is 1600 years old. The scriptures that came out of Antioch vs Alexandria were kept and protected by Christians. Protestantism was a reaction to break away from the Catholic church because of all the lies and deceptions that were being foisted on people. Remember, the Vatican did not want the common man to have the scriptures. I wonder why?

His false doctrines became prominent because it gave people an excuse to escape everything that was going on. It's no coincidence that they all saturated into America, which is still today the Protestant capitol of the world and yet has too many ties to Anglicanism to keep even more desecrations at bay.

Protestantism can be easily attacked and I don't defend it except to say that God used it greatly in the 1600s only as the beginning of a process to restore great truths to the Church of Jesus Christ which has no denominational name. God has always had a remnant of people in every generation that does not bow the knee to Baal.

These churches are toppling, because the only church which Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against is Peter's. That is why the Church has always been on top. I don't know if you noticed, but what other institution could survive what the Church has and IS surviving, without even so much as a struggle?

The only Church that Jesus said would survive is the Church of Jesus Christ. It is His church because it was birthed out of Him, not Peter.

Surviving as a religious institution means nothing. Judaism is older than Catholicism. Buddhism is older, Hinduism is older. Obviously, older does not mean more authentic.

Exactly. My church is in the Bible. It is the historical, biblical church. To say that it can be so easily taken down with Scripture is nonsense- in fact, if it weren't for the traditional chrurches, you wouldn't even have a canon. You'd probably be Muslim right now.

Of course your church is in the Bible. Because you interpret scriptures that way. Seventh Day Adventist church is in the Bible, too. Mormon Churches are in the Bible. But they have many extra biblical writings, too. Hmmm, so do the Catholics. Jehovah Witness Churches are in the Bible. Sun Myung Moon's church is in the Bible. Need I go on?

When will Roman Catholics worship and glorify Jesus and stop talking about men?