God is green

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

In reviewing our conversation so far, a trend has arisen. Whilst I have done my best to earnestly and thoroughly answer your questions and/or assertions, you have answered very few of mine.

Listed below are the questions I asked and/or responses I gave to your questions, which you have failed to answer.

It's time for a little reciprocosity, and I think it would be helpful to your Catholic readership, who are looking to you as an example, if you would take a little time and respond to these items in the same earnestness and thoroughness that I afforded you:

---------------------------------------------------

Your statement: "Forgiveness first requires a transgression, a deliberate sin"

To which I responded: "Are all sins deliberate? Doesn't the Catholic church teach of unintentional sin and of original sin, both of which are not the result of deliberation on the part of the sinner?"

I am still waiting for your response to this.

-----------------------------------------------------

I provided the following scriptures which seem to argue against a priestly hierarchy:

Matthew 20:25-28
Matthew 23:8-12
Colossians 3:15-17
Ephesians 4:2-16
1 Corinthians 14:26
Hebrews 10:19-25

I am still waiting for your response to them.

---------------------------------------------------

I brought up Jerome's and Cardinal Cajetan's view that the Apocrypha is not canonical for confirming matters of faith.

I am still waiting for your response to this.

----------------------------------------------------

You asserted that the statement "I'm not a US citizen, I am a Republican" equates to the statement "I'm not a Protestant, I'm a Christian"

I asked for clarification. You have still not responded.

----------------------------------------------------

The 242 denominations within Catholicism, according to your source, the World Christian Encyclopedia.

Your response did not answer the question.

----------------------------------------------------

Your repeated use of 2 Cor 5:20

I never did figure out where you were trying to go with it. Please clarify.

-----------------------------------------------------

I asked you, "Where in the New Testament is the office of Catholic Priest set forth?"

I am still waiting for your response to this.

----------------------------------------------------

I provided, at your request, an in-depth exegesis of Acts 15.

I am still waiting for your response to it.

----------------------------------------------------

I asked you, "Could you please provide all of the scriptures you are aware of that support this idea of Apostolic Succession of authority in the Christian church?

I am still waiting for your response to this.

----------------------------------------------------

I asked you, "Could you please provide statements of early church fathers that support the idea of Apostolic Succession of authority? It would be easiest for me to understand if you could start at the time period of the New Testament, say with the Didache or Clement, and then move chronologically outward to Irenaeus? I'd like to see the progression. Then we can perhaps discuss Irenaeus in depth."

I am still waiting for your response to this.

-----------------------------------------------------

I asked you, "Where are the early Christian writings that clearly and systematically spell out the Catholic practices of a priesthood, confession to priests, monarchical bishoprics and apostolic succession?"

I am still waiting for your response to this.

-------------------------------------------------------

[Guest]

Mort:

I would look at this in two different classifications: Human forgiveness and God's forgiveness.

I have difficulty with this concept, just as I have difficulty with the concept that there are two different classes of logic: human logic and God's logic.

Logic is logic. Forgiveness is forgiveness. I think my definition of "forgiveness" holds both for man and for God, and both are conditioned upon repentance of the offender.

I want to clarify that "repentance" is not "feeling sorry for" the action.
Biblical repentance is "having a change of mind and heart". The very word in Greek "metanoia" is composed of the prefix "meta" which means "change" when used as a prefix and "noia" comes from the noun "nous" which means "mind."

Rae:

One situation comes to my mind in which, by your definition, I would not truly forgive someone. Let's say I trust my father, brother, grandfather, whoever... to watch my little girl. Then I find out that she was molested by them. The party is completely repentant and begs forgiveness. From what I am getting from your definition (the part where you said "it is just as if the offence had never taken place"), in order for me to forgive this person, I would have to be completely comfortable with my daughter being watched by them again. Completely trusting... just as I was before the incident.

If you cannot entrust your molested daughter again to the repentant molester, then you do not really believe that a real repentance, a real change of mind concerning his crime, has actually taken place. You think it may have been only an apparent repentance, perhaps only on the surface, and not a deep conviction and a total change of mind and heart. For that reason you are unable to forgive. You may have released some of your feelings against the molester; you may no longer detest him; you may wish the best for him; but you have not forgiven him.

Michelle:

I have another situation:
What if a person was molested as a child by a stranger, who later came to faith in the Lord and sought to make things right by expressing his repentance to the victim of his crime? Their previous relationship would be as strangers, no? Is that how forgiveness would play out in this situation?

Thanks Michelle, you have discovered that my definition is inadequate to cover this situation. The previous relationship as strangers would not be restored if the victim had truly forgiven the offender. However, I think the part of the definition that the victim would relate to the offender as if the crime had not taken place is valid. I realize that this would become very difficult to relate to him in this way, remembering the traumatic experience with horror. Probably most people would be unable to forgive the offender for such a crime. Yet, I am sure that some people have succeeded in doing so.

In general people are unwilling to forgive horrific crimes. Take the pick-axe murderer. She caught her lover in bed with another woman, and killed them both with a pick-axe. I saw a film about her. Shortly after her arrest, she looked ugly. But somehow she became a true disciple of Christ while in prison. The film showed her in worship. She looked absolutely beautiful! Christ had changed her so thoroughly that she was a different person.

She witnessed to others in prison. She wanted nothing but to serve Jesus. A psychiatrist who tested her affirmed that she was psychologically incapable of killing again. In spite of this, people wanted the death penaltly to be carried out and it was. She had truly repented, but people were unable to accept it as genuine. They thought it a mere ruse to escape the death penalty. So they could not forgive her.

[Guest]

Derek,
Were these the comments of Clement of Rome that you referenced?

1Clem 42:1 The Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ was sent forth from God. 1Clem 42:2 So then Christ is from God, and the Apostles are from Christ. Both therefore came of the will of God in the appointed order. 1Clem 42:3 Having therefore received a charge, and having been fully assured through the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and confirmed in the word of God with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth with the glad tidings that the kingdom of God should come. 1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe. 1Clem 42:5 And this they did in no new fashion; for indeed it had been written concerning bishops and deacons from very ancient times; for thus saith the scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness and their deacons in faith.

1Clem 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop's office. 1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration. 1Clem 44:3 For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop's office unblamably and holily. 1Clem 44:4 Blessed are those presbyters who have gone before, seeing that their departure was fruitful and ripe: for they have no fear lest any one should remove them from their appointed place. 1Clem 44:5 For we see that ye have displaced certain persons, though they were living honorably, from the ministration which had been respected by them blamelessly.

Some observations (from Everett Ferguson's book "Early Christians Speak"):

Clement uses the terms "bishop" and "elder" (presbuteros) interchangeably, as we also find in the New Testament.

In the beginning, a plurality of elders was appointed in each church. (Acts 14:23) Several sources indicate a plurality of elders in the local church, as was the practice of the Jews in their congregations of the time.

The reason the terms "bishops and deacons" was commonly used used instead of elder may simply be that "overseer and servant" make a natural pair. The contrast with "elder" is "younger".

The elders/bishops were first appointed by the apostles, later by other emminent men (example Timothy, Titus), as Clement notes, with the consent of the church.

Clement scolds the Corinthians for removing men who were honorable and blameless, which would seem to imply they would have had a right to depose a dishonorable elder.

There is nothing to indicate a succession of function from Christ to the apostles to the elders.

It is only later that we find a single man becomming the local bishop.Years later we find Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria recognizing a sole bishop in a local church yet they continued to refer to him as an elder. Evidently he was "chief elder".

It seems to me that a leader of the elders emerged, or was chosen, much as we might have a chairman of a group of elders. Today we see the strong leader in a church is often the "pastor" who in many churchs is in authority over the elders. I have heard Bob George, on his program, argue that the elders are to be in submission to the pastor!
Apparently nothing has changed since the days when Israel demanded a King and Saul ruled over them. Kind of seems like man hasn't learned much!

[Guest]

One situation comes to my mind in which, by your definition, I would not truly forgive someone. Let's say I trust my father, brother, grandfather, whoever... to watch my little girl. Then I find out that she was molested by them. The party is completely repentant and begs forgiveness. From what I am getting from your definition (the part where you said "it is just as if the offence had never taken place"), in order for me to forgive this person, I would have to be completely comfortable with my daughter being watched by them again. Completely trusting... just as I was before the incident.

If you cannot entrust your molested daughter again to the repentant molester, then you do not really believe that a real repentance, a real change of mind concerning his crime, has actually taken place. You think it may have been only an apparent repentance, perhaps only on the surface, and not a deep conviction and a total change of mind and heart. For that reason you are unable to forgive. You may have released some of your feelings against the molester; you may no longer detest him; you may wish the best for him; but you have not forgiven him.

Maybe I'm wrong but this seems to be oversimplifying a complex issue. First of all, the molested girl is the one who was sinned against, it was the sin against her that is under consideration. Not only that, it was an innocent child that was harmed, a child that is yours. In other words, until that child is an adult it's your responsability to protect that child. You don't just let them run in the highway and figure it's just up to God to protect them. That would hold true for forgiveness from a molested daughter. She would have to do this, I don't think you can forgive on her behalf. But it is your obligation to protect her. So leaving her a second time in the hands of a child molester is not only unwise for her sake, it's unwise to place that temptation again in front of the child molester. Why would you want to stumble a weak brother?

It is not the case that just because God forgives you that you are on equal ground as the next brother. Some are weak in faith and some are strong in faith. Some stumble over others strong faith that they can eat anything and because of their boldness cause a weak brother to stumble. (Romans 14)

Also, some are given specific gifts in the Church. Not everyone has the same gift. 1 Timothy 3 states conditions of overseers and decons. Even though one can be forgiven, that does not mean your walk is irrelevent. Your walk proves the strength of your faith. Those who don't meet these conditions are not fit (although forgiven) to be examples to other Christians. These scriptures and others seem to go against the idea that forgiven means as if it never happened.

So in the example given above, it would seem to me to be the daughters responsability to forgive the abuser and the father of the child to protect the child from those who demonstrate a weakness of faith when left alone with your daughter. The solution is simple. Protect the brother and your daughter at the same time, by not allowing them alone together for both their sakes. Would not love demand you protect both people?

I was at a church once were someone was upset that real wine was not being offered because it might cause temptation in a recovering alcoholic brother. They basically said that they (weaker brothers) should be set free from this bondage already. In other words, they wanted wine and had no concern for the weaker brother. This seems to violate Romans 14 directly. Love would have us care for the weak, not lead them into more temptation.

In general people are unwilling to forgive horrific crimes. Take the pick-axe murderer. She caught her lover in bed with another woman, and killed them both with a pick-axe. I saw a film about her. Shortly after her arrest, she looked ugly. But somehow she became a true disciple of Christ while in prison. The film showed her in worship. She looked absolutely beautiful! Christ had changed her so thoroughly that she was a different person.

She witnessed to others in prison. She wanted nothing but to serve Jesus. A psychiatrist who tested her affirmed that she was psychologically incapable of killing again. In spite of this, people wanted the death penaltly to be carried out and it was. She had truly repented, but people were unable to accept it as genuine. They thought it a mere ruse to escape the death penalty. So they could not forgive her.

While I certainly cringe evertime I see a horrific crime done and those who were directly affected plainly state to the murderer: "I hope you rot in hell, I will never forgive you for what you did!"

But at the same time, I don't see how a psychiatrist could someone was incapable of killing again! Wow, how could one know that? Why don't they just evaluate eveyone before entering college and find out who will and will not kill ahead of time?

But that's not the main point I wanted to make. Instead it's simply that if one kills, they have given up their right to live. That's God's stated justice, not man's. And it's the states job to bear the sword (Rom 13:1-5).
Even Paul said:
Acts 25:11 If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die.

So you can forgive someone who has say, killed your wife but they will still be judged for what they have done. As Paul seems to be suggesting, a Christian will accept punishment for his behavior. It the "Christians" who try to get out of the consequences of their actions by saying they "repent" is what I question. Real repentance would include bearing the consequences of ones actions without complaint.

[Guest]

Dear Forum,

Labels are important. It allows ourselves and others to have a reference point for discussion. If you never allow a label on anything you will vacillate continually. A person that will not allow a label on themselves is unwilling to admit the truth or have something to hide. I have been forthright in that I am a Roman Catholic Catholic Christian of the Western Rite. I am also willing to take on the defense of this label.

Historically, Christianity broke at several points to create labels for the different beliefs within Christianity. There are no mere “Christians” unless you are about 2000 years old, but rather a label of the Christian belief that split off for whatever reason. Now if you label yourself as one of the “Christians” in the first several hundred years then there should be a written history about them and their writings, ie, show them to us.

In defending a “label” one is defending a belief system. Therefore, to have a discussion of a belief system tied to a label then there naturally has to be this reference point (label) from which everyone can argue the point/merit at hand. In knowing a person’s label we can also call upon all sorts of evidence to prove/disprove the discussion at hand. That evidence can be old or it can be new. In reference to Christianity there are boatloads of information out there, again, both old and new.

Christianity by virtue of its belief has never hidden. History proves this because so many died for their belief through out the ages. Scriptures proves it because it says that we are like a light on a mountain top continuously shining the truth to the world [paraphrased]. That being said, we can research and reference the earliest Christians “light” in just the first couple of hundred years after Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection. I hear statements of why would anyone look when nothing will be written about it because it was not a belief, yadda yadda, I see the proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand. If these people have a college education it has to be in underwater basket weaving.

Statements of belief do not have to be contested to be written about, but often belief disputes were the impetus to write. Confession to priests, priests/bishops in a hierarchical Church framework, the scriptural books of Christian belief, baptism…etc…they are all their in written Christian documents in and around the first 300 years. When people fail to pick up the gauntlet and take the dare, to pull their head out of the sand, to look for evidence in the earliest Christian writings, I see weak Christians. Weak Christians that like their pillow covered Bibles staying within the bounds of their church/community never wanting to confront some obvious truths.

I can argue a point both logically and scripturally, but then will support it with history, ie, the earliest Christians, but you know what I get? “Duh, Catholic Steve, those were not real Christians, they were pagans….you lose, ha ha” That is the constant discussion logic.

When I was at Ft Benning I saw a lot of great soldiers. They were willing to put labels on themselves and take a stand, both positive and negative because we’re not a perfect nation but still taking a stand. A no-label person is like an ice cube on the floor, sliding all over the place making it nearly impossible to pick up. The old saying falls right on the non-label Christians “If you can’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”.

My friends, both Catholic and Protestant, that have contacted me via email about the discussion at hand…keep reading scripture but pick up books about where the Church came from. Compare that to what you have been taught. God gave you a brain to logically read scripture and understand history to support all Christian doctrine.

Christ’s Peace, Catholic Steve

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

You wrote:

There are no mere “Christians” unless you are about 2000 years old, but rather a label of the Christian belief that split off for whatever reason.

How do you know there are no "mere" Christians? I consider myself one; certainly not a protestant. You seem to protest as much (or more) as anyone here. What good does the label do, if as you insist there are 30,000 denominations? Why insist Mort is a protestant if he does not claim to be anything other than a Christian, trying to be as much like the discples described in scripture as he can be?

I have discussed various topics with Steve Gregg over the years. We do not agree about everything. It never crossed my mind to apply a label to him or categorize him somehow, other than as a Christian brother. It works well to simply address the point at issue.

We have a person posting on the Calvinism section who has many of the Calvinist views yet insists he is not a Calvinist, only a seeker of truth. If I label him as a Calvinist, then I am likely to assign to him beliefs that he does not hold, which has occured. Best to avoid assumptions.

It seems to me the label simply facilitates ad hominem attacks and allows a person to avoid the issues, and direct questions, which suits your style.
Mort has asked you several questions and I a few with no response. When this occurs, an assumption is made that the respondant is unable to answer. How about some answers?

[Guest]

Dear Forum,

Are you listening to these arguments?

I know I am not as smart as some of those out there, but “Ad hominem”? The dictionary states that this is to appeal to prejudice or emotion, rather than reason. Maybe some “Christians” fail to use the word correctly/context or fail to see that I have CONSTANTLY asked for REASON.

Hmmmm…”reason”, what a wonderful concept. How does the dictionary define this? REASON: To think or argue in a logical manner, to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises which should determine belief or action.

Absolutely fascinating! So there are real “Christians” out there, ones without labels. Christians that originated from the first several centuries. Christian’s that have bypassed intra-Christian disputes, those that by-passed being labeled Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist ...etc. Again, absolutely fascinating. Are all the “labeled” Christians out there listening to this?

Some how these unlabeled “Christians” snuck around all the disputes, keeping a super low-profile (under the radar, so to speak) and simply kept worshipping the Lord and His Holy Scriptures. They were so good about avoiding all these “labeling” disputes that came about from doctrinal issues, that the saw no need to write about their true Christian doctrine even though the Christian world around them was imploding.

But, how can this be? The Christian world imploding yet, the true, unlabeled Christians say-do-write nothing about the other “labeled’, disputing Christians who are preaching a false Gospel. Why this sounds “Un-Christian” because doesn’t scripture state that true Christians should confront evil lies especially when it comes to distorting Christian doctrine? Isn’t there scripture in Galatians about false doctrine, in Peter about defending, scripture stating something to the fact about the children, a mill stone and being thrown in water to drown [paraphrase] amongst the many other scriptural passages that state we are not to sit still when doctrinal lies are swaying the masses?

“Oh, but we’re Christians, we are not supposed to be Zealots and fight, but rather love, love, love.” [But that's not the main point I wanted to make. Instead it's simply that if one kills, they have given up their right to live. That's God's stated justice, not man's. And it's the states job to bear the sword (Rom 13:1-5).] Tell that to Ananias & Sapphira … Peter showed them a little love, a little God’s justice and used Peter to enforce it, huh? I wonder if Peter read Rom 13? Christianity is always about love, but sometimes mixed with tough-love.

It is ironic that when these true, unlabeled Christians are asked to reference their earliest Christian writings and documents they come up with ludicrous arguments like … “why write about something that was never in doubt?”. Simple. Christianity has almost always had conflict (Acts 15) because of doubt and it was argued and written about. Heck, today we are mere followers of Christ 200 years after-the-fact and you are spilling your guts out with accusations and scriptural proof texts all over the place….don’t you think the earliest Christians would be doing the same!!! Literacy may have been scare but there were still very literate Christian leaders with scribes that wrote like crazy.

My Labeled Christian friends who are Catholic, Jew, Protestant, Lutheran, Calvinist, etc…I have great respect for your ability to take a stand, a position and fight the good fight. At least I know the materials you will reference and your ability to stand up and be counted. As for the non-labeled Christians acting as thawing ice cubes sliding around on a floor because they hold no position except for themselves, you are definitely as scripture states “neither hot nor cold therefore, I spit you out of my mouth”.

Any early Christian writings out there about their REASON for Christian doctrine? Maybe something like in 1 Peter 3:15 “…Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.”

Catholic Steve

[Guest]

So leaving her a second time in the hands of a child molester is not only unwise for her sake, it's unwise to place that temptation again in front of the child molester. Why would you want to stumble a weak brother?

Your assumption seems to be that the man is still a "child molester". That he is still "weak". That he has not truly had a change of heart and mind so that he utterly abhors his previous actions and thoughts.

Can you accept that a very wicked person can become completely whole by the blood of Christ? Can he become a regenerated person where "old things have passed away and behold, all things have become new"?

If the person still has the same old urges, then he has not truly repented, and ought not to be forgiven ---- indeed cannot be forgiven [in the true sense of the word].

Sadly, even in cases where there is a genuine repentance, a regeneration, people are unable to accept the fact that the person has been utterly changed by the power of God.

Why do you think "the tempation" will always remain with the man?

As for "oversimplification", usually the simpler explanations are the true ones. For example, the simpler scientific explanations tend to be the true ones, and not the complex explanations. The old view of a geocentric planetary system had to explain the apparent motions of the planets with cycles and epicycles. The new view of a solarcentric system was a much simpler explantion of apparent planetary motion.

[Guest]

CatholicSteve,

Ad hominum:
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Example: see your last post.

You seem rather uncomfortable having to interact with Christians who make no appeal to creeds or denominational dogma but simply try their best, like good Bereans, to understand the scriptures and base their beliefs on that understanding. I have been helped along the way by many good expositors, some of them Roman Catholic, but I see if what they say is in accordance with scripture. We wouldn't be where we are if your church had practiced that.

[Guest]

Dear Forum,

Hmmmm...lets go to the dictionary (Dictionary.com, American Heritage Dictionary, WordNet) again for just the moment for Ad Hominem.

Dictionary.com
ad ho·mi·nem
1. Appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. Attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

American Heritage Dictionary
ad hom·i·nem
1. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason:

WordNet
ad hominem
1. Appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason); "ad hominem arguments"

My continual discussion points have requested logic and reason for non-labeled Christian doctrine in the earliest Christian writings. Therefore, point to those earliest Christian writings that support non-labeled Christian vs Catholic Christian doctrine. Now if I mix that request for logic with prejudice, emotion or a special interest then that would be certainly understandable.

An Ad Hominem would be the use of one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests RATHER than intellect and logic. I never did that. I have always appealed to logic. Do I have prejudiced views? Of course, everyone on this site has prejudiced views of their faith. Do I come with emotion? Of course I come with emotion especially what many on this site have said about Catholic Christian doctrine. Those two would certainly then generate a "special interest" in this discussion.

Unfortunately, many on this site are as Arnold says "girly men". "OH NO, THERE HE GOES AGAIN WITH MORE AD HOMINEM ATTACKS"! Quick get the Kleenex and pass it around! I think if some of the non-labeled Christians on this site were at Antioch in Acts 15 they would still be there telling everyone "Wasn't Paul and Barnabus just the worst? They dared to argue with us that they made everyone mad. Boy, I don't think they were real non-labeled Christians".

Forum readers have always seen a consistent pattern from me not to back down and I proudly state that I will argue with the ferocity of Paul and Barnabas at Antioch on the doctrinal truth in Catholic Christianity. The only way I can defend these truths is to also know the perspective of another Christian knowing what their position/label is. Non-labeled Christians have been around since 40ish AD. They preached the Word with vigor. Where are these words of wisdom as to how they interpreted scripture and worshiped God. If I could them then I would know non-labeled doctrine vs Catholic Christian doctrine.

Do any forum readers have a date/place when Catholic Christianity started...like a document or something maybe stating "I, Pope XYZ, do hereby start a new Christian religion that is different from non-labeled Christianity?" Forum readers not only see my stance asking for facts of these earliest non-labeled Christians but they see a consistant avoidance of this request from the non-labeled Christians.

Per the Ad Hominem definitions above "show me the logic, the reason"....show me those earliest Christain documents. These early Christians were not "girly men" because they died for their doctrine. We can't even get some of these non-labeled Christians to research some documents before they cry "foul"... "oh, you hurt my feeling".


Double Dared, the Catholic Steve