• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

I'm not asking you to believe my claims, which is exactly why I quote so very many sources and will continue to do so.

The problem being the sources you quote are sources which have been shown to be unreliable.

If you are objecting to Roman Catholic doctrine, I would argue you shouldn’t even be talking about their history. And if you are writing about ecclesiastical history, you need to be citing a robust array of sources. Professional historians will quote Catholics, Protestants and third party witnesses and cite archaeological evidence.

By using a robust methodology, you can avoid obvious errors like the claim the Romans killed 100-200 million people in the Middle Ages, which is a problematic claim since that exceeds the population of Western Europe during that timeframe, and also exceeds the combined bodycount of the genocides of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, and thus it is difficult to accept such an extreme claim with credulity. I do recognize you are not the first to make that claim, but are rather repeating what you have read; what I am urging you to do is to not merely repeat what you have read from sources you feel are friendly towards your denomination, but rather engage in a robust dialogue with the historical material.
Upvote 0

A conversation about unity.

Acts 9:17 records that Ananias laid hands on Saul (Paul) after his Damascus Road conversion.
Acts 13:3 describes the Church at Antioch laying hands on Paul and Barnabas before sending them on mission
And he laid hands on. Paul so that mightiest receive the Holy Spirit. and was in. the Singular , mean

it happened to Paul ONE TIME !!

DAN P
Upvote 0

MS-13 Gang Member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to be Deported to African Country of Eswatini

In this case a U.S. judge would not allow him to be deported to his home country. A number of countries won't take their citizens back.
Thank you. Isn't that just handing our problem to someone else?
Upvote 0

A conversation about unity.

Quite frankly my brother you can’t even tell who is part of the body even in the members of your church.

While someone could lie, we can take reasonable precautions; we can’t don’t what their spiritual health is, but at least we know we’re admitting to the Eucharist someone who ostensibly believes, or was taught to believe, and is supposed to believe, and has been taught not to receive if they cease to believe, in the Incarnation, the Trinity and the Real Presence (since we believe partaking of our Eucharist not discerning the Body and Blood would be extremely dangerous). Likewise members of the LCMS know that a member of the Missouri Synod believes or should believe in the Nicene Creed and the Real Presence. And in both cases, that Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran members believe in other doctrines that we believe are important, most of which the three churches agree on, disagreeing on only a few, for example, the role of the Bishop of Rome or the issue of monergism (but enough to where we are not yet in full communion with each other; this will take time).

Additionally in the Orthodox Church, many churches take the added precaution of requiring members to attend the sacrament of reconciliation, also known as auricular confession, before the Eucharist. Likewise, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans include a congregational confiteor, where the whole congression prays for forgiveness of their sins (separately from auricular confession).

Auricular confession in the Orthodox Church is something I love, because our clergy are not required to issue penances, and through that sacrament I have been assisted with a great many thing. For example, I no longer have what used to be a horrible fear and revulsion towards hearses. I now regard hearses as, for the most part, beautiful vehicles that we use to transport our loved ones to the place where their bodies will repose until it is time for the Resurrection. I only have a dislike of hearses that are tacky or grotesque in their appearance (recently I saw a hearse being exhibited at a funeral trade show that was disturbing; whoever designed it was sick, I think, but that is another matter). Many other assistances have been provided to me through this means of grace. So requiring it before partaking of the Eucharist is a good idea, and indeed the churches that do require it ensure there is time for this even for people unable to attend the Vigils the night before (which is the usual time), by offering the liturgy during the reading of Terce and Sext.

What all of this amounts to is that we take reasonable precautions. From the parable of the talents, it is clear Christ desires us to be responsible and will hold us to account, and while we confess to being unprofitable servants, we try; we make a best-faith effort to ensure that everyone receiving the Eucharist is a part of the Body of Christ in a proper disposition to receive the Sacrament.

All churches have those that profess to be but are not in the heart

In the Orthodox Church, unlike in some other denominations, no one is ever pressured into receiving the Eucharist (in some Roman Catholic parishes and some Anglican parishes, among others, people who sit out the Eucharist experience peer pressure not to, even if they have a good reason to not partake, but one will never experience this in the Orthodox Church.

I particularly like how the Syriac Orthodox arrange this at some parishes and cathedrals - they often distribute the Eucharist at the very end of the liturgy, after the dismissal, while the hymn Haw Nurone is sung, from the right or liturgical south side of the altar, while who have partaken or are not partaking will exit to the left or liturgical North side of the altar, collecting antidoron (the blessed bread, which is not the consecrated Body of Christ as I explained earlier but rather was historically given as a blessing to help attendees get home, and is a sacramental, like holy water, but not the sacrament itself) on the way out.

We don’t believe in casual communion.

Thus if someone doesn’t believe, and presents themselves for the Eucharist, its on them, since we have taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that those who have received the Eucharist are among us.

Additionally I would add if a non-Orthodox tried to partake of the Eucharist they would probably not be able to do so as their identity would easily be discernable. And they would not likely even be rebuked but assisted; the assumption would be they had approached in error and were confused, and they would be graciously shown to the antidoron. I’m not going to explain exactly why this is because I don’t want to empower people to approach our Eucharist without authorization, but suffice it to say, we are careful (and additionally some of our priests can discern someone approaching with ill intent). Unlike the Roman Catholics, all Orthodox priests are authorized to repulse someone from the sacrament, so instances of our Eucharist being stolen, for example, by those who engage in the occult, are I would say unheard of, for I am not aware of any instance where it has happened.

That said I have no personal objection to the Assyrian Church of the East’s approach, which is to allow anyone who believes in the real presence and the Nicene Creed to partake. There is frequent intercommunion between the Assyrian Church of the East and the Chaldaen Catholics due to the situation on the ground in Iraq where nearly all Chaldeans live and also the majority of Assyrians (Chaldeans are one of the largest of the seven Assyrian tribes historically associated with the Church of the East, which unlike the others wound up mainly speaking Arabic instead of Aramaic, and the Roman Catholics persuaded most Chaldeans to join the Chaldean Catholic Church, which was an archdiocese of the Church of the East which broke away from the rest and entered into communion with Rome). Thus there are areas which are predominantly Syriac Orthodox, areas which are predominantly Church of the East, and areas that are predominantly Chaldean Catholic.

Likewise, in Turkey, the Syriac Orthodox will give the Eucharist to Roman Catholics at their parish in Constantinople, because the nearest Catholic church is some distance away, and Catholics will always give the Eucharist to any Orthodox or Assyrian Christian disposed to receive it, and other sacraments as well.

So essentially where we are now is in the process of establishing trust with the Roman Catholics to where we can reciprocate their offer of what they call Eucharistic hospitality, just as we presently do in the case of relations between the Antiochians and Syriac Orthodox and the Copts and Alexandrian Greek Orthodox.
Upvote 0

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

So you didn’t read it. Your own catechism only states that scripture is inspired. If you would have looked it up you would have known that.
You are incorrect. So I guess it means next thread ^_^. Gotta love these armchair Catholics.
Upvote 0

How is it that the Catholic Church is evil?

If you think you know something, let's here it. Otherwise, take your lumps and go on to the next thread.
So you didn’t read it. Your own catechism only states that scripture is inspired. If you would have looked it up you would have known that.
Upvote 0

John MacArthur and the fundamentalist way

I wouldn't trust my crazy dreams to be a guiding path or instruction from God, but I like your conclusion. If we define Christian fundalmentalism as believing the Bible's inerrancy, authority, and literal historicity, the numbers have severely declined. It's shameful, but a sign of the influential secular culture.

I think the best test of a Bible believing (fundamental) Christian anymore is whether they accept the Genesis 6 day / 24 hour creation event. If they do, then they probably respect the rest of the Bble, including not only its debated miracles, but also its moral standards. Unfortunately, a small minority of (fundamentalist) Christians or Catholics do anymore.
When we had a plating department in our facility I worked myself up to Lab Technician and worked under a chemist. This chemist was very smart and very good at math. When he laid out equations he did so in very neat handwriting and there would be much activity as he turned the results of an analysis into an addition. I would take his calculations and put them in the form of visual basic functions and sub procedures.

Of all the years I worked with this man I had one opportunity to witness to him. I made my presentation while he was analyzing adhesion under a microscope in which you could hear the sounds... Scratch, scratch, scratch! Scratch scratch, scratch! After my presentation he just continued to look under the microscope as if he ignored everything I said so I just continued in my work. Then... The scratch scratch, scratching stopped! And he speaks!

"You know what I think it is?" He says while continuing to look under the microscope... "I think it is arrogance!"

And then, without taking his eyes off the microscope, he continues his work... Scratch, scratch, scratch! Scratch scratch, scratch! I did not reply but went about my work. Inside I feared he was right. In many cases religion can inhabit too much personal ego. It is unfortunate for me that so many messages these days make so little connection to the heart.
Upvote 0

  • Poll
This is the scariest verse in the bible for believers

What holds you back most from sharing the Gospel?

  • Fear of rejection, being criticised or looking like a fool

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • Prefer to show faith through actions rather than words

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Feeling unprepared

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Lack of opportunity

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Don’t think it’s my calling. Not your gifting.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Too busy with work/family commitments

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • Think others already know the Gospel

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Waiting to be “led by the Spirit”

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • You already help the church in many ways

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • I don't want to be labelled a fanatic

    Votes: 0 0.0%

There are a number of verses that people call the scariest in the Bible. But there’s one verse that many overlook, yet, when read from a believer’s perspective, it can be deeply unsettling.

Before I share that verse, let me set the scene.
If we look back to WW1, when a soldier was commanded to go over the parapet, if he refused because he was afraid, then there were consequences. He was court-martialled and then put to death for being a coward.
We, too, have been given a command: “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.” (Mark 16:15)
Yet a survey once conducted by Campus Crusade revealed that only about 2% of Christians regularly share the gospel. That’s shockingly low. And why? Because most believers are afraid. Even Paul admitted that he was afraid, “I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3). But Paul did not let fear silence him. He was bold. He was faithful. He was like those men who charged over the parapet; he was not cowardly.

Now here is the verse that makes me pause:
Revelation 21:8 – “But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
We know who the unbelieving are. The abominable are those who are morally filthy; we know who the murderers are. The sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars, we know who they are. But who are the cowardly? Are they people who have been given a command and know what they should be doing, but instead, they choose not to do it because they let fear rule them?
I believe cowardice is when someone has a purpose to fulfil, and yet they refuse to do it because they let fear stop them. Fear itself is not sin; it’s natural. But when we let fear stop us from obeying God’s command, that’s cowardice. Just as those soldiers faced fear in the trenches yet pressed forward, we are called to press forward in sharing Christ.

And here’s where it becomes even more serious. If we believe in God, in heaven and hell, in judgment, and we know the Saviour, then it is wrong not to tell others about Him. It’s like seeing a house on fire with people inside and choosing to do nothing. You simply allow them to die. This would be morally outrageous. In human law, such deliberate inaction is called “Depraved Indifference.”
If human courts recognise this injustice, how much more would a holy and just God recognise the injustice of our not warning others about eternal death?
There is also a biblical example of Depraved Indifference in the Old Testament. God says to Ezekiel that if he does not warn the wicked of their deeds, their blood is on his hands. In Ezekiel 3:18-19, God says, "When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul."
So, failure to warn others of danger is condemned in Scripture, just as being cowardly is condemned.

James 4:17 says: “Anyone who knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them.”
We know the good we ought to do. If we truly believe eternity is at stake, then failing to warn and to share the hope of Christ is not just neglect, it’s sin.

Now, I want to be very clear: I am not promoting a works-based salvation. I am not saying that you must go and tell people the Gospel in order to be saved. Salvation comes by faith in Christ alone, through His grace.
What I am saying is this: true faith naturally produces action. If you genuinely believe in the reality of God, heaven, hell, judgment, and the salvation offered through Jesus, that belief will move you. It will compel you to act, to speak, to warn, to love, and to share the hope you have. Faith without action may still be faith, but genuine belief shows itself in obedience and courage. Our actions flow out of our convictions; they are the evidence of a heart transformed by God.

So, ask yourself: Who are the cowardly in Revelation 21:8? Has your faith truly transformed your heart so that you are willing to obey God’s command to share the Gospel, or are you, like many believers, remaining silent out of fear?
  • Like
Reactions: NBB

I hold a view similar to the Open View of God.

I have a view similar to the Open View of God. What is this view, it is that God although a planner, does not know every choice that man will make. It is supported by verses like:

Gen 6:5-7 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

This scripture is quite clear, God saw man’s evil, and wished that He had not created man. This can only happen in a situation where the future is partially “open”, not foreknown, certainly not preplanned.

But this would not come as a surprise to a person who believes God gives man the ability to make choices.

When investigating the issue of foreknowledge and how much freedom man has, I have read the early church fathers, from the first and many from the second century. From their writings, it is clear they believed in two things:

  • Man has genuine free will, that God gives his good will to all
  • They also believed that God has foreknowledge
So this introduces a challenge, how can God have foreknowledge, and free will still exist? There are many mysteries that we can not know. But I do have a theory on this.

I did some research into the theory of time, and theoretically it is possible to move both forward and backwards in time. This would allow God the Father to send information about time backwards in time to the beginning. So basically God could know that was going to happen in time at the start.

But time is still a reality, there are still free choices. God would have to play through time to “see” what happens. This is why He could have regret, and wish He had not created man, for there was a point that time was “open” to even God. Yet not entirely open, I believe God puts constraints on the choices we can make.

An interesting point is that even within the Godhead there, is hidden knowledge, Jesus did not know everything about creation that the Father knew. But that is a thought for a different time.

Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,360
Messages
65,381,581
Members
276,270
Latest member
Daisyjosephine