New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

[Arthur Klassen]

Hi!
I'm considering marrying an active Roman Catholic guy and I'm
Lutheran. I'm wondering if any of you in this group are experiencing
such a relationship and can offer any input or advice!
Thanks!
kg

My, my... this group is just a shadow of its former self. I remember back in the
old days (bad? good? you pick), you'd have had a torrent of responses, from
"what's the problem? why are you asking?" right through to "why are you dating
him?", in tones varying from kindly, calm, and attempting to be understanding
right through to rabid flames. I think the tribe has carried on and all we have
left are Mark the poet and Darren's 'bots posting James' hagiographies. I didn't
even see dunscotus respond to this one -- he's probably too busy with his new
job in KC.

Myself, I just got back after a long hiatus -- and my presence here is spotty at
best. I saw your note go by earlier this month and thought of responding, but
wasn't sure I wanted to spark a flame war (I have an insane and unintentional
knack of speeding Godwin's Law's convergence to 1.0 beyond any of my intentions).

This is an awfully personal question. Do you want me to discuss it in public? Oh
well... I'll probably do so anyhow, so here goes.

Back when I was young, and going to a private (Anabaptist-run) high school, when
the subject of Roman Catholics...

Big Parenthesis #1: (they prefer to have themselves called Catholics, by the
bye, I prefer to call them Romans so as to keep "Catholic" catholic, but I wind
up being picky about capitalization: If I say "Catholic" I mean connected to the
bishop of Rome. If I say "catholic" I mean the all-times all-places body of
Christ in whatever way God will eventually show he defines it.)

... came up in our religious instruction classes, our textbook
mentioned that in the case of a mixed marriage, the Catholic partner was
required to sign a promise to raise the children to be good Catholics and the
non-Catholic partner was required to sign a similar promise not to corrupt them.
If either partner declined to sign such a promise, the book suggested that a
priest would be unwilling to perform the marriage and I guess the Catholic
partner would be likely to walk.

In all likelihood this story was apocryphal, but even if it is, there's a
distinctly (and in my view, sinfully presumptuous) paternalistic attitude that
the Roman hierarchy takes towards all other branches of the faith. Perhaps, your
dear one is what Peter Kreeft would call a "cafeteria Catholic" -- a common
enough creature in North America and Northern Europe these days -- and votes
with his feet about certain very personal marital choices. Perhaps, if he isn't,
that's okay with you. I wouldn't hold my breath any time soon about the Roman
hierarchy backing down on any of those issues so commonly disagreed with by
cafeteria Catholics.

At the same time, I feel that I shouldn't have said anything (hence the two week
delay between seeing your question and now). As Gildor said to Frodo in the Lord
of the Rings: "Go not to the Elves for counsel for they will say both, 'Yes' and
'No'." What does your heart tell you? Have you forged the beginnings of a deep
partnership with this guy already? Are you actively serving God side by side?
Not just in church events, you understand, but in activities easily describable
as unambiguously extending of the Kingdom of God on earth. Perhaps I should go
farther back here and ask if someone didn't know what a Lutheran was, would you
fall back on a term like "Jesus follower" if asked what religion you were? If
not, I'm not really comfortable offering any further advice, frankly.

But all that said, if all those things line up, then I would say this isn't such
an ecumenical marriage as I would want to dissuade you from: we're not talking
Christian + Muslim, Buddhist or atheist here.

I would wish you every happiness in sickness, in health and all those things --
and as I've just heard this minute about the best man at my wedding, in watching
your loved one pass from this life ahead of you.

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

I'm considering marrying an active Roman Catholic guy and I'm
Lutheran. I'm wondering if any of you in this group are experiencing
such a relationship and can offer any input or advice!

God's word says that we are not to be unequally yoked.

If you were a Baptist, I'd have an answer for you.

Since you are a Lutheran, just how far apart are you and he in doctrine?

If you were a Baptist, you'd be making a terrible mistake because of the vast
difference in doctrines.

Forgetting marriage for a moment, let me ask you this:

Are you absolutely sure that if you were to die right now you would go to
heaven?

Are you sure you have been "born again"?

We aren't born again by being baptized! We aren't born again by being good,
because we are all rotten to the core. We aren't born again by attending
church. We aren't born again because our parents are good Christians. We
aren't born again by ANYTHING we do, because we don't have to do anything.
Jesus Christ did it all on the cross 2000 years ago. If we are trusting in
that fact and that fact alone, we are born again and will spend eternity with
Him in heaven.

On the other hand, if we mix anything else up in our idea of being "born
again", we aren't born again. It's by God's grace and nothing else. Good
thing, too, because we can't do anything in the flesh to please God. And by
works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Please take a look at the link in my signature. Share it with your boyfriend!
Chances are, he's depending on something other than God's grace to save him.
Chances are, so are you.

God bless!



Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Jim Dykes
...
If you were a Baptist, I'd have an answer for you.
...
Chances are, he's depending on something other than God's grace to save him.
Chances are, so are you.
...

Jim...

I've known of people who call themselves "Baptists" (and I say it that way, in
quotes because I feel certain that someone will answer the rest of my sentence
with "well, then they weren't really Baptists...") who are also depending on
something other than God's grace (Doctrinal purity comes to mind, for one
thing). I have also known Catholics and Lutherans who are not. Let's not assume
too much when all we see of each other is more darkly than through a glass.

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Arthur Klassen
I've known of people who call themselves "Baptists" (and I say it that way, in
quotes because I feel certain that someone will answer the rest of my sentence
with "well, then they weren't really Baptists...") who are also depending on
something other than God's grace (Doctrinal purity comes to mind, for one
thing). I have also known Catholics and Lutherans who are not. Let's not assume
too much when all we see of each other is more darkly than through a glass.

I said "Baptist" because I know their doctrine. I don't really know the
doctrine of the Lutherans, so I didn't assume anything there.

For example, of all the RCC folks I know and have known, other than three or
four, in fact "are" depending on something than God's grace to save them. For
goodness sakes, Art, it's right out there in plain view!! That's what the RCC
teaches! It's a damnable doctrine when put up along side God's word. And the
fact that some of the "holy fathers" says something different has no effect on
the truth. However, some of the man-made doctrine of the RCC is sending folks
to hell in droves.

If God grace isn't sufficient for salvation, it isn't sufficient for security,
either. Therefore, all the rituals, penances, works, ect, ect, ect, that the
RCC teaches that man must perform in order to be saved and to be kept saved.
That's totally contrary to even the simplest gospel of Christ.

So, I don't single out "Catholics". It's the RCC doctrine that is damnable.

As best as I can recall after quite a bit of conversation with Lutherans, their
doctrine, or maybe just some Lutherans, still believe in baptisman
regeneration.

I guess it's all a matter of "saving faith", eh Art?

What is "saving faith", in your opinion (or anyone can chime in here)?

I stand firm in what I believe and why. I can substantiate my doctrine by
God's word. I can knock holes in many doctrines also, by God's word.

Which doctrine a person stakes his eternity on is totally up to him. That is
why God gave us free will......well, to all except the Calvinists. They have no
free will. They are simply puppets <smile>.


"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height,
nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love
of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord".
Rom 8:38-39




Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Jim Dykes
...
I guess it's all a matter of "saving faith", eh Art?
What is "saving faith", in your opinion (or anyone can chime in here)?

I think the bare minimum would be the thief on the cross:

Thief: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus: "I tell you the truth, this day you will be with me in paradise."

Laying anything more than this on it as a requirement strikes me as falling
under the heading of what Jesus said about saying more than 'Yes' or 'No'.

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Arthur Klassen

Post by Jim Dykes
What is "saving faith", in your opinion (or anyone can chime in here)?

Thief: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus: "I tell you the truth, this day you will be with me in paradise."
Laying anything more than this on it as a requirement strikes me as falling
under the heading of what Jesus said about saying more than 'Yes' or 'No'.

Amen, Art!

He believed and asked to be remembered.

It's so simple many a man can't handle it! Nothing so wonderful can be so
simple, they think!

Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Judy Taylor]

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen

Post by Jim Dykes
What is "saving faith", in your opinion (or anyone can chime in here)?

Hi again Arthur,
Looks like I come at it from a different perspective. To me saving
faith is the kind that has
corresponding action or the kind that leads to obedience. Jesus said
"If you love me you will do what
I say" Some ppl think obedience is "works" - I don't.

The kind of faith that will not save is the kind the demons have. They
believe there is a God and they
tremble. We were talking with some ppl while waiting for a long time at
a dental clinic recently. One
of them, a short fellow in his early 80's was a WW2 Vet who had led a
colorful life was a bit of a blow
hard but quite entertaining. The lady he brought to the Clinic told us
on the quiet that he began with
nothing, was a street kid in PA who joined the Navy and was a con; she
said he was tight with his $$
but he let us know he was paying for her teeth and he bought the
sunglasses she was wearing but she
wasn't his girlfriend, just a neighbor. He lost his wife of 40
something years and is now well fixed
with two college educated daughters. From what he said he does a lot of
altruistic good deeds for
different groups and ppl. He liked to talk and we found him funny.

More than once this man made the statement that ppl who say they don't
believe in God are crazy
because of course there is a God. He also stated that "everyone wants to
go to heaven but nobody
wants to die to get there" Obviously from other things he said Tony is
not personally aquainted with
the Lord; it was also apparent that he grew up influenced by the RCC
system. Only the Lord knows
what it will take to reach this man and other's like him. I can
pray. Blessings, judyt


Jim Dykes Responds

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen
Thief: "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus: "I tell you the truth, this day you will be with me in paradise."
Laying anything more than this on it as a requirement strikes me as falling
under the heading of what Jesus said about saying more than 'Yes' or 'No'.

Amen, Art!
He believed and asked to be remembered.
It's so simple many a man can't handle it! Nothing so wonderful can be so
simple, they think!
Regards,
Jim
"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -
For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Judy Taylor

Post by Jim Dykes
What is "saving faith", in your opinion (or anyone can chime in here)?

Hi again Arthur,
Looks like I come at it from a different perspective. To me saving
faith is the kind that has corresponding action or the kind that leads to
obedience. Jesus said "If you love me you will do what I say" Some ppl
think obedience is "works" - I don't.

I don't disagree with you, Judy. I did say _bare_ minimum :) (as bare as a man
stripped and hanging on a cross, perhaps?) -- and I was resting on Jesus'
uttered judgment in the next sentence, so I thought I was on safe ground there.

To me it seems obvious that if that thief had had a sudden stay of execution, he
would have had to begin a long, arduous process of discipleship, starting with
"Let him who steals, steal no more." -- or if the word translated thief would be
better rendered "brigand" or "bandit" the starting point would be more, "Thou
shalt not kill," and, "If anyone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other
also, etc..." but you see what I mean, don't you?

That said, seeing as the Roman penalty for being a false Messiah was already
being visited on Jesus at the time, his appeal based on "when you come into your
kingdom..." was tantamount to evidence for a faith as strong as Abraham's when
he told Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb, my son."

As for Tony, I agree there, too: Only the Lord knows... praying's good. :)

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Arthur Klassen
To me it seems obvious that if that thief had had a sudden stay of execution, he
would have had to begin a long, arduous process of discipleship, starting with
"Let him who steals, steal no more." -- or if the word translated thief would be
better rendered "brigand" or "bandit" the starting point would be more, "Thou
shalt not kill," and, "If anyone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other
also, etc..." but you see what I mean, don't you?

A "long arduous process of discipleship" for salvation???? I hope you didn't
mean it that way.

I think we must ALWAYS remember that SALVATION "requirements" are NOT
the same as what we preach, and what Christ taught, where living a obedient
life is concerned.

If nothing else, the LAW taught us that! The law pointed out that
1. Man could not keep it
2. We needed a better way

Therefore, Art, the one who feels we must practice what we preach in every jot
and title, to be saved, is trusting in a "works" salvation, and, IMHO, is not
saved to start with..........simply because that one is not trusting solely in
Jesus' work.

You see, if we violate on aspect of the law we are guilty of all!

Nicodemus asked Jesus "what must I do to be saved". Jesus didn't give him a
list of does and don'ts! He gave him ONE requirement.

Now, if Nicodemus had asked Jesus what he needed to do in order to live a life
pleasing to God, Jesus would have given Him a long list of things to do. In
fact, He gave ALL US a long list of things to do...............but not a long
list of things to do to be saved. Nor did anyone else.

So, I teach this all the time: "Salvation is by Grace through Faith. Period.
End of the process for salvation. Now, let's talk about living a life for the
Lord; and the for receiving most jopy our salvation and our new life. We do
so by obedience to God's word"

Unfortunately, some folks hear what they want to hear. In fact, most
denominations teach some sort of a "works salvation"....or stress works to the
point (without being careful to explain that it is NOT required for salvation)
that folks minunderstand. They run and get baptized, thinking that will save
them. They go to church ten times a week, thinking that will save them. They
give to the poor, they try to be "good people", thinking that will save them.
The deception is the fault of the TEACHERS and PREACHERS! They have
not "studied to show themselves approved so they can rightly divide the word of
truth". Therefore, how can they teach anyone??? The people won't bother to
study to show THEMSELVES approved so THEY can RIGHTLY DIVIDE the
WORD of TRUTH for THEMSELVES, like the Bereans did. We are LAZY, BUSY,
and, in fact, do not PUT GOD FIRST!!

Post by Arthur Klassen
That said, seeing as the Roman penalty for being a false Messiah was already
being visited on Jesus at the time, his appeal based on "when you come into your
kingdom..." was tantamount to evidence for a faith as strong as Abraham's when
he told Isaac, "God himself will provide the lamb, my son."

God doesn't require that sort of obedience for salvation. Would that sort of
obedience please Him? You bet! Does anyone possess it? I dare say "no"! So,
then, is no one gonna be saved? Perfection is a goal to be strived for? Can
we reach it this side of heaven? No. Anyone know why? Anyone know why Jesus
was able to do so??

Post by Arthur Klassen
As for Tony, I agree there, too: Only the Lord knows... praying's good. :)

"Prayer changes things" where man is concerned.



Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen
To me it seems obvious that if that thief had had a sudden stay of
execution, he would have had to begin a long, arduous process of
discipleship, starting with "Let him who steals, steal no more." -- or if
the word translated thief would be better rendered "brigand" or "bandit"
the starting point would be more, "Thou shalt not kill," and, "If anyone
strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also, etc..." but you see
what I mean, don't you?

A "long arduous process of discipleship" for salvation???? I hope you didn't
mean it that way.

Please take it as a given that I didn't mean it that way.

[Jim Dykes]

I've known of people who call themselves "Baptists" <snip> who are also depending on
something other than God's grace (Doctrinal purity comes to mind, for one
thing).

Hmmmmm! No doubt you and I travel in diferent circles, because of the hundreds
of thousands of Baptists I have known, they'd be the "last" people on earth who
depend on anything but grace through faith.

The problem is that some aren't clear enough in their sermons or conversations
to remove any doubt as to what they are referring..........SALVATION or
Christian Living. I always make that clear.

First, we are saved by grace through faith. Nothing else is rquired PERIOD!!

Now that the matter of salvation is settled, we can talk about Godly Christian
living, doctrinal purity, separation, etc, etc, etc.

The average so-called Christian can't even separate the two ideas anyway and
let them overlap so that they get bogged down in working for their salvation
which was settled for them 2000 years ago the moment they believed.

Do you see what I'm speaking about? When we speak of the command not to be
unequally yoked, it doesn't mean that "you'll die and go to hell" if you do so.
When we preach about "dressing from God" and say that a woman shouldn't dress
with her boobs hanging out or showing a foot of cleavage, that doesn't mean she
will go to hell if she does. When we speak of the importance of regular church
attendance, we aren't saying that a person who goes to church now and then will
end up roasting.

That's what others "accuse" us of doing.

Recently I have become convinced that most of it can be included in the
statement which I made and recorded way back in 1974: "To those of us who know
no better, it matters little". That probably equates to "ignorance is bliss",
but, let me tell you this: Ignorance will never be an excuse at the
judgement!!

I thank God that I wasn't born into a Mormon home! I thank God that I wasn't
born into a JW family or a Catholic family or a family who believers in the
doctrine of the Church of Christ, etal. It was by God's grace that I was born
into a Christian family who practiced what they preached! And I thank God that
it was years ago and in an area where most churches were conservative and
fundamental! Otherwise, I might be headed for hell thinking I was on the
correct path!

Don't you now that God stated there will be few that enter heaven; that many be
that will enter hell?

Don't you know that there will be many who will be turned away after saying how
much they loved God and how many good works they have done in His name?

Recently I was listening to a man who was talking about entering heaven. When
he was asked why he should be let in, he simply said, "Because I trusted
Jesus". Then he was asked again what else, and again he said, "Because I
trusted Jesus". Then he was asked about all his work, and again he said, "You
have to let me in because I trusted Jesus".

Oh, if we could all just trust Jesus and tell others about Jesus and how to be
saved instead of fighting over doctrine, we'd be so far ahead! Absolutely
doctrine is extremely important. Some doctrine, when believed, will assure
your place in hell and some, when accepted and believed, will secure your
eternity with Jesus!

Once saved, the gospel is only for us to tell and share! Once saved, we don't
have to be concerned about ANYTHING as far as our salvation is concerned.
We just need to tell others how they can have that same assurance.

God Bless,

Jim


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Marty,

Actually the problem that a member of a denomination is incompletely
educated in the doctrines of the denomination - or that s/he actually
disagrees with the denomination - due to incomplete or inadequate
catechism or worse, is a pretty wide-spread problem. Does CCC say anything
else about the necessities for salvation?

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F)
[phone] (New House)

[Original Message]
Date: 5/26/2007 12:45:26 PM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?
<SNIP>

Post by Jim Dykes
For example, of all the RCC folks I know and have known, other than

three or

Post by Jim Dykes
four, in fact "are" depending on something than God's grace to save

them. For

Post by Jim Dykes
goodness sakes, Art, it's right out there in plain view!! That's what

the RCC

Post by Jim Dykes
teaches!

No, the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by faith. Works bring
reward, not salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our
salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without
faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the
fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever
attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he
who endures to the end.'"
Perseverance in faith
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose
this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the
good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting
conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith." To
live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish
it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;
it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in
the faith of the Church.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt3.htm
I get the impression that you are looking for certain words, and if
someone doesn't use those exact words you assume they don't believe
what you believe.
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That
number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion."
"Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and
their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry."
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre
Actually the problem that a member of a denomination is incompletely
educated in the doctrines of the denomination - or that s/he actually
disagrees with the denomination - due to incomplete or inadequate
catechism or worse, is a pretty wide-spread problem. Does CCC say anything
else about the necessities for salvation?

Hi Tom,

You sure said a truthful mouthfull there!

This falls back to what I've been using in my signature lately.

Evangelicals truly want to spread the word and see folks come to a saving
knowledge of Jesus Christ, but too many do not practice discipleship....
not to be confused with church discipline, but that is necessary as well.

Folks need not only know "what they believe", but also "why" they believe it.
Most don't know either, quite frankly.


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

(In case anyone doesn't catch the point of the term, a
cafeteria Catholic is someone with the bizarre idea that he is free to
pick and choose which of the teachings of the Church he will accept
and which he will reject, like someone walking along a cafeteria
line, putting some dishes on his tray and leaving some others.)

Actuall the very RCC doctrine is along those lines.....but much of it, if not
most, was written by man. Those writings have been put up against and equal
with, in most cases, the Bible. I've heard RC Priests say that the RCC church
had done an injustice to their congregations down through the years by
elevating the writings of man to a par, and maybe above, the word of God.

It isn't just Catholics who have a lot of "cafeteria" in their lives. Very,
very few of those who call themselves Christians accepts "thus says the word of
God" and tries to live by it. They toss out whatever they don't like.

Whenever someone spouts a doctrine to me, I ask for chapter and verse or
chapters and verses, if there is more than one. Many doctrines have as their
strong-hole only a single verse or two from the Bible.......and the most of the
rest of the Bible shows that to be a false idea. Like the old judge..."we must
go by a preponderance of the evidence" sometimes.

God Bless,

Jim


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

I wonder what happens when members of two different Protestant churches
marry. How do they decide which faith the children will be taught.

I'm not a Protestant, but Baptists would hold to the "unequally yoked" portion
of God's word. IOW, they'd consider for a Methodist to marry a Lutheran, they
would then be unequally yoked. I think this is a matter of common sense rather
than a commandment from God. The reason, of course, is to avoid what you share
below.

I've heard of couples deciding that the boys would be raised in the
father's religion and the girls in the mother's religion, but that
makes no sense to me. If one of them is a member of a church that
practices infant Baptism and the other is a member of a church that
practices believer Baptism. how could they explain to the children that
infant Baptism is only for boys while girls have to wait, or only for
girls while boys have to wait, depending on which parent is which.

As a child, I recall that the major difference between the Baptists and
Methodists were their differences in baptismal practices. Well, back then most
of the denominations were pretty fundamental and one might never recognize
the difference between the denominations if one heard many, many sermons
preached by the different preachers.

For example, I have listened to and read J. Vernon McGee for many, many years.
Although I know now that there were doctrinal differences, I thought until
recent years that he was a died in the wool Baptist. You see, the fundamentals
of the doctrine were the same up to a certain point. That isn't very true
today, though. The different denominations start off different, it seems.

Most would agree, though, that the Blood of Christ cleanses us from sin.

However, how we appropriate that blood is a color of a different horse. And a
very dangerous division.....eternally dangerous. We must be careful to
"rightly divide the word of truth", and quite frankly, there aren't many
average, church-going Christians in the world today who can do that. So, like
the Catholics down through the centuries, they simply listen to a MAN and
accept as truth what he says. The Catholics didn't have much of a choice for
many centuries. They do now. Remember what the Bereans did. And they were
commended for it. They checked up on what they heard. Do we? How many of us
do that? Many of us can catch error the minute it is spoken, but many don't
know the difference and don't bother checking to see if the scriptures support
what is spouted.

There's only one way to the Father: Jesus Christ. And the word of God makes
it quite simple how we acquire salvation. It's a GIFT. We only accept it.
However, we can leave it on the table, too.

My heart grieves for the Mormons of this world! I just came through Mormon
country and spent some time there. Didn't attend any of their services, though
<smile>.

What they teach and how they live WORKS.........but it is only temporal! It
offers no eternity and we know that. However, what about all the poor folks
who are marching blindly into hell because they listen to a MAN. One single
man, a youngster at that. No witnesses, no nothing. Just the word of one
single person! And the book of Mormon goes directly AGAINST the word of God,
but how many of the rank and file Mormons even bother to read the Bible? I
honestly don't know.

We can compare the two books and even think "how stupid must a person be to
believe this"? The same can be true of Muslims and other religious folks.

One scripture has been a trememdous help to me along those lines. It's the
scripture about the "natural man". No, those folks aren't "stupid", they are
simply "natural" folks who doesn't have the light of God shed abroad in their
hearts. They cannot understand the things of God because only the Holy Spirit
can enlighten us. But.....................we must take the initative! Maybe
if we opened His word now and then, we would be further enlightened! Maybe if
we spent more time with Him, we would be further enlightened. There's no maybe
to it. It's guaranteed!!

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are
spiritually discerned.


We receive not because we ask not, or we ask amiss!

Jam 4:3 Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume [it]
upon your lusts.


Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

The third truth, which is specifically Catholic, is that Jesus founded
the Catholic Church as His Church to teach in His name and with His
authority, with the Apostles as the first bishops and St. Peter as the
first Pope.

If one accepts this as truth, then one must also question how in the world the
Catholic church has come so far away from and added to the teachings of the
apostles.

The answer: The writings of man.




Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

No, the Catholic Church teaches we are saved by faith. Works bring
reward, not salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says,
161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our
salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. "Since 'without
faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the
fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever
attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he
who endures to the end.'"

That's like saying that porcupine tastes great without saying how hard it is to
get it prepared for eating.

This is a common practice of the Mormons. "We believe just like you do". And
the average person doesn't know any better.

Same thing with Catholicism. You quote all the similar doctrine above, but
never really divulge the whole truth of what you actually believe and practice.

Perseverance in faith
162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose
this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the
good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting
conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith." To
live, grow, and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish
it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;
it must be "working through charity," abounding in hope, and rooted in
the faith of the Church.

Well, you certainly exposed one of your beliefs here.

Listen, if we can loose it, we must have to something to get it.
You left out that part!

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect1chpt3.htm
I get the impression that you are looking for certain words, and if
someone doesn't use those exact words you assume they don't believe
what you believe.

Not at all!

I KNOW of the teachings of the RCC and their rites, etc, etc, etc.

You see, if you "have" to do anything at all, then salvation wasn't a gift!

If you can loose it, then God is an "Indian Giver" and and a liar!

BTW, you might want to check the return email address you are using. I
accidently included it in a couple messages I replied to and they were returned
saying:


<***@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>: host listserv.CUNY.EDU[128.228.100.10] said: 550 No
such local user (in reply to RCPT TO command)


Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Marty Helgesen]

<SNIP>

Post by Jim Dykes
BTW, you might want to check the return email address you are using. I
accidently included it in a couple messages I replied to and they were returned
such local user (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Thank you. That account was shut down several years ago. The current
account through which I subscribe to CHRISTIA is identified in my
signature below. I posted my replies through Google Groups so that if
in the future I want to find what I have posted on some subject I can
find those postings along with the ones I posted using that account
when it was still active by searching Google Groups for that address
as sender. Christia is a Listserv list and is gatewayed to Usenet as
bit.listserv.christa
--
Marty Helgesen
gmail userid: mnhccatcunyvm

"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That
number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion."

"Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and
their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry."

http://www.blackgenocide.org/


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Dr Nancy's Sweetie]

I'm considering marrying an active Roman Catholic guy and I'm
Lutheran. I'm wondering if any of you in this group are experiencing
such a relationship and can offer any input or advice!

This has come up more than once over the years, in lots of newsgroups.
Here are some things to think about:

1) Religious differences *can be* a major problem.

If both parties are both very rigid in what they believe and how they
react to other religious traditions, it can go badly. In some cases,
people don't think something is a big issue, but get upset when their
spouse takes a different view on it.

My feeling on this was that while one often speaks of a "church family",
there's a failure to consider what that means. You and your husband
will be a new family -- but you'll both still be related to your old
families. To me, saying "you must break off from your old church
family" would be as unreasonable as saying "No, you may not go to your
mother's birthday party." or "We will spend every Christmas and
Thanksgiving with my family, and your parents can come if they want."
Hopefully no sane person would ever try to cut off a spouse's family
just because "we're a new family now"; but for some reason many people
feel free to do that same thing with church families.

In addition, I believe that using any kind of coercion in matters of
belief is immoral. That includes emotional pressure based on marriage.
Nobody, not even your husband, has any right to order you to believe
something for which you do not find compelling evidence.


2) Religions have varying requirements.

IIRC, he is only supposed to get married by an RC priest, who will only
perform the ceremony on the condition you agree the children will be
raised as Roman Catholics. Are you willing to do that? It seems bad to
start a marriage with an act of dishonesty, which is what you'd be doing
if you sign such an agreement while intending to break it.

As a Roman Catholic, he's not supposed to use birth control. Of course,
if you take contraceptive pills, then you'd be using the BC and he would
not -- but that's a mighty fine hair to split. Also, there are some
intimate activities which the Vatican opposes that other Christian
groups do not object to. If you're looking forward to them, and he
won't do them, you should work that out in advance.

Also, I believe RC kids are supposed to attend RC services every so
often, and possibly even attend parochial schools. Never been to either
one, myself, but I imagine that RC schools don't have many nice words
to say about Martin Luther. That may make it awkward when the kids ask
why you go to a Lutheran church.

You don't say what flavor of Lutheran you are, but I think there's an
anti-evolution Lutheran group kicking around. The Vatican, by contrast,
has little trouble with the mainstream scientific view of Earth history,
provided one recognises that it's limited only to science. Is that
going to be a problem?


3) What percentage are you "Lutheran" as opposed to "Christian"?

Many people equate "faith" with "what's printed on the sign in front of
the building". Some Christians have no trouble marrying other
Christians of different flavors; others find it horrible.

In my view, the history of Christianity serves as a perfect object
lesson for why one should not put one's faith in the administrations
that are supposed to keep the church organised. If that's where your
faith lies, then someone whose church has a different administration is
obviously of the wrong faith.

Is that how you identify yourself? Is that how he identifies himself?


4) How respectful are you to people who believe differently?

If both people are able to discuss religion without arguing, then
doctrinal differences, especially if they aren't about core doctrines,
may be an interesting area of exploration and growth. But if they argue
a lot -- if they NEED the other person to agree -- that can be a
problem. Arguing about religion is among the most useless of all human
activities. Generally, when it comes to religious ideas -- or even
ideas ABOUT religion -- people believe whatever they want. It doesn't
have to be true, be demonstrable, or even be a proposition to which a
truth value could be assigned. Asking "Why do you think that?" is a
perfectly respectful and sensible thing to do, but going back and forth
over the same point trying to convince each other is a complete waste.
If a couple is going to spend a lot of time arguing in an attempt to
convert each other, that is likely to mean years of frustration.

Similar thoughts apply to religious practice. If both people are able
to do things out of respect for each other, then differences in practice
may also be interesting. I don't mean doing something "to humor
her/him", which implies disrespect, but rather St Ambrose's advice about
fasting on Saturday: "When I am at Rome, I fast on a Saturday; when I am
at Milan, I do not. Follow the custom of the church where you are." If
you think "I respect the people of this religious community, and follow
their customs because it's what they do here", then that's great. If
you're thinking "This is stupid, but if I don't do it then I'll get
nagged", that's not so good.


5) Having kids can change how you feel about things.

It helps if you agree what to tell the kids, and what to do with them,
in advance. If one feels strongly boys should be circumcised, and the
other regards that as primitive tribal genital mutilation, then there
may be some friction. If one is a strict young-earth creationist, and
the other is a geologist/evolutionary biologist/&c, they may be able to
joke about it when it's just them -- and then be at loggerheads when
"You told our little girl WHAT?"

In point (4), I suggested that you might be willing to follow some RC
practices out of respect for your husband. But your willingness to make
such a compromise for yourself may change when you're expected to make
it for the kids too.

***

There are some potential benefits to your situation.

A) If your kids see that you believe slightly different things and
still treat each other with love and respect, they will learn that
one does not have to attack others just for being different. You
can say of disagreements that "Mommy thinks one thing and Daddy
thinks another; we don't know who's right but it's not worth
fighting about".

B) Some religious groups tend to encourage reading of particular
writers and focus on particular kinds of art. Your situation might
serve to motivate you to read books from each others' religious
traditions, and open you up to things you wouldn't have encountered
otherwise.

C) Many people go through life without ever even wondering why others
disagree with their religion, or at best asking rhetorically "How
can people believe that?" without caring for the answer. Couples of
different religions will probably be spared that fate.

***

Here are some suggestions for what you should do:

1) Assume, right now, that neither of you is ever going to convert and
you'll have to find workarounds that are going to last for 60 years.
If you assume "Well, he'll see the light in a little while and then
everything will be fine", you may well have a seriously unhappy
result.


2) Each of you should figure out what you consider non-negotiable, and
then decide whether you can accomodate the other person's
requirements. This will help you discover whether you have any
inescapable incompatibilities.


3) If it's not completely unacceptable, you should try to attend
services together. Maybe alternating on Sundays, or going to the
8am service one place and the 10am service the other, or going to
Saturday services and then Sunday services if your groups have
services on different days, or whatever works out.


4) Find areas of agreement, and try to focus on them. Read books
by Christian authors (say, _God in the Dock_ by CS Lewis) together,
and talk about the relevant issues which come up.


5) Read each others' literature, insofar as there is any, so as to
learn more about each other. Remember Aristotle's dictum that
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a
thought without accepting it."

There are many books written by people explaining their religious
traditions without overly trying to convert their readers (there's a
"Why I Am A ______" series, for "Catholic" and "Lutheran", and
so on). You should each read the Lutheran and Catholic ones, and
talk about them while you're reading them.

Also, there are some humor books which might help lighten the
situation, with names such as _Growing Up Catholic_ and _Growing up
Lutheran_ (and _Growing Up Born Again_, &c.). You might both read
the relevant books here, too.


7) Neither person should use the marriage as a lever to modify the
religious ideas of the other. Even if it gets you the result you
want, you don't want it to come that way. The reason is that there
would be no way to tell if the other person was just going through
the motions to get you to stop nagging. No way to tell, that is,
until piled up resentment explodes in your face.


8) Develop a pattern of pleasant, sensible negotiation early on, and
you'll reap the benefits for decades to come. You'll be spending
Christmas and Thanksgiving as a married couple. Will you travel to
be with parents? Which set? A real tree or a fake tree? Giblets
in the stuffing, or not? (I wrote a post on this some years ago:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.marriage/msg/fa1f487af5b08aa2>
which you may like to see.)

To be clear, I don't suggest compromise if it will cost you anything
really important. Getting married isn't supposed to make you less
of the person you are; you shouldn't have to give up your hobbies,
or change your beliefs, or anything. But at the same time, being
married is about a big change in your life: you're not the only one
in it anymore. Making some changes is to be expected.

You might like to read _Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In_, by Roger Fisher and William Ury.


9) The best situation is for each spouse to assume that the other will
never convert religions, and that it would be totally pointless to
make efforts in that direction.


Yes, I know that (9) is just (1) repeated. But it's so terribly
important I felt I should say it twice. Maybe you're already planning
to convert, or he is. If so, it'll be a fabulous surprise. But neither
of you should be expecting it of the other one.

Devotion, in order for it to count, has to be voluntary, or it means
nothing. A commitment your spouse makes because you push them into it
isn't really a commitment they've made.


Darren Provine ! ***@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"That which is forced cannot be sincere, and that which is not voluntary
cannot please Christ." -- Desiderius Erasmus (ca. 1520)


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

As usual, Darren came up with some good points here, and they reminded me of

Post by Dr Nancy's Sweetie

I'm considering marrying an active Roman Catholic guy and I'm
Lutheran. I'm wondering if any of you in this group are experiencing
such a relationship and can offer any input or advice!

This has come up more than once over the years, in lots of newsgroups.
1) Religious differences *can be* a major problem.
2) Religions have varying requirements.
3) What percentage are you "Lutheran" as opposed to "Christian"?
4) How respectful are you to people who believe differently?
5) Having kids can change how you feel about things.
***
There are some potential benefits to your situation....
1) Assume, right now, that neither of you is ever going to convert and
you'll have to find workarounds that are going to last for 60 years.
2) Each of you should figure out what you consider non-negotiable, and
then decide whether you can accomodate the other person's
requirements.
3) If it's not completely unacceptable, you should try to attend
services together.
4) Find areas of agreement, and try to focus on them.
5) Read each others' literature, insofar as there is any.
[6) missing? I do it all the time, too, if my list is long enough]
7) Neither person should use the marriage as a lever to modify the
religious ideas of the other.
8) Develop a pattern of pleasant, sensible negotiation early on
9) The best situation is for each spouse to assume that the other will
never convert religions, and that it would be totally pointless to
make efforts in that direction.

Sometimes seeing others' walks down this same path can be useful. What Darren's
post reminded me of was a book I would recommend for you to read together with
your dear one: "From This Day Forward", by Steve (Jewish) and Cokie (Catholic)
Roberts, which is available on amazon, barnes and noble etc. etc.

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Arthur Klassen
Sometimes seeing others' walks down this same path can be useful. What Darren's
post reminded me of was a book I would recommend for you to read together with
your dear one: "From This Day Forward", by Steve (Jewish) and Cokie (Catholic)
Roberts, which is available on amazon, barnes and noble etc. etc.

I haven't read the book and may never, but I would bet there is some very
liberal views presented (well, consider the source to start with).

Talk about unequally yoked!

There is only one......one.....situation where a couple can be unequally yoked
and have that marriage approved by God.

So there isn't ANYTHING positive that can be said about it, otherwise. Nothing
period. NOTHING positive can be said about disobedience to God. It's SIN,
plain and simple.

The marriage cannot even be justified, and attempting to justify such a
marriage is compounding the existing sin.

Good things happen to disobedient people just as bad things happen to obedient
people. But we should never attempt to prosper by dressing up sin and making
it appear ok.

The world does that! And unfortunately too many so-called Christians are doing
that today. The result is that the world is going to hell in a handbasket, to
use a common term. Certainly the world is going to hell, but much of the
"church crowd" will be there with them.

"Woe unto them who call evil good and good evil". That's a pretty strong
statement and it comes from God. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

DISCLAIMER: The Robert's union may be one in which the "unequal yoke" was
laid upon AFTER their marriage vows, I don't know. If so, then what I said
above does not apply to them.


Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[William Donges]

It seems spectacular that anyone that believes salvation is by grace would
be concerned at all with the doctrinal practices of another denomination.
Most of religious expression in almost all denominations is based upon human
need and desire rather then of an established need. I have yet to find an
established denomination that does not add to gods word in some way. Either
via tradition or doctrine. Rome has certainly done so abundantly. They are
hardly unique. Doctrines such as Sola Scriptura are equally ascriptural. And
very few actually in practice believe in salvation by grace alone. They
generally propose that faith is a require condition of the reception of
grace and faith is an action. Or else they take the position that faith is a
consequence of grace and therefore those who are unfaithful must not have
received that grace.

It is strange that I should venture into these waters so many years after I
last was active here and see so many voices that are familiar. Perhaps
there is purpose in everything.

To the original inquiry I would say this.

Advice about uneven yoking is sound. The concern however should not be about
the doctrine or belief of a fellowship but rather whether your own
understanding of what is to be Christian is compatible with that of your
spouse. This requires deep personal inquiry and discussion. If however it
leads either of you to feel a need to compromise your faith there is liable
to be serious problems along the way.

William E. Donges III


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by William Donges
It seems spectacular that anyone that believes salvation is by grace would
be concerned at all with the doctrinal practices of another denomination.

This sounds like the title of an old song I remember: "If Men Go To Hell Who
Cares"?

You wouldn't toss a drowning man a live preserver even if he didn't want it?

Post by William Donges
To the original inquiry I would say this.
Advice about uneven yoking is sound. The concern however should not
be about the doctrine or belief of a fellowship but rather whether your
own understanding of what is to be Christian is compatible with that of
your spouse. This requires deep personal inquiry and discussion. If
however it leads either of you to feel a need to compromise your faith
there is liable to be serious problems along the way.

Good advice.


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen
"From This Day Forward", by Steve
(Jewish) and Cokie (Catholic) Roberts, which is available on amazon,
barnes and noble etc. etc.

I haven't read the book and may never, but I would bet there is some very
liberal views presented (well, consider the source to start with).

What I'm hearing behind this is that you think that "liberal views" are a reason
to write it off, leave it be, walk on by and ignore any wisdom that "making it
work" over the long haul may have enabled them to share. Is that so?

If so, I disagree. My marriage has benefited from this book -- we're not divided
across faiths or even denominations but we are somewhat cross cultural and I
found it helpful.

Of course, there's some ambiguity here and I wonder about it: I've also grown up
with the "unequally yoked" verse ringing in my ears and I was careful to select
a fellow believer as my wife. So I wonder if that was never taught as important
when she (Cokie) was growing up. Still, making a marriage work over the long
haul is worth some kind of honour and they do go into how they navigated the
waters they set out for themselves, practical help that the asker of the
question on this group might benefit from regardless of the political
orientation of the storytellers.

Post by Jim Dykes
Talk about unequally yoked!
There is only one......one.....situation where a couple can be unequally
yoked and have that marriage approved by God.
So there isn't ANYTHING positive that can be said about it, otherwise.
Nothing period. NOTHING positive can be said about disobedience to God.
It's SIN, plain and simple.
...
[... and more very absolute statements ...]

So... there's no possibility that this could come under John's measure of "sin
that does not lead to death"? (I John 5:16,17) I rather think it does and if
someone who isn't quite as careful to be as doctrinally correct as some of us
here, comes along asking for wisdom, I'll try to give it with both barrels:
spiritual, directly from Scripture and what Scripture clearly teaches; and from
age and experience -- those of others where mine isn't sufficient to qualify yet.

Perhaps this looks like a compromise with the world to some. I think it is not.
Instead, I think this is being "in the world but not of it". And if a marriage
can be established and strengthened, made to last between these two, there is
something in -Practically- living out the mystery which may drive them to seek
out the Greater than themselves ("and you will seek me and you will find
me..."). And there is wisdom in the world that isn't necessarily worldly. If we
disagree at that point, then so be it.

Looking at what she's posting to other places on google groups, her young man is
headed to Iraq, so if they marry and if/when he comes home, there'll be
struggles no matter how close their starting point is. They'll have a corner of
my prayers either way.

cheers...ank

[Judy Taylor]

Jim, here is one review of the book Arthur mentions
Don't ask me who Mengo is - apparently he reviews stuff like baby car
seats as well as books ... FWIW

Mengo reviewed:
From This Day Forward by Cokie Roberts - Fun, light, cheery...,
September 26, 2001 - quote:
"I picked up this book for $5 at Borders, mainly because I enjoy
listening to Cokie Roberts on NPR. I was curious to get to know her a
little better. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. She and Steve take turns
writing, as if they're dialoguing back and forth. I appreciated their
commitment to their marriage in a day when it's not all that popular to
stay married to the same person. I also enjoyed the glimpses into slave
marriages and Old West marriages. I'm glad I picked up this book. It
was a pleasant read for sure."

judyt: I have to admit - this makes me curious even though Mengo does
not appear to have had any kind of spiritual epiphany
by reading it - Possibly neither of the authors know the Lord in a
personal way. If they are both nominal religious ppl - he Jewish and
she RCC - then they would be equally yoked - both nice folk who are
presently walking in darkness. I enjoyed Cokie myself when she was on TV
she has had an interesting life, her late father was a Senator from LA.
Old West and slave marriages ???? Now that could be an education.

Post by Arthur Klassen

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen
"From This Day Forward", by Steve
(Jewish) and Cokie (Catholic) Roberts, which is available on amazon,
barnes and noble etc. etc.

I haven't read the book and may never, but I would bet there is some very
liberal views presented (well, consider the source to start with).

What I'm hearing behind this is that you think that "liberal views" are a reason
to write it off, leave it be, walk on by and ignore any wisdom that "making it
work" over the long haul may have enabled them to share. Is that so?
If so, I disagree. My marriage has benefited from this book -- we're not divided
across faiths or even denominations but we are somewhat cross cultural and I
found it helpful.
Of course, there's some ambiguity here and I wonder about it: I've also grown up
with the "unequally yoked" verse ringing in my ears and I was careful to select
a fellow believer as my wife. So I wonder if that was never taught as important
when she (Cokie) was growing up. Still, making a marriage work over the long
haul is worth some kind of honour and they do go into how they navigated the
waters they set out for themselves, practical help that the asker of the
question on this group might benefit from regardless of the political
orientation of the storytellers.

Post by Jim Dykes
Talk about unequally yoked!
There is only one......one.....situation where a couple can be unequally
yoked and have that marriage approved by God.
So there isn't ANYTHING positive that can be said about it, otherwise.
Nothing period. NOTHING positive can be said about disobedience to God.
It's SIN, plain and simple.
...
[... and more very absolute statements ...]

So... there's no possibility that this could come under John's measure of "sin
that does not lead to death"? (I John 5:16,17) I rather think it does and if
someone who isn't quite as careful to be as doctrinally correct as some of us
spiritual, directly from Scripture and what Scripture clearly teaches; and from
age and experience -- those of others where mine isn't sufficient to qualify yet.
Perhaps this looks like a compromise with the world to some. I think it is not.
Instead, I think this is being "in the world but not of it". And if a marriage
can be established and strengthened, made to last between these two, there is
something in -Practically- living out the mystery which may drive them to seek
out the Greater than themselves ("and you will seek me and you will find
me..."). And there is wisdom in the world that isn't necessarily worldly. If we
disagree at that point, then so be it.
Looking at what she's posting to other places on google groups, her young man is
headed to Iraq, so if they marry and if/when he comes home, there'll be
struggles no matter how close their starting point is. They'll have a corner of
my prayers either way.
cheers...ank

For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

When I opened the message, I found that Arthur Klassen replied to what Jim Dykes had written about

Post by Arthur Klassen
What I'm hearing behind this is that you think that "liberal views" are a reason
to write it off, leave it be, walk on by and ignore any wisdom that "making it
work" over the long haul may have enabled them to share. Is that so?

I believe we were talking about spiritual things. At least I have been.
Unless wisdom is "Godly" it is the wisdom of man. And the wisdom of man isn't
spiritual in the strictest sense.

Judy mentioned something about the book probably not being written from a
spiritual standpoint inasmuch as both authors were "religious". So, in reality
the book doesn't even fall under the realm of what we were discussing anyway.

Post by Arthur Klassen
If so, I disagree. My marriage has benefited from this book -- we're not divided
across faiths or even denominations but we are somewhat cross cultural and I
found it helpful.

Anything we need to know about marriage we can find in God's word or in books
written from a spiritual standpoint.

I'm not faulting anyone from reading the book! I'm just saying I wouldn't read
it because I don't read such books from such authors. If I want to improve my
marriage I just read my Bible a little more, pray for my wife and our marriage
a little more, and love my wife a little more.

As for dismissing liberal views......yes, I do, both spiritually and
politically.

Post by Arthur Klassen
Of course, there's some ambiguity here and I wonder about it: I've also grown up
with the "unequally yoked" verse ringing in my ears and I was careful to select
a fellow believer as my wife. So I wonder if that was never taught as important
when she (Cokie) was growing up. Still, making a marriage work over the long
haul is worth some kind of honour and they do go into how they navigated the
waters they set out for themselves, practical help that the asker of the
question on this group might benefit from regardless of the political
orientation of the storytellers.

Cokie was in disobedience from day one, then. How much do you want to hear
from someone living their life in flagrant disobedience to God? Again, Art,
I'm not criticizing you. I'm just pointing out to you a Godly/Biblical
principal. I don't think any less of you because you read the book. I'm glad
you think you found something helpful by doing so.

You mentioned "ambiguity"! In the book? Did you think you could possibly read
a liberal bood without finding a lot of ambiguity?

Post by Arthur Klassen

Post by Jim Dykes
Talk about unequally yoked!
There is only one......one.....situation where a couple can be unequally
yoked and have that marriage approved by God.
So there isn't ANYTHING positive that can be said about it, otherwise.
Nothing period. NOTHING positive can be said about disobedience to God.
It's SIN, plain and simple.

...

Post by Arthur Klassen

Post by Jim Dykes
[... and more very absolute statements ...]

So... there's no possibility that this could come under John's measure of "sin
that does not lead to death"? (I John 5:16,17) I rather think it does and if
someone who isn't quite as careful to be as doctrinally correct as some of us
spiritual, directly from Scripture and what Scripture clearly teaches; and from
age and experience -- those of others where mine isn't sufficient to qualify yet.

There you go, Art! I wrote about how folks misunderstand teachings and
doctrines! If I preach against sin, I preach that one is going to hell???? Or
that one has committed a sin unto death??? No way! Folks tend to go to
extreme when they hear something with which they do not agree! Don't argue
with me about it. Take it up with God!

Post by Arthur Klassen
Perhaps this looks like a compromise with the world to some. I think it is not.
Instead, I think this is being "in the world but not of it". And if a marriage
can be established and strengthened, made to last between these two, there is
something in -Practically- living out the mystery which may drive them to seek
out the Greater than themselves ("and you will seek me and you will find
me..."). And there is wisdom in the world that isn't necessarily worldly. If we
disagree at that point, then so be it.

Yes, I learned that 2+2=4 from the world. The world accepts it. It works.
However, I don't know whether that equation is correct in God's eyes or not
<smile>.

I feel differently, though, about where we find wisdom. And this is just me
and me alone. I read far too little of God's words as it is! And any time I
pick up a book to read, it will most be usually a spiritual book. No, I'm not
super spiritual. I'm a dirty, rotten sinner just like you! And capable,
except for God's grace, to be a heck of a lot worse than anyone on this list.
I'm just saying how I feel and how I react.......not how EVERYONE, should
react. When I preach, I'm preaching to myself, Art! We must do that and even
then we don't get "preached at" enough <smile>.

I hope you can accept what I have said and try to better understand me as a
fellow servant of the Lord. Yes, I'm very fundamental. That is a couple
strikes against me right up front with a lot of folks, but I think God
appreciates it. I sure trust that he does!

Post by Arthur Klassen
Looking at what she's posting to other places on google groups, her young man is
headed to Iraq, so if they marry and if/when he comes home, there'll be
struggles no matter how close their starting point is. They'll have a corner of
my prayers either way.

But of course!

However, she asked for advice, did she not?

Never withhold Godly, Biblical advice! Amen?


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Jim Dykes

Post by Arthur Klassen
What I'm hearing behind this is that you think that "liberal views" are
a reason to write it off, leave it be, walk on by and ignore any wisdom
that "making it work" over the long haul may have enabled them to share.
Is that so?

...
As for dismissing liberal views......yes, I do, both spiritually and
politically.

I see. Then there's probably no point in my going on on this topic because even
when I disagree with someone's views (and I'm not "liberal" in any sense of the
word, except perhaps the Chestertonian), what they say is worth examining at
least once. And if they are thoughtful and coherent, not inflammatory nor
outright blasphemous on their very surface, they may be worth pondering and
weighing more fully, since I am convinced that no human or collection of humans
(Jesus follower(s) or otherwise) is 100% right nor 100% wrong about everything
(and therein lies my fundamental quibble with the claims of the bishop of Rome
and Co.).

But I want you to know one other thing: I may disagree with you on some points,
but my strongest intention in this discussion was nothing more than to try to
understand what you were saying. I think I said that I disagreed with you a
couple of times in there, too, but mostly I was trying to restate what you were
saying, in the way that I'd understood it, with the intention of offering you a
chance to correct what I thought you said. I was not trying to argue with you.

From what you wrote, it seems that you thought I was. I see that I failed to
communicate clearly and for that I ask your indulgence.

cheers...ank

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Arthur Klassen
But I want you to know one other thing: I may disagree with you on some points,
but my strongest intention in this discussion was nothing more than to try to
understand what you were saying. I think I said that I disagreed with you a
couple of times in there, too, but mostly I was trying to restate what you were
saying, in the way that I'd understood it, with the intention of offering you a
chance to correct what I thought you said. I was not trying to argue with you.

Sorry if I failed to clarify something for you, Art.

If you want to ask for specific clarification, I'd be most happy to explain my
views.



Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Wow! It seems I cried alack and let slip the dogs of [verbal] war. I hope and
pray that more good than harm will result.

I pulled back before, entirely, because I felt burdened to make myself
understood. I'm determined not to draw back so thoroughly again -- but what it
will mean is that I'm going to be selective about to what and to whom I reply.
Above all things, I desire that we as believers would all find the right common
ground. Not the common ground that says, "Come join me for I am of Menno and
comrade Menno is always right!" (hat tips towards George Orwell at this point)
"... I am of John Wimber ..."
"... I am of such-and-such Baptist convention ... "
"... I am of Martin Luther ..."
"...I am of Christ -- as mediated by his vicar and the magisterium..."

So, in the succeeding firestorm I inadvertently started by trying to be real,

...
Catholics basically believe three truths and the conclusions that
follow from them. The first, which also is believed by many non-
Catholics, both other Christians and non-Christians, is that God
exists. The conclusions that follow from this belief include an
obligation to worship Him and to obey His laws.
The second, which also is believed by Eastern Orthodox Christians and
by orthodox Protestants, is that Jesus of Nazareth was and is God
incarnate, that God became a man in Jesus Christ, died on the Cross
for our sins, and rose from the dead. ( ... [loved the re-framing of John
3:16 -- it sounded so Chestertonian] ... )The
conclusions that follow from that truth include an obligation to
accept the teachings of Jesus as the teachings of God, because that is
who He is.
.
The third truth, which is specifically Catholic, is that Jesus founded
the Catholic Church as His Church to teach in His name and with His
authority, with the Apostles as the first bishops and St. Peter as the
first Pope. If someone really accepts that statement as true,
cafeteria Catholicism makes no sense at all.

I have no problems with the first or second propositions. I would agree that
they are truth and I can only marvel at how narrow must be my own experience. I
know that in many so-called mainline churches the second truth is set
essentially at nought (in which case, I don't see any validity in calling them
"Christian". But from my birth, within an Evangelical Anabaptist denomination
(not quite Protestant -- in the 16th century we were equally hated, hounded and
martyred, indiscriminately by Lutheran, Calvinist and Catholic alike, except for
certain princes who granted us safe havens here and there), I bumped into two or
three individuals, none of them in teaching authority, who failed to accept it.
I think you are gravely mistaken if you think that the vast majority of active
members of Evangelical churches deny it.

And in counter, I would say that there are many Catholics-in-name-only who have
never given this a second thought, nor considered what it implied. Instead they
have gone straight to the third proposition, and believed, obeyed and followed
it religiously (in the truest sense), confident that doing so will make them
safe before God. Would you agree with me that acknowledging the 1st and 3rd
without dealing with the 2nd is dangerous, just as acknowledging the 1st while
discounting the 2nd and denying the 3rd would be -- though perhaps to a
different degree of danger?

The third proposition is hardly accepted universally, at least not in that form,
not even by those which of which the Roman See says that they are more closely
related (I forget the exact terminology). This is why I really want to use
catholic to mean something different than Catholic -- and yes, we have some of
the St. Pius XI Society gang here in BC, so I know what you mean about some
Catholics preferring to be called Roman as well.

I don't believe that in the developed sense in which you stated it, that the 3rd
proposition would stand up to the kind of scrutiny, for instance, that N. T.
Wright, from a position of "critical realism" subjects the gospels to -- where
the gospels come through not only unscathed but strengthened by the analysis.
(what delicious 2400 pages to read, by the way! oh if only I could take the time
to write like that -- I hope he gets the other three volumes out before age,
infirmity or his passing prevent it)

But you're right, that if you accept it, then cafeteria Catholicism makes no
sense. I think the reason that cafeteria Catholicism is so popular in the west
is that when societies have come out from under autocratic governments and
stayed there for long enough, the whole agenda implied by the third proposition
makes less and less sense to them. For the rest of us, (Divided Brethren is the
term, I think?) I mean for those of us who rejoice to agree with the other two
propositions, the third one looks like the kind of negotiable term we've had to
recognize in our own confessions in order to suspend absolute allegiance to so
that we could fellowship freely with others who were clearly believers from
other denominations. The sooner Catholics recognize that for themselves, the
sooner we can all grow closer together, co-operating at ever deeper and deeper
levels to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, preach the Good News
to the poor and the other things Jesus inaugurated in the synagogue in Galilee
when he finished, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

I also (sadly) understand that because this third proposition is theologically
like the Law of the Medes and Persians for Catholics, this change is not likely
to happen in my lifetime, but it is one of the larger issues I chiefly travail
over. I've received no Simeonic promise about seeing it come about, but I am
open to the idea.

(So let me sign off in a minor footnote answer to Jim's concerns, at least for
my part, instead of "cheers..." -- and maybe I'll get back to this some time
next week)

trusting Jesus...ank

[Judy Taylor]

Hi Arthur,

I had forgotten you live in BC, which is such a beautiful province or
was when I lived there.
I find the bits of Anabaptist history you share to be really interesting
and agree that Marty's
third proposition is speculative. If only we could unite around the
truth and allow the
teachings of men to fall away .... all of them.

Grace and Peace, judyt

Arthur Klassen wrote: (in part)

Post by Arthur Klassen
The third proposition is hardly accepted universally, at least not in that form,
not even by those which of which the Roman See says that they are more closely
related (I forget the exact terminology). This is why I really want to use
catholic to mean something different than Catholic -- and yes, we have some of
the St. Pius XI Society gang here in BC, so I know what you mean about some
Catholics preferring to be called Roman as well.
I don't believe that in the developed sense in which you stated it, that the 3rd
proposition would stand up to the kind of scrutiny, for instance, that N. T.
Wright, from a position of "critical realism" subjects the gospels to -- where
the gospels come through not only unscathed but strengthened by the analysis.
(what delicious 2400 pages to read, by the way! oh if only I could take the time
to write like that -- I hope he gets the other three volumes out before age,
infirmity or his passing prevent it)
But you're right, that if you accept it, then cafeteria Catholicism makes no
sense. I think the reason that cafeteria Catholicism is so popular in the west
is that when societies have come out from under autocratic governments and
stayed there for long enough, the whole agenda implied by the third proposition
makes less and less sense to them. For the rest of us, (Divided Brethren is the
term, I think?) I mean for those of us who rejoice to agree with the other two
propositions, the third one looks like the kind of negotiable term we've had to
recognize in our own confessions in order to suspend absolute allegiance to so
that we could fellowship freely with others who were clearly believers from
other denominations. The sooner Catholics recognize that for themselves, the
sooner we can all grow closer together, co-operating at ever deeper and deeper
levels to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, preach the Good News
to the poor and the other things Jesus inaugurated in the synagogue in Galilee
when he finished, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
I also (sadly) understand that because this third proposition is theologically
like the Law of the Medes and Persians for Catholics, this change is not likely
to happen in my lifetime, but it is one of the larger issues I chiefly travail
over. I've received no Simeonic promise about seeing it come about, but I am
open to the idea.
(So let me sign off in a minor footnote answer to Jim's concerns, at least for
my part, instead of "cheers..." -- and maybe I'll get back to this some time
next week)
trusting Jesus...ank

For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Arthur Klassen]

Post by Judy Taylor
Arthur Klassen wrote: (in part)

... the kind of scrutiny, for instance, that N. T. Wright, from a
position of "critical realism" subjects the gospels to -- where the
gospels come through not only unscathed but strengthened by the
analysis.
(what delicious 2400 pages to read, by the way! oh if only I could
take the time to write like that -- I hope he gets the other three
volumes out before age, infirmity or his passing prevent it)

I allowed my enthusiasm to run amok here. So far the series "Christian Origins
and the Question of God" has only run to three volumes of about 400 pages each.
My arithmetic error will be plain to all from there. The pages were still
delicious -- though the first time I was rushed in reading them because the chap
I was borrowing them from wanted to take them with him on a trip. My family took
note and purchased the three volumes for me for Christmas. Talk about a gift
that keeps on giving!

Then...

Post by Judy Taylor
Hi Arthur,
I had forgotten you live in BC, which is such a beautiful province or
was when I lived there.

Still is. There are things that are changing, and more forests of trees in the
Fraser Valley that have become forests of human habitations instead. But people
are beautiful, too (I admit being partial to tall evergreens but must remind
myself that they never were made in God's image), and we are more cosmopolitan
and mixed than ever before. C'mon back some time.

Post by Judy Taylor
I find the bits of Anabaptist history you share to be really interesting
and agree that Marty's third proposition is speculative.

Thank you for your interest. For more information and the beginnings of a
bibliography, I can think of worse places to start than wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist

I confess to being more interested in removing what parts of my own belief
structure are largely speculative than in doing so for others -- mind you I
suppose I'll be drawn into some kind of "judgment" of what others (meaning to be
helpful) suggest are those speculative bits and what I should replace them with,
but I'll try to restrain myself unless someone engages me on the point directly.

Grace and peace to you also, too, Judy, both
towards yourself and your household, and
from you in all your communications (electronic and otherwise)
towards others.

cheers...ank

[Judy Taylor]

Greetings Marty!

May the Lord have mercy on Frank Sheed's soul, he writes about things he
knows not. The scriptures are only a riddle to he who is void of the
Spirit -
Actually they were spoken/written to be revealed rather than solved as
Jesus
points out when questioned by his followers in Matt 13:10-16.

The Church Jesus left at his resurrection and the one he will return for
looks
nothing like the authoritarian structure headquartered in Rome who for
the past 2,000yrs
has added to, subtracted from the Word of God at will.

Grace and Peace, judyt



***@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU wrote:

Without the authoritative teaching of the Church on that matter
Christians would have no way of knowing which explanation was
correct.

As Catholic author and publisher Frank Sheed pointed out, if
Jesus had left us only the Bible, then, although the Bible is
inspired, He would not have left us a revelation, but a riddle, and a
riddle we could never be sure we had solved correctly. Jesus did not
leave us only the Bible. He also left us a church to teach
authoritatively in His name.


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Judy Taylor
May the Lord have mercy on Frank Sheed's soul, he writes about things
he knows not. The scriptures are only a riddle to he who is void of
the Spirit - Actually they were spoken/written to be revealed rather
than solved as Jesus points out when questioned by his followers in
Matt 13:10-16.

Hey Judy!! Long time no hear!

I went nomail a long time ago and for some reason, I received the message
about the marriage question. Nothing is coincidental, is it <smile>.

Good to hear/read you!

As I read his statement, and your reply, I was reminded of the "natural Man"
who hasn't the spirit to guide him:

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are
spiritually discerned.

Post by Judy Taylor
The Church Jesus left at his resurrection and the one he will return
for looks nothing like the authoritarian structure headquartered in
Rome who for the past 2,000yrs has added to, subtracted from the Word
of God at will.

So true, Judy, but we get attacked for pointing that out!

When the "Roll is Called Up Yonder" there's be so many who will be taken aback
when Jesus says, "depart from me......I never knew ye". They spent their time
on earth obeying man and attempting to do "good works". For what? For naught!
Only to be told: Go away!

Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

The Catholic Church has not added to the teachings of the apostles.
It has drawn out the implications of the teachings and settled
questions of interpretation.

Settled it for whom?

So then, the truth is established by MAN for the Catholics.

It's also established by MAN for the Mormons.

God's word tells us that the scriptures isn't subject to any private
interpretation.

So for any priest, preacher, or whatever, to tell me "this means that" isn't
correct.

While those "over us" may be responsible for us, it is "we" who are responsible
for our eternity. If you want to leave your eternity in the hands of some man,
you are free to do so. However, "my" eternity is much to important to let a
man tell me how to preserve it.

Why is it that when someone witnesses to a JW, Catholic or Mormon, they pretend
to believe just like you do....with a couple of twists. Well, those couple of
twists may land folks in hell.

Yesterday in a reply to a message I posted, you (I believe it was you) quoted
the part of your doctrine that agreed with mine. Why?

True, we don't need to quibble over doctrines that will separate us in
eternity. I totally agree with that. We spend far too much time doing that.

However, we simply MUST expose truth and error as we prayerfully understand it.

Since I believe with all my heart, mind and soul that it requires only faith in
Jesus Christ, is it not my duty to preach that?

I further believe just as strongly that folks depending on:

The Blood of Christ plus
Baptism plus
Sacrements plus
Good, clean living plus
Church Attendance plus
Giving, plus

In other words, a belief in Jesus Christ plus "anything" else as a requirement
for salvation is "not" saving faith.

Should I not proclaim it? Should I not be able to use God's word to show it?

Just because "man" decided that one must be baptized to be saved, does not make
it so. It is contrary to God's word.

Just because "man" says there is some redeeming value in baptism, does not make
it true.

Just because "man" says it is ok to have graven images before you, doesn't make
it true. God commanded otherwise.

I am commanded to spread the gospel. And the good news is that we don't have
to live in sin. God made a way for us to escape a doomed eternity. That way
cost God His only begotten son! Jesus died on the cross for all who would
believe. He was buried and raised again on the third day and is now seated at
the right hand of God. But the simplest of all the good news is that WE ONLY
HAVE TO BELIEVE the gospel to be saved. WE DO NOT HAVE TO BELIEVE
ANYTHING THAT ANY MAN HAS SAID ABOUT ANYTHING!!

There are no further requirements for salvation. None PERIOD!

But, moving forward, there are many requirements that we should take joy in
where living a life pleasing to the Lord is concerned.

Please note the TOTAL difference!




For example, the Bible refers to Jesus

as God. The Bible also refers to Jesus as a man. How can both of
those statements be true? Some people in the early centuries of
Christianity tried to answer that question by saying that He wasn't
really a man. They said that God just took on the external
appearances of a man. Some other people in the early centuries of
Christianity tried to answer that question by saying he wasn't really
God. They said that God just acted through the man Jesus in a special
way. The Catholic Church examined both of those claims, and other
attempts to explain away the Incarnation, and rejected them. In
creeds and the documents of the early ecumenical councils, such as
Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, the Chuch defined the doctrine
that Jesus is true God and true man and explained some of what that
meant. Heresies such as Arianism and Nestorianism were rejected.
Without the authoritative teaching of the Church on that matter
Christians would have no way of knowing which explanation was
correct.

The Catholic Church is no authority on anything......except unlearned folks who
choose to accept their authority. Then it really isn't authority, but an
assumed position, allowed by whomever will accept it.

The Bible is our authority!

The problem is, though, we can only understand it with the help of the Holy
Spirit. If we want wisdom do we go to a priest? God tells us to ask God,
not a man.

The reason folks don't understand the Bible is because they don't have the Holy
Spirit or they don't try.

It's clear! It's simple......the gospel message, that is. There's a lot we have no need to
know and never will know, probably, but anyone, unless terribly mentally handicapped,
can understand how to be saved.......unless we get to him with all the stuff he has to do
and has to believe. We prevent souls from being saved spouting all that goobly
goop! "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Oh, I think
we have to tell folks what believing is at times. It isn't just a mental
assent. But we certainly don't need to hang and requirements on it! The only
requirement beyond faith was alreaddy hanged.......on the cross.


As Catholic author and publisher Frank Sheed pointed out, if

Jesus had left us only the Bible, then, although the Bible is
inspired, He would not have left us a revelation, but a riddle, and a
riddle we could never be sure we had solved correctly. Jesus did not
leave us only the Bible. He also left us a church to teach
authoritatively in His name.

Show me that in the Bible?

Wonder why he didn't leave you folks the Book of Mormon? Are they any
different? They base their religion on the writings/interpretations of man.
The Catholics base their religion on the writings/interpretations of man also.
So do all religions except Christianity.

When we mix works with faith for salvation, we have no salvation.

James said that faith without works is dead. I haven't any problem with that
scripture. Because where was no faith to start with......it was dead.

Faith that brings salvation will produce works, but works will never bring
salvation.


Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Marty,

This is Tom Sathre, another voice out of your past. Your CHRISTIA email
comes to me, too, from your defunct account; it seems that there must be a
"stale pointer" somewhere in the software.

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F)
[phone] (New House)

[Original Message]
Date: 5/26/2007 11:01:17 PM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?
<SNIP>

Post by Jim Dykes
BTW, you might want to check the return email address you are using. I
accidently included it in a couple messages I replied to and they were

returned
550 No

Post by Jim Dykes
such local user (in reply to RCPT TO command)

Thank you. That account was shut down several years ago. The current
account through which I subscribe to CHRISTIA is identified in my
signature below. I posted my replies through Google Groups so that if
in the future I want to find what I have posted on some subject I can
find those postings along with the ones I posted using that account
when it was still active by searching Google Groups for that address
as sender. Christia is a Listserv list and is gatewayed to Usenet as
bit.listserv.christa
--
Marty Helgesen
gmail userid: mnhccatcunyvm
"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That
number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion."
"Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and
their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry."
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Friends,

Would someone please rebut this article rather than ignore it? ... or are
we simply demonstrating how we can ignore each other?

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/

[Original Message]
Date: 5/27/2007 12:03:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

Post by Jim Dykes

I've known of people who call themselves "Baptists" <snip> who are

also depending on

Post by Jim Dykes

something other than God's grace (Doctrinal purity comes to mind, for

one

Post by Jim Dykes

thing).

Hmmmmm! No doubt you and I travel in diferent circles, because of the

hundreds

Post by Jim Dykes
of thousands of Baptists I have known, they'd be the "last" people on

earth who

Post by Jim Dykes
depend on anything but grace through faith.
The problem is that some aren't clear enough in their sermons or

conversations

Post by Jim Dykes
to remove any doubt as to what they are referring..........SALVATION or
Christian Living. I always make that clear.
First, we are saved by grace through faith. Nothing else is rquired

PERIOD!!

Here is an article on the idea of faith alone written by a former
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp
-----
Marty Helgesen
Mygmailuseridis mnhccatcunyvm
"Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 Blacks were lynched in the U.S. That
number is surpassed in less than 3 days by abortion."
"Since 1973 there has been over 13 million Black children killed and
their precious mothers victimized by the U.S. abortion industry."
http://www.blackgenocide.org/
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre
Would someone please rebut this article rather than ignore it? ... or are
we simply demonstrating how we can ignore each other?

You mean this one?

Post by Tom Sathre
Here is an article on the idea of faith alone written by a former

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp

Why?

I, for one, have alread had my say on the matter.

The man is entitled to his opinion, even through it is wrong. He simply went
off the deep end. The fact that "he" changed Got's word. "Forever, Oh Lord,
thy word is settled in heaven ".

If it was settled then, why do we need "man" to settle it now???



Regards,

Jim

For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.

http://shorl.com/hapomopromela


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Post by Jim Dykes

I get the impression that you are looking for certain words, and if
someone doesn't use those exact words you assume they don't believe
what you believe.

Not at all!
I KNOW of the teachings of the RCC and their rites, etc, etc, etc.

Jim,

Please quote these teachings from RCC sources. We both know people who are
nominal RCCs but are incompletely or inadequately catechized; don't bother
quoting from anti-RCC sources either please. Yes, I know that's a lot of
work for you but maybe you can turn this request into an opportunity to
treat the rest of us as you would like to be treated. (I'm interested to
note that the RCC people who have engaged you this time do not state that
they KNOW your religion better than you do.)

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre

Post by Jim Dykes
I KNOW of the teachings of the RCC and their rites, etc, etc, etc.

What I sad above isn't exactly correct. I only know "some" of the teachings.
I know enough to know their doctrine is dangerous. How much leaven does it
take to spoil a loaf?

Post by Tom Sathre
Please quote these teachings from RCC sources. We both know people who are
nominal RCCs but are incompletely or inadequately catechized; don't bother
quoting from anti-RCC sources either please. Yes, I know that's a lot of
work for you but maybe you can turn this request into an opportunity to
treat the rest of us as you would like to be treated. (I'm interested to
note that the RCC people who have engaged you this time do not state that
they KNOW your religion better than you do.)

What I find, and I commented on it earlier, is that, in this case (one person)
quoted his own doctrine, but only the part that would make others think that he
and I held to the same doctrine. It was like looking at a boquet and saying
there were red, blue, orange and yellow flowers. We both see them! However,
there were, red, blue, orange, yellow "and" pink flowers. This is only to make
a point of what was said. Certainly a boquet of flowers aren't all that
important..............but if I were alergic to pink blossoms and they were
deadly poison to me, it could be a matter of life and death. Much the same as
the RCC doctrine. The part he quoted, with nothing else in the "boquet" would
be eternal salvation, possibly, but the part he failed to quote in his attempt
(it seems) to be like evangelicals, is deadly, eternally, poison!

Now if he is honest, sincere and ignorant, that's a color of a different
horse!! But, I would think he's trying to "shuck" us much like the Mormons do
when they go on their rounds.

But, it is possible he was totally ignorant of the RCC teachings. My best
friend in the world, after my wife, came to our church from a Christian Church
(Church of Christ). They believed exactly the same way we fundamental Baptists
believed. I couldn't believe it, because their doctrine makes baptism
"essential" to salvation.........salvation isn't even salvation until one hits
the water! My friend and his wife were taken aback at this! They simply HAD
NOT been taught the proper doctrine of the denomination. Praise God for that!
Their pastor wasn't doing his job properly, considering that he should have
been preaching the doctrine of the church. Seems sort of deceptive to me, and
therefore not something a preacher should engage in. I'm glad he did that,
though, because they didn't have to be "untaught" a false doctrine and moved on
in our church without missing a beat.

That is why we must be careful to distinguish a Catholic, for example, from the
RCC doctrine. If they have learned it all and hold to it all, that's one
thing, but to be ignorant of the damning portion of it, would be a blessing.
Oh there are those who say they reject the "works" part of the RCC where
salvation is concerned, but they are still in the church. Why? Family,
mostly, I would imagine.

Well, we know what Jesus said about that! If one can't reject one's family in
the face of error, that one is in bad standing with God <smile>. I know it
sure would be hard! But, we weren't promised an easy row to hoe! On the
contrary!!



Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Jim,

Yes - the article that Marty named.

... and, since you bring it up, I don't think there's any llimit to the
number of times you need to repeat yourself.

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/

[Original Message]
Date: 5/27/2007 4:21:04 PM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

Post by Tom Sathre
Would someone please rebut this article rather than ignore it? ... or

are

Post by Tom Sathre
we simply demonstrating how we can ignore each other?

You mean this one?

Post by Tom Sathre
Here is an article on the idea of faith alone written by a former

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9710chap.asp

Why?
I, for one, have alread had my say on the matter.
The man is entitled to his opinion, even through it is wrong. He simply

went

off the deep end. The fact that "he" changed Got's word. "Forever, Oh

Lord,

thy word is settled in heaven ".
If it was settled then, why do we need "man" to settle it now???
Regards,
Jim
For a FREE gift click below. No strings attached. No forms to
fill out.
http://shorl.com/hapomopromela
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre
... and, since you bring it up, I don't think there's any llimit to the
number of times you need to repeat yourself.

I let the spirit direct.

Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Jim,

Thank you.

Please let me suggest that you use official sources for your knowledge, not
men and women in the pew, for this reason:

"> You sure said a truthful mouthfull there! ".

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/

[Original Message]
Date: 5/26/2007 2:02:37 PM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

Post by Tom Sathre
Actually the problem that a member of a denomination is incompletely
educated in the doctrines of the denomination - or that s/he actually
disagrees with the denomination - due to incomplete or inadequate
catechism or worse, is a pretty wide-spread problem. Does CCC say

anything

Post by Tom Sathre
else about the necessities for salvation?

Hi Tom,
You sure said a truthful mouthfull there!
This falls back to what I've been using in my signature lately.
Evangelicals truly want to spread the word and see folks come to a saving
knowledge of Jesus Christ, but too many do not practice discipleship....
not to be confused with church discipline, but that is necessary as well.
Folks need not only know "what they believe", but also "why" they believe

it.

Most don't know either, quite frankly.
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre
Please let me suggest that you use official sources for your knowledge, not

The average church attender knows very little of the doctrine of their church.

Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Jim,

The same is true of many (all?) denominations: the average Baptist knows
little Baptist doctrine, the average Orthodox knows little Orthodox
doctrine, the average Methodist knows little ...

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/

[Original Message]
Date: 5/27/2007 4:59:32 PM
Subject: Re: [CHRISTIA] New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

Post by Tom Sathre
Please let me suggest that you use official sources for your knowledge,

not

The average church attendee knows very little of the doctrine of their

church.

Regards,
Jim
"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -
For subscription information, visit

<http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>

To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to

***@LISTS.ASU.EDU


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Jim Dykes]

Post by Tom Sathre
The same is true of many (all?) denominations: the average Baptist knows
little Baptist doctrine, the average Orthodox knows little Orthodox
doctrine, the average Methodist knows little ...

Read what I wrote, Tom.

I said the "average church goer".......

Wouldn't that include the ones you mentioned above?

I like to be better than average, Tom. I like to be in a church that is more
informative about doctrine than the average. Folks in the churches I have
attended in recent years know what they believe and why. The reason they do,
is because we TEACH it to them. A church that doesn't make clear their
doctrine isn't fit to be called a church, IMHO. Folks could just attend AA
where their higher power is whatever they consider it. Many churches like that
today! Not worth a hill of beans!

Regards,

Jim

"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -


For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU

[Tom Sathre]

Jim,

Consider yourself agreed with, at least in this regard.

Tom.

------------------------------------
Tom Sathre
Address: ***@acm.org
[phone] (F - be careful about the area code!)
[phone] (H)
http://home.earthlink.net/~tsathre/tomsathressite/

[Original Message]
Date: 5/27/2007 5:15:23 PM
Subject: Re: New to group! - Ecumenical marriages?

Post by Tom Sathre
The same is true of many (all?) denominations: the average Baptist knows
little Baptist doctrine, the average Orthodox knows little Orthodox
doctrine, the average Methodist knows little ...

Read what I wrote, Tom.
I said the "average church goer".......
Wouldn't that include the ones you mentioned above?
I like to be better than average, Tom. I like to be in a church that is

more

informative about doctrine than the average. Folks in the churches I

have

attended in recent years know what they believe and why. The reason they

do,

is because we TEACH it to them. A church that doesn't make clear their
doctrine isn't fit to be called a church, IMHO. Folks could just attend

AA

where their higher power is whatever they consider it. Many churches

like that

today! Not worth a hill of beans!
Regards,
Jim
"There's not much difference in a man who can't read
and a man who doesn't read" - Unknown -

For subscription information, visit <http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy/CHRISTIA>
To leave the list, send the command UNSUB CHRISTIA to ***@LISTS.ASU.EDU