Why the Catholic Faith Requires Immense Discernment

Firstly, Catholics who worship God and have a regenerate heart, confess their sins before God, and accept the gift of salvation from Jesus Christ are saved, according to the word of our God.

This is intended to dissect and analyze a specific post by Karin, from this website. It's her Blog. http://wifeandmomoftwo.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-church-and-divine-revelation. I only bring her up because I know she buys into this lock, stock and barrel. Feel free to check out her other resources. On this specific link, she has a rather lengthy eisegetical analysis of Jesus' intentions with regard to the Bible and it's use. I am posting it here and responding inline to her post. By the way, the formatting on wordpress.com is outstanding...blogger.com isn't as cool. By the way, my words are in "red" hers are in "blue".

-- Begin Post --

Did Christ intend the Gospel to be proclaimed by the circulation of the Bible? — No; it was mainly by preaching that He intended to convert the nations.

Our Lord said: “Go, make disciples of all nations.” “Preach the Gospel to every creature.” “He that heareth you heareth me.” Christ did not say: “Go and make all nations read the Bible.”

This statement is flawed at its very premise, for it robs God of his deity. The God of Abraham is a God that is omniscient, and of course with this power he is also sovereign. With that level of capability, one would think that God certainly had the ability if not the desire to predict and even craft the method by which his word would be spread. This pragmatic viewpoint is cleverly designed \to dethrone the Bible from its authoritative position in the hierarchy of God’s kingdom. The Bible itself is a book, rather a collection of books, whose words are the living, and in some cases inspired word of God. Anyone who seeks to debase that fact in whole or in part is guilty of heresy. Now, as far as Christ’s intentions…hmm Let us review a few things in the Bible. Corinthians 7

6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.

7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

In verse 6, he steps outside of what is approved by God for him to say, and then, in verse 10, he steps back into what God has approved him to say. So one cannot can accurately state the God’s intention was to use preaching alone for anything other than what’s its capability offers to mankind; verbal teaching. It is clear that God did in fact intend for his word to be heard, and understood by way of his book. One might say that this book is meant soley to be the “teachers” guide. As in the catholic faith, where only the pope is allowed to interpret scripture. Well, clearly Paul wasn’t a catholic. His letters to the Corinthians, ephesis, timothy, Galatia, and Rome would have all fallen on deaf ears, since they would not have been able to interpret his message for themselves. And since Paul was feared because of his days as a killer, none would have listened to him, unless the words he wrote we’re self evident. We clearly see that today, they were and remain so.

1. The Apostles never circulated a single volume of the Bible, but “they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them” (Mark 16:20). The New Testament was not written till Christianity was already established. Christ bade His Apostles teach all men “to observe all commanded you” (Matt. 28:20). He commanded them to preach, not necessarily to write.

This is a brutal attack on the kingdom of God. First, where is the proof of this statement? It’s quite irresponsible to not cite your source and the Bible is full of God speaking to and through prophets to record his word. I guess if the argument is based on the new testament, I believe that is a weak argument. Not always a credible source, but Wikipedia says this;

Fourteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, though in some cases the authorship is disputed. Paul had often employed an amanuensis, only occasionally writing himself.^[7][8] As a sign of authenticity, the writers of these epistles^[9] sometimes employ a passage presented as being in Paul's own handwriting. These epistles were circulated within the Christian community. They were prominent in the first New Testament canon ever proposed (by Marcion), and they were eventually included in the orthodox Christian canon. They are believed to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

This is proof that the new testament was in circulation while the apostles were still yet alive. Some of the earliest recorded works were by Paul and they would have been distributed immediately. In many cases the scriptures were letters to various churches, which they read, and shared. This is fool hardy to believe and it further supports the CC desire to remove God from the throne and put themselves there, by eradicating the authority of the Bible.

2. God did not intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith independently of a Living Voice. Even under the Old Law, the Jews, in spite of their great veneration for Holy Scripture, never dreamed of a private appeal to the Word of God. When a religious dispute arose, it was decided by the high-priest and the Council. Their decision was to be obeyed under penalty of death. Thus the Jews did not appeal to the dead letter of the law, but to the living voice of the tribunal that God had established.

I agree with this point, but not for the reasons that the author intends. God did not intend the Bible to be our sole anything, except living word of God. The words are empty unless you have a relationship with God, just as a volume of water requires a container, so too does the word of God act as water, to the containment of a relationship with him.

3. When Christ came on earth, He did not change this order of things. On the contrary He commanded the Jews to obey their constituted teachers, however disedifying their private lives might be. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying, “The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, that they command you, observe and do” (Matt. 23:2-3).

Wait a second – did Jesus not come into Jews and say – ye have heard that it is a sin to commit adultery, but I tell you that even if you look on a woman with lust in your heart you’ve committed a sin already. This was RADICAL. The Pharisees rejected Christ, because they were the lawmen experts no longer. Who was this Christ to interpret scripture better than they? They were holy and followed the law completely. Tell me how the CC is any different? When Jesus drove out the money changers, he was certainly upsetting some people…when Christ worked on the Sabbath, he was certainly upsetting some people. When Christ called himself God and told others he could forgive sins, he was certainly upsetting others… I don’t agree with this – a minor distinction has been drawn that Jesus came into the world not to condemn it but rather to redeem it. He did say to continue to obey your masters, but that has nothing to do with the point that is trying to be made by this blogger.

4. Until the Protestant outbreak in the sixteenth century (1517), no attempt had ever been made to have any people governed by the dead letter of the law in either civil or religious affairs. No one certainly pretends to live in society according to his own private interpretation of the civil laws. When cases come up, they are always decided by a competent tribunal.

Outbreak? The CC was oppressive and corrupt. It is WHY we today in America enjoy a freedom to choose our faith and not have our government tell us what faith to believe in. Outbreak is a odd choice of words, it makes me think that the CC church sees Protestants as a virus. And if you ever talk to a CC member, they will tell you that you’re either Catholic or Protestant, because the CC is the one true Church of God established by Christ. As an example of how this “outbreak” theology is flawed consider this; we didn’t invent the polio vaccine until the early 19^th century, so I guess we should really question the need and usefulness of it today. That kind of logic is crushed under it’s own weight. This is also an extremist point of view. The catholic faith would have you believe that there is no hierarchy in any other church but the “capital C” Catholic Church (CC). And this is simply not true. God laid out church hierarchy and every church I’ve ever been a member with, required membership and submission to its authority. So the Catholic faith has again assumed a baseless elitist position.

Why cannot the Bible be the sole guide to salvation? — It cannot, because:

Speaking of cannot in terms of the Bible just seems heretical, but I’ll entertain it for the sake of this post. The Bible may or may not have been intended to be the sole guide to salvation. But if I must and I should take the author at the words they have used and try not to infer a meaning I have to say they are wrong. The only words of God we have are in the Bible. The Bible comes from God, who authors salvation. Where else would I find what God has to say about salvation but in his word? The answer is nowhere, and certainly if you could, it could not be relied upon. If I want to work out, I go to where workout equipment is; the gym!

1. It [the Bible] is not within the reach of every one.

Romans 1:20 - The things that have been made by God clearly reveal, not just His power, but also His Godhead. They prove that He is God, and those who fail to recognize Him as God are without excuse. Those who reject these truths will fall deeper and deeper into error and will absolutely be rejected by God (see vv 18-32). Again this is mindless conjecture to debase the authority of the Bible and it’s so cleverly written that it almost seems right. To the trained eye though, it’s an obvious fake, a heretical saying by men who seek to honor themselves and their traditions more than God.

2. The Bible is difficult to understand, frequently full of obscurities and difficulties, even for the learned. St. Peter himself said of the Epistles of St. Paul, that they have “certain things difficult to understand, which the unlearned and unstable distort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own destruction” (2 Pet. 3:16). The Fathers of the Church, who spent their whole lives in the study of the Bible, all pronounce it full of difficulties, needing careful interpretation.

True. And to be clear, let me reiterate. The Bible need not be the sole guide for salvation, but it does happen to be the sole source of God’s word. The evidence, which is transcended to all of the books of the Bible, since whatever is in part in the Bible is true and consistent with all of the Bible, is – Revelation 22:18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Even without this verse, it’s clear that the people who knew God directly, wrote the Books of the Bible. If they did not include something, God did not influence it, therefore it is rather unnecessary to the charter given to us by Jesus. Honor the God with all the mind, body, soul and spirit and love thy neighbor as thyself. The additions of the catechisms and 7 holy sacraments, just happen to be vain repetition steeped in cultic tradtion.

3. The Bible does not contain all the truths necessary for eternal salvation. For example, every Christian is obliged to sanctify Sunday. But nowhere in the whole Bible, from Genesis to the Apocalypse, is there one word authorizing the sanctification of Sunday.

This is a wooden literal interpretation of the tradition of keeping the Sabbath. God demonstrated setting one day aside, but no specific day was named. In America, we celebrate on Sunday as it is the beginning of the week, but really for no other purpose. Practicing Jews still oblige Saturday as do Catholics – but frankly the day of the week does not matter. It could be Tuesday. God doesn’t care, what he wants is a relationship, not someone who is really good at manipulating a calendar. "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27). In context, the Pharisees were overestimating the importance of Sabbath restrictions. Jesus responded to them not by expanding the Sabbath, but by reducing it. As were they, so are you, overestimating it.

On whose authority do we accept the Bible as the Word of God? — We accept the Bible as the Word of God on the authority of the Catholic Church. WRONG. Why not on the AUTHORITY OF GOD????? The catholic church is an establishment by man. Nowhere in the Bible, USING YOUR LOGIC, is the word Catholic or Church mentioned, much less in the same sentence. So it’s establishment clearly cannot be honored over that of anything else.You’re blasphemous and arrogantly denying God his due honor.

There is not enough scriptural evidence to support this point [the unfettered authority of the CC] and all that has to date been produced is quite easily refuted or at very least brought into heavy speculation. God never makes us guess, and from all I can determine, it’s a pretty big leap to believe that the CC has the corner on God’s market.

Did God intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith? — No, God intended our rule of faith to be the Living Voice of the teaching Church.

This point, as are most in this entire post, flawed and veiled in ambiguity, while at the same time very weakly supported. Did God intend Holy Scripture to be our rule of faith?

What does that mean? When speaking of what God’s intentions are, you better be pretty darn sure of yourself. Bearing false witness is a top 10 most wanted crime in God’s book. Second, rule of faith, what does that mean? It is again, yet another attack on the word of God, meant to dethrone the Bible from its right position as the authoritative, complete, unadulterated, inerrant word of God. Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; What else need we but the scriptures whose purposes we’re clearly understood by the apostles as being complete and lacking in nothing.

The Apostles and their successors have always taught mankind, especially by preaching.

This is true and has continued, but clearly at some point, Peter, John, Mathew, Mark, Luke, Paul and Timothy all sat down and wrote too. Clearly as evidenced by the sheer number of authenticated copies of mark (numbering in the thousands) that it was their intent for people to READ the word of God. Not accepting that fact is to be intellectually bankrupt, devoid of reason, and blinded by the dogma that has ensnared your soul.

In conclusion, everything I see about the catholic faith seeks to add to God’s word or intention as though God in his perfection is perfectly in need of his mortal counterparts to carry out the work he clearly wasn’t able or did not feel he needed to do. The CC is dogmatic, overly dramatized, elitist and heretical by way of supplanting God through their intervention, so that Christians would pray to priests, and saints, and then Jesus, if they had time after all the hail-marys are handed out. The CC calls it divine tradition, I think it's false doctrine and bad theology.

Calvanism vs Armeneism

For those of you you understand just by their title, what your theological disposition is, and have discussed this with others; I'm laying out my position first. Primarily because the evidence for either side is weighty and with a particular pre-disposition in mind, it would not be hard to believe one side or the other. I do not personally capitulate to a single theological view point. Primarily because the Bible CLEARLY supports predestination and it CLEARLY supports some form of choice or "free-will". So my personal choice is to take what the Bible says and apply it, to the best of my revelation, current knowledge, desire to serve God and interest in receiving my afterlife reward. I personally believe that I was chosen before the foundation of the world, to be pre-destined to conform to the image of God. That Jesus Christ died for me and my elect brethren, and I believe that I have the free will to serve him and submit to him, but my saving was not of my own doing. Currently there isn't a theological camp that really supports that position.

On a side-note, I think RC Sproul does the best job I've ever heard of explaining the differences and how you can be assured of salvation. I also believe that if people use this issue to divide, that you're wrong for doing so. God knows who you are and as well within his ability to demonstrate through his means what the truth is, and he doesn't need Bible bashing Christians denigrating others just because they don't agree. I've heard it called majoring on the minors.

Onward!!

**Disclaimer**
This is not a theological repository, nor is it authoritative. So please, as with anyone take this with your own Bible reading and apply it over time to see what it means to you.

Theology - the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

Calvinism and Arminianism are two systems of theology that attempt to explain the relationship between God's sovereignty and humanity's responsibility in relation to salvation. Calvinism is named for John Calvin, a French theologian who lived from 1509 - 1564. Arminianism is named for Jacobus Arminius, a Dutch theologian who lived from 1560 - 1609.

Both systems can be summarized with five points. Calvinism holds to total depravity while Arminianism holds to partial depravity. Total depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, therefore human beings are unable to come to God on their own accord. Partial depravity states that every aspect of humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that they are unable to place faith in God of their own accord.

The reality is that it can be both at the same time. The fundamental problem with both positions is that the presuppose their theological position and the back into that position by finding only the verses that support it, while ignoring the rest. Man is completely tainted by sin and is dead in it. Without the revival from the spirit, which is engineered by God in you, he cannot be known. The biggest downfall of the Armenian side of the debate is that a mans ability to place their faith in God raises into question God's ability to resist sin and elevates mans ability to overcome it. When the facts are that God resists sin and a sin nature absolutely and man absolutely cannot. Without the in-dwelling of the holy spirit man would not seek God. That verse is conclusive enough on its own to demonstrate that God's version of "free-will" is not the same as our version.

Other points of each position:

Calvinism holds to unconditional election while Arminianism holds to conditional election. Unconditional election holds that God elects individuals to salvation based entirely on His will alone, not on anything inherent in the individual. Conditional election holds that God elects individuals to salvation based on His foreknowledge of who will believe in Christ unto salvation.

So again, the fundamental issues here are who and how God is honored. While the concept of election can and is used as a devicive issue - keep in context that election is nothing more than God's plan being carried out. For whom he did foreknow, he did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son. In the end, those that are saved are predestined, whether God thought through it, saw your decision, or made the only destination that you would end up in be his kindgdom. Most times people have a problem with that - they can't believe that an Almighty God would allow (insert travesty). In the end, what people come down to is a sense of "fair". People use this term interchangeably with "equal". The reality is that they mean that things that happen in the world aren't equal with one another but I can assure you they are completely fair. Why? Because; we use God's scale of fair, not our own. If he chose not to save me - that is HIS perogative. Not mine. It's HIS creation, his world, his children, his everything.

Onward!

Calvinism holds to limited atonement while Arminianism holds to unlimited atonement. This is the most controversial of the five points. Limited atonement is the belief that Jesus only died for the elect. Unlimited atonement is the belief that Jesus died for all, but that His death is not effectual until a person believes.

In the end, one thing rings true - if Jesus died for the sins of those who reject him, it was certainly a waste, because as you compare the former point, (God knew who would believe) and take it to it's logical conclusion, you realize that this means that on purpose, Jesus died as an effectual waste for those he knew would not believe. So - are we really trying to say that God wasted his son? You decide.

Moving right along...

Calvinism holds to irresistible grace while Arminianism holds to resistible grace. Irresistible grace argues that when God calls a person to salvation, that person will inevitably come to salvation. Resistible grace states that God calls all to salvation, but that many people resist and reject this call.

Paul, Jonah, Moses, Abraham....need I say more? These people didn't want anything to do with God, or his plan. Oh they knew who God was, but they didn't submit to his will, and they vehemently rejected what he wanted. Yet, they came around, Paul most definitely by force. So - does that sound like resistible grace, or irresistible grace. You decide.

Keep on cruisin'

Calvinism holds to perseverance of the saints while Arminianism holds to conditional salvation. Perseverance of the saints refers to the concept that a person who is elected by God will persevere in faith and will never deny Christ or turn away from Him. Conditional salvation is the view that a believer in Christ can, of his/her own free will, turn away from Christ and thereby lose salvation.

You can't unlearn truth. Gravity remains, even if I reject it intellectually, I cannot deny it's force upon me. Isn't God greater than the laws we observe in his creation?

While a 5 point calvanist will tell you that a 5 point Armenian is headed for hell and possibly vice versa - I think you need to gather the facts for yourselves and understand that Jesus Christ is the savior to those who believe in him and abide in him. They come to this point by way of a regenerate heart that God engineers in them. The serve God because that is the only justifiable position for a bond servant. We were bought off the chopping block, our life is not our own. While neither theological camp fully explains everything - each of them are representative of the heart condition that exists in a believer.

My heart tells me that I'm desperately wicked. And if you roll with me for a day - you'd think so to. I don't deserve salvation, I deserve death. I was spared, not because of anything that I am, do or can possibly offer to God. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills - - - - - he also owns the hills.... ; ). My price was so great that in order to save me from myself eternally God sent his Son to me, to do away with sacrifice. I don't deserve it, but I'm grateful and for the sparing of my eternal life - I'm in debt, and I will assuage this debt, with a lifetime of service. I am his, and no one elses. My brow dips to one man and that is Jesus Christ, my God, my Brother, my Father, the spirit with in me. My knee is bent, and my tongue confesses. Jesus Christ is Lord. My opinion is, debating more than that and you're probably creeping into fruitless debate.

How to be a Christian

Wow, what a topic. I intend this to be a narrative with some editorializing. Frankly in brief summary, being a good Christian is a lifetime of work and a great one may never be possible. Though, with careful attention, I intend to offer some prescriptive suggestions on how people can live for Christ; this message is aimed at me. Hopefully you can gather some encouragement from it as well. This topic is aimed at maturing Christians, not the infants and certainly not the unsaved.

Let's talk about where most Christians go wrong; belief. The believe in things that people have said; people that they loved or cared about and suddenly the words become themselves gospel. Too many people who call themselves Christians believe with no reason to believe. They in essence, don't know why they believe what they believe. The wander aimlessly in the same direction as their peers, seeking after the next fulfilling ambition. They are completely lonely in their lives and have no respite hope and blind to the way the truth and the life. The are blind because they don't understand a simple concept. This concept is a multi-tiered concept; here are the tiers:

All of humans have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God = You are worthless and unnacceptable
God so loved the world... = There is hope for those that believe
For by grace are ye saved... = You cannot earn it, you don't need to understand it, you are simple able to receive it
Heb 5:9-11 = Suffering teaches obedience
Ephesians - Chapter 5:25-33 Husbands love your wives = Christ emulates through marriage the perfect relationship with him
James 2:20 - Faith without works is dead = your fruit bears witness of the saving faith you have ( this truth is not ALWAYS symmetrical )

So - what do we have. A snapshot of a perfect Christian? Negative. It's not possible so stop trying. You are destined to sin and fall. Anyone who tells you that you can stop sinning is a liar. Any who says you can reach 'entire santification' as the Nazarenes put it, is drinking kool-aid. The perfect example in the Bible was Christ; but why was he, other than the fact that he was God?

Christ knew and accepted his role. He knew what he was sent to Earth to do. Imagine if people had JUST that. How would that change things in America? Secondly Christ accepted who he was. In our country we're taught that we're aren't good enough on so many levels, and yet we wonder why we can't live life for all it's worth. John 7:6-7

What other ways can we be more like Christ?

Through meekness and humility, expecting nothing good in return for your works or life in Christ, because your reward is yet in heaven. How though? Take a look around, in the room you are in, do you have more than 1000 dollars of electronics? Do people know it, do you show it to them. Look in your driveway, do you have 900$ in car payments as I once did? Look at your credit cards, do you have the 9000 national county average? Look at your home, is it the best home on the block? Look at your job, do you work for others to see? Look at your faith - and this one is a biggie. Do you pray loudly, or longwinded so that others will here and be impressed? Do you let others see what you tithe? Do you tithe?

There are so many ways to be evil and yet appear like a Christian. In America, we've traded appearances of fruit for the actual fruit. Do you know that on the average across our nation, our churches are supported by approximately 3% of the congregation.

What about liberalism, or ultra-conservatism, what about paganism? Do we "Tolerate" these things in our midst?

Living for Christ is much more than having a large Bible, attending Church regularly, paying your bills on time and occasionally showing up for the obligatory men/ladies group. Living for Christ is about demonstrating his love, with reproof to your brothers and sisters and more importantly, expecting it back.

Christ has taught me that the pain in this world is only training for his world. When our loved ones die or a close friend, we often say WHY? That's a clear signal of someone who does not know who Christ is fully. Why? Because if they'd only read heb 5:9-11 they would have discovered that the control of this earth has never escaped the hand of God and that it's tradgedies are only the means by which HE chooses to refine his elect.

Church -

I don't believe that 90% of churches in America have a clue. They are either religiously stuck on dogma and strict interpretations of scripture, or they are so loose, it's as though Christ was a hippie. They make the mistake that because we have the word of God in our midst that the only way to know him is to thouroughly apply scripture in liberal measure. Yet, they forsake the very thing that Christ came to give us - a bonded relationship with God - one that cannot be driven asunder or split by any man. Let what God had joined together, let no man drive asunder. That is the relationship between Christ and his Bride.

Most do not, but we all need to - we need to accept who we are first; who we are in Christ next, and then what our purpose is in this world. Then with vehemence, fulfill the good works that have been set in front of us since before the foundation of the world.

The book of James is an excellent read on how to be a christian.

Is Divorce Ever The Right Thing To Do?

First let me say that I don't intend this to be a "standard" post in the sense that I normally layout a case, support it and refute opposing points. I do have a couple points that I would like to make though.

In my post on the "marriage narrative" I described how men are the cause of 99% of the happiness and problems in a marriage. The generational linkage is pervasive and the failures of fathers lead to the failures in their boys and girls. Girls don't know how to submit to their husbands and boys aren't taught how to be men and lead. This, is probably the singular most prevalent reason for such high divorce rates. I can get more granular and descriptive, but suffice it to say that the problems I'm describing are caught in the envelope that I just described, in one way or another.

So I ask, is divorce ever the right thing to do? To consider this question in the most appropriate and honoring way to God, we must start with his word.

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's [wife]. And [if] the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth [it] in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her [to be] his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that [is] abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

It's clear that according to Deuteronomy that there is really only one cause for divorce. But then this is also the old testament law, and while it's basic importance cannot be underestimated, it's better for us to use a new testament revelations to determine our answer.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Messiah also loved the assembly, and gave himself for it;

28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Master the assembly: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Messiah and the assembly. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.


One of the things that should start to become evident, is that the marriage relationship that we understand as humans is one that is modeled after our relationship with Christ. It was a foreshadowing to the early Jews and is a model to believers post-Christ resurrection. There are a couple of things to consider here.

Phillipians 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Clearly there is a requirement to be in a relationship with Christ. Else, what is your fate? You aren't married to him. So, I ask again, is divorce ever the right thing to do?

Well, let's put it this way. Marriage is more than the words you say in front of a priest and it's more than signing a piece of paper. It's a relationship where the man is REQUIRED to love his wife and the wife is REQUIRED to submit/respect the husband. Those are the only two ingredients described in all the Bible. So it would be easy, as I have, to conclude that if this is not present, if these key elements do not exist in a modern day marriage and ostensibly never have; neither did the marriage.

Divorce is not appropriate, but I believe it's important to understand what divorce is - here are a few items I think that can help with the distinction:

Does the husband love the wife by accepting her totally, good, bad, ugly and counting it all as acceptable?

Does the wife submit and respect her husband for everything he is and is not regardless of her personal desires?

If these elements never existed in real tangible form, from either party, you were certainly never married. If they existed at one point, but over time and because of selfishness you've allowed them to disapate, then you have a choice. You can re-instate them (read my marriage narrative) or you can decide there is no relationship. Which there isn't. But that does not preclude you from the sin of divorce.

The reality is this, there are a great number of Christians who stay in "marriages" that never were established in in the model that Christ provides us. They are based in sex, longevity, a personal challenge, co-dependence or some other perfunctory reasoning. And for this, men and women alike are trapped without the tools to make a relationship; this brings misery. So people just eventually accept the sin of divorce. There is an answer.

First, you must determine if there was ever a relationship - I trust after reading this, you'll understand what that means. If you discover there is/was or there is the potential of one, you MUST stay and work through it. In order for this to take place, you must assume your role, completely. By obeying God, he honors you and blessing you for your desires as they honor him. Harmony comes in the home when the relationship is real and honors God. Before that is accomplished everything that looks like harmony is a false pretense. It's not real and even if you feel like you love someone, or that there is harmony, it's not. It's false, it's fake and it's dead. How do I know that?

Read "a marriage narrative" but suffice it to say that love is not an emotion and it's not only an act of your will. It's the unnatural desire to accept what is unnacceptable. To empty yourself of desire for what you want and fill yourself with the acceptance for that which is putrid and disgusting about your mate. Why must you do that?

Without full acceptance of what is awful about someone, you cannot truly say you love them, for how difficult is it to love what it is good and beautiful about someone? When you can do this, you're modeling how Christ loved us and how that love covers our sins. This is our salvation friends. This is perfect love. This is how husbands love their wives and when wives submit to their husbands it's as a person submitting to Christ. It perfects the relationship.

In conclusion I do not believe divorce is biblical for any reason. Even in the case of infidelity. I'm not standing against scripture here, since it does provide for that instance. I am however boldly stating what is accomplished through the will and love og God when it is mdeled in his children. When men love their wives completely, as described above and when those wives quiet their hearts and submit themselves to their husbands, a perfect relationship exists. Short of this, there is no relationship and I feel no obligation to maintain a "marriage" where no biblical relationship persistently exists.

Denominations - Truth or Dare

It is my firm belief that false teaching is the dominate theology in America. It may surprise you, but I personally believe that the 86% of Americans that believe they are saved, are not. The majority of people that attend your local church are not saved, as evidenced by the 50+ % divorce rate, teen pregnancy, murder, abortion rates and complete moral decay. American pop-culture has whitewashed the scripture, neutered God and flavored Christ as to desirable to all. This casts a overly simplistic nature of who God is, as though salvation could come from a bazooka joe comic. This is far from the truth. People like Joel Osteen are perfect examples of this - when asked as to whether or not mormons were saved and going to go to heaven he said;

"Oh I don't know, they believe in Jesus Christ, like I do and so I believe they are saved. I'm not the judge and so I don't want to get caught up in the details".

Clearly this is false teaching disguised as self-help or Christ centered teaching when in fact it's pure unadulterated Antichrist teaching.

This is no more evident than in the following verse.

Matthew 7:22-23
7:22 On that day, many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons and do 25 many powerful deeds?’ 7:23 Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you. Go away from me, you lawbreakers!’ 26

As I've said before - these people who speak to a righteous Lord, believe they are saved yet they are not. Could denominations be to blame? I say yes and no. First the no.

There are some who do not believe, yet they act with outwardly appearance as recorded in John. Then there are also those who are weak and are misled, and for those unfortunate souls, they share the fate of those who reject God.

Now to the yes;

Where did denominations come from?

By and large this question begins not with the denominations but rather your theology then denomination. All people whether they know it or not fall into one of two camps theologically.
Calvanism - Predestination
Armeinism - Free Will

From here, scholars interpret scripture, (unless your catholic and that is reserved for the clergy) and thus scholars provide analysis of the context, meaning, metaphor or narrative and the applicability to modern christians. Beyond that teachers begin to assimilate the differences into a specific denomination. We're covering these specific denominations in a bit more detail than the others:

Catholicism/Episcopalian
Baptist/Methodist
Mormon
Traditional Non-Denominational

I'm doing this briefly as this could be a book all by itself. I want to record a few simple statistics as well as my thoughts on the matter. I'm looking for the following information:

Theological Position
Invention
Major Tenants
Scriptural Relevance (according to me)

Below are all the major denominations of Christian religions and their invention date. Yep, I said invented.

* Martin Luther founded the Lutheran Church, in 1522.
* King Henry VIII founded the Anglican Church of England, in 1534.
* John Knox of Scotland founded the Presbyterian Church, in 1580.
* The Congregational Church was founded by Robert Brown in Holland, in 1582.
* John Smith in Amsterdam founded the Baptist Church, in 1606.
* Michelis Jones in New York founded the Dutch Reformed Church, in 1628.
* The Protestant Episcopal Church is an offshoot of the Church of England, and was founded by Samuel Seabury in the American Colonies in the 18th Century.
* The Methodist Church, was founded by John & Charles Wesley in England in 1774.
* The Unitarian Church was founded by Theophilus Lindley in London in 1774.
* The Mormon Church (Latter Day Saints) was founded by Joseph Smith in 1829.
* The Salvation Army was founded by William Booth in London in 1888.

Most denominations are Armenian in theology. With the exception of some types of non-denominational and baptist. This definately applies to catholics, mormons, baptists (southern and N. American) episcopal, and methodist.

The major tenants only differ between Catholics, Mormons, Baptists and traditional non-denominational. The largest difference is between Catholics however and the remainder. This fundamental difference is that Christians themselves possess no power to interpret scripture accurately. Only the pope can interpret scripture and because the catholic church is purportedly THE Church of God, then accurate information only comes from them. Where other denominations self interpret and measure those results against experience, prophecy, the Bible and mature Christians. The next major difference as we look at all denominations is what is traditionally called legalism. Any church regardless of denomination can suffer from this, however in most cases this is an armenian church where young Christians are taught that by following the 'rules' of the Bible, one can assume a holy lifestyle and thus become closer to God. This is the beginning of the end for all denominations. The farther people fall from the actual biblical framework for interpreting scripture, the more legalistic and cultic they become. Mormons are a perfect example of that. Mormons believe that the Bible isn't enough, and that Joe Smith was visited by God in the early 19th century. This scripture was added to the Bible and became the only way "true" Christians could be saved, ofcourse once it was combined with the regular Bible.

Denominations by themselves are a method of naming a recorded method for believing in God. Mormons believe that they can become Gods as they say Jesus did. Catholics believe that they need to 'earn' their way to heaven by good works and never having not confessed sins, less the be caught in purgatory. Episcopalians believe nearly the same things that Catholics do, with minor and insignificant differences. The pope being the most obvious. Baptists are free-willers who believe that the way to heaven is belief, but also by demonstrating how worthless and insignificant you are all while forcing rules upon the laymen.

It is my firm belief that denominations are anti-scriptural. There is NO scriptural support for a specific denomination or even the attempt to bring one to bear. While I recognize the intrinsic value of being able to distinguish what a certain body believes, all bodies should be the same body of Christ. Yet sadly they are not. The cling to denominations as their life line - when it's Christ who is the lifeline.

All denominations are flawed in some manner or another. The very reason I can say that is because all cannot be perfectly right so they must be wrong. The Bible says that even if you violate a part of the law, you violate the whole law. So man cannot live by the law, but by faith that God's grace covers them through Christ's sacrifice.

What is this a call for?

Faith! A resolute purpose in searching for God in his word. Living by the spirit who guides us and congregating with our brethren who are seeking the same. In the end, you are chosen to be sanctified before the foundation of the world (eph 6) and by accepting God's gift (john 3:16) you can become saved. Adding to that simply dishonors God. It dishonors God because the Bible is the record of the sufficient work of God. In so being you must rely on it directly and theologically primarily as your source for knowledge regarding salvation.

I John
1:7b ...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

Acts 16:31b
...believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.

Romans
3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

I John
1:9 If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Matthew
6:9, 12 After this manner...pray ye: Our Father... forgive us....

1 Timothy
2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus [not Mary, not saints, not priests, not the pope];

I John 2:1, ...And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Now - let me capitulate some to those who are "REALLY" happy with their denomination of choice.

You can serve God anywhere and if you feel like you're being fed in your church, and you aren't being taught false doctrine, or bad theology, then I encourage you to stay where you are. But if you doubt for a second that the truth is being taught in your local body - then you are obligated to challenge that teaching. You are then obligated to leave that body if changes will not occur.

Birth Control - God's Invention, or Mother of Destruction?

There are many parodies of the famous birth control debate from Catholics and Protestants. Probably the most famous is Monte Pythons "The Meaning of Life", where the father of a protestant family opines about his ability to wear a Con-dome (brit accent) as his unique advantage over Catholics - as his dish washing wife, spits out another child amidst many other children...in fact, the exact line was - "Oh get that for me, deardry"

There are a number of undercurrents that potentially muddle this discussion, the first of which is:

Abortion or Life:

God's will or Mine:

Faith over Action:

Most notably, Tradition over Society:

In tradition, I believe it's best to begin with the a few things that I know I've covered before; they are scripture references in word, but not in actual citation. We know that God is not a God of confusion, nor contradiction. We know that God made us in the image of himself, imbuing in those that believe, the very face of Christ. We struggle at the same time with sin, but that our marriage to him, consecrates (makes holy) us to him. So in this sense, what we do within the bounds of the relationship, that is uplifting to the relationship, is acceptable in the relationship. Since we know that our worldly marriages are derived and mimic the Christ relationship, we can examine them in the same context.

Abortion vs Life: I think anyone would agree that in all matters we should choose life over abortion. At the same time, there are some technicalities that continue to plague even the most conservative of Christians. Modern birth control has multiple methods of preventing pregnancy. Some are more invasive than others; my research indicates that most fall into two camps. Camp a). Prevents adherence of the zygote to the uterine wall, thus preventing full gestation from occurring b). a hormone is introduced into the blood stream that in most cases prevents an egg from being released through the fallopian tubes. In either case, pregnancy is typically avoided. Then there are various forms of contraception, condoms, etc. In all cases however, pregnancy doesn't actually occur. So I believe that the forms of contraception afforded to modern man, fit nicely within the technological advancements of our day and do not present plural risk to our society or relationship with Christ. There is no scriptural support that presents itself to conclude that God has anything against pregnancy avoidance or that avoiding pregnancy was against God the explicit will of God. The reality is, children are a gift from God, but there is another part of this that needs to be considered - which brings us to God's will or Mine.

We reiterate that God is not a God of confusion, or contradiction. But he is a righteous God. Our desire to live our own life against the will of God is wrong - but there are two wills of God. There is the explicit will of God (he told us what to do) and the implicit will of God (God's allowable will, neither said nor written, but expected or allowable as determined by having intimacy with the explicit will of God). If those do not make sense to you, you'll need to contact me off line for scripture references and sources. All this said to come to a final point - as Christians we can only account for murder as a substantive violation of God's explicit will for the prevention of pregnancy, once pregnancy has occurred IE: Abortion. I agree that if you are murdering a viable baby that has been conceived, you're in violation of this Law that God has commanded and thus guilty of sinning against the relationship of Christ. However, if these processes do not occur through active means or passive means then it would be difficult that name that a sin. (caveat) - if you feel that it is a sin to engage in modern contraception for any reason - than to you it is a sin - but that does NOT apply to everyone - since it is NOT rooted in scripture. So the important item to emphasize here is a principle used for determining sin.

1. Does it go against God's explicit will?
2. Does it fall within God's implicit will?
3. What do elders in my church say about it?
4. What is my motivation for this action?

Faith over action - this is a conundrum for the non-believer. Unbelievers typically can't understand faith - and feel that action is the only means of accomplishment. And while most immature (not a negative term) Christians believe that they only need faith, maturity demonstrates that we must live by faith, by saddling our horses and riding into battle. Our faith is demonstrated by our actions. So the common belief of some Christians is that if I have enough faith, I can either abstain from sex, or engage with my marital partner and whatever God wants will occur. Unfortunately, while quite stunning in resolve, that faith is literally based in uneducated and rather dogmatic viewpoints. The reality is, if we used that same equation, we could say, playing in the middle of I-70 without regard for cars is ok and God will allow to happen what he desires...well it doesn't take a prophet of God to predict that you WILL be HIT and YOU could DIE. That is the consequences of being of not using your brain. When you compare that against the fact that sex is something that God made for us, not being a God of confusion, he didn't create it so it can only be enjoyed under oppressive circumstances, with the obvious exception being marriage (no marriage is not an oppressive circumstance!) God never intended to lay out every nuance of life - in MOST cases you are to use your brain, not emotion and compare that to your study of scripture to conform your life to a servants life, serving our master - God Almighty.

And finally tradition over society. Society and tradition are always at odds. Tradition shapes early society and society evolves providing contrast to existing tradition. The most common example of this is the US liberal interpretation of the constitution regarding "Church and State" and the tradition of Christianity. Keep in mind that I bring this up because of the contrast it creates. Often this contrast provides the fire that keeps dogma alive, however, I believe that it's necessary for True Christians to keep in mind that there are things that are divisive and then there are just contrasts like Tradition and Society. I don't believe that is appropriate to keep tradition as a means to be contrary to society - in fact, Jesus and Paul tell us not offend for the purposes of tradition, because it's not the tradition that makes the relationship, but rather the commitment to God that makes the relationship. For it's not what goes into the man that defiles, but what comes out that defiles a man.

In conclusion this is what I believe. God has armed me with intelligence and the understanding of consequences and while I frequently enjoy his gift to me that is marital relations, I do not believe that God intended or desires for me to have children every time I do. Ancient forms of contraception existed and modern forms exist and that is ok. God built sex for me and my wife first and for procreation second. In genesis and song of Solomon you can extrapolate the implicit will of God quite easily. So, my wife and I conform to societies ability to provide us a means to enjoy one another without the consequences of child birth. Since we're not murdering children we are in the will of God. And lastly, our marriages are about the relationship between us and God and each other. When compared to that relationship, CHILDREN always are second consideration under ANY circumstance. So if it's a question of sex with my wife, or child birth, the former always takes precedence over the latter since it is our first gift and our relationship is foremost in God's eyes. Contraception is just a means to avoid accidents that cannot be predicted. Assuming that most of us have children when we intended to....