I'm making another thread cuz the original thread is behaving very peculiar and will not load correctly.

The pastor's habit of wearing his suit and tie is another tradition that will engrave itself in the culture. There are other icons to be found in the non-Catholic rituals. We could call them "parts of the service". Perhaps some are found in Scriptures, but some are also man-made. Just because these rituals are modern-day practices and look and feel touchy-feely is no reason to accept them over real traditional rituals, which the Catholic Church has maintained. People should stand back and have a strong look at what they are actually doing in their worship routines, then they should compare them to the rituals they criticize.

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004

Answers

Will this one load properly?

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

Actually there are a lot of things in so called "bible believing" churches that have no scriptural basis. For example, many insist on using grape juice in their communion services even though it has no scriptural basis. I don't think anyone can read John 2:10 and argue that Jesus never drank wine.

Also, some churches can be legalistic with rules that can never be found in the Bible, such as the churches that forbid women from wearing pants.

In addition, there are a lot of errors of omission as well. For example, in James 5:16 we are told to confess our sins to one another. This is certainly something that is not promoted in so called "bible believing" churches.

Another example, in James 5:14 the elders of the church are told to anoint the sick with oil. This is rarely done in so called "bible believing" churches.

Those who claim to follow scripture only seem to only follow those parts of scripture which are convenient or easy.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 08, 2004.

James, I agree with you fully. Often what is simply a difference in tradition becomes cultic, satanic, unscriptural, etc., caused by legalism (for the most part) handed down with the beliefs they try to uphold. The attitude is sickening. Jesus warned us the danger of living traditions religiously instead of living by grace whole-heartedly. Many of today's "standards" are in essence only today's trend.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 08, 2004.

dear friends,

Yes, there are many unscriptural traditions in Bible believing churches - some with merit, some without. Yet I must comment on a couple of things mentioned here. There is one word for fermented and non-fermented wine in scripture, and that word is 'wine'. We must be careful when deciding which one is meant if it does not say. Also, Proverbs 23:29-35 does warn us against even looking upon fermented wine, so therefore, I do not believe it is wrong to wish to avoid wine by using grape juice in communion. Neither do I believe it is wrong to use 'wine' if one so believes that is correct.

On the matter of confessing one's sins to one another, James 5:16 says "Confess your faults to one another". Confession of one's faults to each other is important, yet the confession of personal 'sin' is always indicated in scripture to be to God alone.

On the matter of women being forbidden to wear pants, which to me is not a scriptural edict, people use the verse in Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." However, I do not believe women's pants or even men's skirts (kilts) fit this category.

God Bless you...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 09, 2004.

James,

Wearing dog collars also is unbiblical.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

I wonder what impact the following Scripture had on the Gnostic Doctrines of the times:

Deuteronomy 22:5 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God."

Let's throw that doctrine against the Gnostic belief that the world would end when women became men and neither sex would be recognized as one or the other--except that of the man.

In other words, there is more that meets the eye than just the text; there is the intention and meaning of the Scriptures to consider.

I'm not off-topic. We are witnessing the introduction of Deuteronomy 22:5 .

So, if dog collars are not biblibcal, can we wear them? Mine is 100% Cow hide with half inch spikes.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

Actually, in the NIV version it says confess your sins to one another.

Also in the RSV it says: "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

Only in the KJV does it say "confess your faults", and of course the KJV is the least accurate, so I think the consensus is that the passage should read "confess your sins".

All I can say is whatever it says, my Baptist pastors never preached on this topic. There are a lot of things that "bible believing" churches seem to conveniently ignore.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

It's it just me, or is the verse in Proverbs about fermented wine and the verse in Deuteronomy about men wearing women's garments related?

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

What is fashion?

Jesus wore a robe. Women wore robes. How do we know a man's robe from a woman's robe? Bach wore a wig. Women wore wigs. Were women also bald?

What is fashion?

......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 09, 2004.

dear james,

I happen to believe that the Authorised version is the Word of God. You will excuse me my folly won't you.

Surprisingly the act of confession of personal sin to God alone is borne out by the rest of the Book too. So, there I stand.

David, the Psalmist, realised that when we sin it is against God that we do so.

"Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest." Psalm 51:4

"I acknowledge my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah." Psalm 32:5

Hence: "If we confess our sins, 'he' is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9

But thankyou for the comment...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 09, 2004.

"laffin' at rod's 'dog collar'

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 09, 2004.

Gillian,

It is certainly important to acknowledge and confess your sins to God, Catholics do not deny that. If fact, we do it at the beginning of every Catholic mass. However, none of those verses suggest that we are to confess only to God.

For example,

In John 20:23 Jesus says to the apostles, "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

On a related issue, I have been in many "bible believing" churches for their worship services and one thing is remarkably lacking in all of them. I have never been to a service where we began taking a few minutes to meditate on our sinfulness and ask God for his mercy and forgiveness. If we are going to truly worship God, we need to be honest about ourselves and a frequent examination of conscience is necessary in our quest for holiness. This is something that the Baptist churches I belonged to never taught.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), February 09, 2004.

Dear James,

Thankyou for your comment. May I give you my opinion?

The verse you talk about "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." does not say anything about confession of personal sin one to another. It is talking of one's own power to forgive another's sin against oneself. As Matthew 18 shows: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (note the 'between thee and him alone') Concerning the retaining or remitting of another's sin against us, what is bound and loosed on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. We, by the power of the Holy Ghost, have the authority and heaven's agreement to retain or remit another's wrong against us. This does not mean that we are to confess our personal sin to each other. Only the sin we know of or the 'ought against us' we are told of, are we to have any dealings with. If you look at the confession of sin in scripture, there is no mandate to confess one's personal sin to another. You have one verse, I have none. Therefore, by scripture I have to stand on the 'none'. But I do understand that you believe differently and I have no problem with that. May the Lord enlighten us all.

God Bless you...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 10, 2004.

And James,

I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a great lacking in the self-examination department, at church or wherever. I certainly know there is in me anyway.

God Bless...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 10, 2004.

Gillian

i for one do not possess the power to forgive the sns of another.

first, by virtue of the Atonement, all sins are wiped out. of course, that wiping out is conditional in the sense that it must be accepted by the sinner by repentance.

in terms, however, of my forgiving the burglar who enters my house and steals my TV, i forgive him on MY account, not on HIS account.

St Matthew 6

[14] For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.

[15] But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

more fundamentally, we are commanded to lover our neighbour, and that requires forgiveness. we are also told that:

1st St John 4:[20] If any man say, I love God, and hateth his brother; he is a liar. For he that loveth not his brother, whom he seeth, how can he love God, whom he seeth not?

the burglar in turn must, on his own account, also accept the effects of the Sacrifice on the Cross -->> by his own repentance. if he does not, he will not gain salvation no matter how many times i forgive him.

St Matthew 18 is relevant insofar as it sets the basis for the Sacrament of Confession. but forgiveness of sin is from God. the priest is the conduit, if you like, with the power to grant absolution.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2004.

dear Ian,

I totally disagree my friend, but I do love you in the Lord no matter any differences. I stand on the ground I stood on in my last post concerning what scripture teaches and would reiterate the teaching of Christ on the matter.

I believe the scriptures teach that one's personal sin is a matter for the ears of God alone (and for good reason), whereas our faults we are to confess to one another (for good reason also).

As far as remitting and retaining one's sins against us personally, I believe the Word of God teaches us that we are able to do so.

But thankyou for the response....

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 10, 2004.

you've lost me Gillian.

in the example where some steals from my house, do you believe:

(a) that only God can forgive that sin; OR

(b) that i also can forgive that sin, as it was committed against me?

surely all sins are committed against God? so only God can forgive sins.

this is a very important point because it leads us to the scenario where the burglar does not repent TO ME. does that mean - by your take of things - that you can hate him?

i am worried.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 10, 2004.

I'm sorry I lost you Ian, please allow me to find you again.

I think if someone sins against myself by the authority of scripture I can retain or remit that sin against myself with heaven's agreement.

With the burglar analogy. The sin against me I can remit, by the power of the Holy Ghost within me. And yes, I believe God will remit it according to what Christ said.

I do not believe that any man can remit sin in general. There is no allowance in scripture for us just to go about saying 'I forgive your sin' to anyone who is guilty of any sin.

Paul said "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it 'in the person of Christ';"

In the person of Christ I believe we do have certain authority.

I hope this clears my position up a little for you.

God Bless

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 11, 2004.

Gillian

i thought this is what you meant --- and for the reasons posted above i believe that you are incorrect.

in addition, i alluded to a somewhat worrying situation. say i am the burglar. say i do not want your forgiveness - i do not repent.

(a) do you forgive me? you MUST do - see St Matthew 6 quotations posted by me above.

(b) and is that sin then wiped clean? if so, as you seem to believe, than a UNREPENTANT sinner can have sins forgiven by other human beings.

(c) there is a third way -- you can refuse to forgive me if i do not repent; but you cannot do that because you must love yr neighbour. you must turn the other cheek.see Matthew 18:22.

btw: St Matthew 18 as quoted by you requires the disciples to renounce incorrigible sinners and to regard those as do not belong to the Church heathens. at v18 he gives the power to loose and bind to the disciples, the first Catholic priests. this is the general power of absolution.

finally, at vv 23 - 35 we see the rule that to get forgiveness, you must also forgive. this parable illustrates the response to St Peter's question: how may times must i forgive someone who has sinned against me. the answer being always.

the nest result of this rather subtle and complex piece is that:

(x) you must forgie others, even where they do not appear to deserve it, to prevent yourself from sinning (y) BUT that cannot forgive the sinner in the eyes of God because otherwise sin is rewarded with eternal life. NOT RIGHT!!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2004.

Well, here's that little touch of logic that always stirs things up.

Should a priest always forgive the sin, even when the sinner will not or cannot physically repent (divorce-remarriage)?

............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

we must accept objective truth, Rod, how ever unpleasant it might be. I do, however, see the tragedy. oftimes, the "victim" (the abandoned husband or wife, and through no fault of their own) can be left to pay the price for the rest of his/her life. there but for the Grace of God,...... denied re-marriage, denied the Eucharist if co-habiting again. i feel really sorry for those in this predicament, but i think that the Holy Ghost has given us our rules for a reason. mine's, this time at least, is not to wonder why,... i think the same can be said for homosexuals. they may be "good" people in the sense of being fair, but the practice itself is simply disordered to the point.....etc you know what i mean.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 11, 2004.

Jesus did not give us ground for divorce. Yet, he was understanding. The proof is that he reached out to sinners. He never the woman of Samaria to get back with her first husband. He did not tell the woman caught in adultery to go back to her husband.

Paul did.

Moses did.

The Christian Yahwist

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

A person can lie once inside that confessional. But, here is an actual account of the loop holes:

It is a hop, skip, and a jump from here to the Mexican border. You see on this side, the Catholic Church has this 4 or 6 month mariage counseling classes/instructions before the priest is allowed to perform the Matrimony Rite. Ah, but if the couple takes that short trip across the border, they can shorten that instruction by more than half the length and get married quickly in the Mexican procedures. Well, is the marriage valid? Well, is confession valide? Well, how many other Sacraments are valid? "Se habla everything", I guess.

.....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

¡Hay, caramba! I just got an idea!

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 11, 2004.

Dear Ian,

I reiterate my last post. Those are my conclusions from scripture.

If you do not agree that is fine.

There I stand *smile*

Thank God our eternal life does not rest in unconfessed sin, ever, but in the full atonement of Christ 'once for all' sin and our faith in His blood.

God Bless you...

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 12, 2004.

Gillian

show me the Scripture. you provided one quote that I have shown to mean something else. what else do you have? there must be something more. i havegiven you tons of stuff and can provide tons more. when the Bible commands you to "forgive", what it actually requires is that you "stop thinking badly of them", and begin again to "love them as a neighbour". the sin is only "forgiven", in the sense "wiped away", by God following repentance.

Rod

the suspense is killing. what idea?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2004.

Well, while I'm over there in Mexico buying half-priced prescription medication, haircuts, and rum, I could get myself back into the Catholic Church with half the penance. In other words, get married through the Church without the extra red tape that goes along with it here in America. Or,....in other words....this is what some couples do. I can't do that, of course.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

know what you mean Rod.

its a feature of very Catholic countries, i think. maybe the priests are more busy. maybe they are more assuming.

however, i trust that the Church in Mexico does not do divorce?!?!

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2004.

I'm also waiting for "amnesty day" where all sins are forgiven and forgotten. A little humor mixed with wishful thinking, I guess.

.............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), February 12, 2004.

amnesty

that's confession, i think.

though i know what you mean.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), February 12, 2004.

Dear Ian,

Allow me to reply to your 'tonne'.

Matthew 18 is concerning a brother that has 'ought against you'. "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee (singular person pronoun) as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In verse 20 Jesus explains who the 'ye' is. (ye and you are always plural) "For (important attachment to previous verses) where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

Therefore any gathered in His name are the 'you' and 'ye' of the passage in point, not merely His disciples.

Now, without going into great depth, for that would take forever, the Gospel of Matthew is the Kingdom Gospel (you will only find 'kingdom of heaven' in Matthew and Christ's genealogy is the Kingly line etc.) In Matthew the rules of the kingdom are constantly spelled out, and differ from soteriology. In verse 23 Jesus starts his parable to explain what He says to peter.

The Kingdom rule is 'Forgive and you will be forgiven', whilst, as we know, the Kingdom of God rule (salvation) is 'forgive 'because' you have been forgiven'. One needs to see the difference or one will see scripture as contrary.

As believers you must forgive others, I agree, but because we are already forgiven, not so that we 'may' be forgiven.

I believe the scriptures teach that in the person of Christ, by the Holy Spirit, we can remit or retain another's personal sin against us. Remission is not salvation remember.

I would love to be able to agree with you, but I cannot, for I am persuaded on my stand, and on what I believe the Word teaches on the subject.

May I just say though, my dear Ian, that I am not here to attack any church or it's doctrine, my 'scriptural pugilism' days are well gone. I merely wish to present what I believe the scripture teaches. Of course many may disagree with me and that is fine, but I have no greater love than to talk about Christ and His Word, so thank you for the discussion.

I love you in the Lord, God Bless you,

Gillian

-- Gillian Dickenson (Gilliantwin@msn.com), February 13, 2004.