Not Christians!

[BoyStan]

Be happy

 

[Derf]

Saint everywhere! Anagram Master!

Rom2:24 may apply to many Christians and churches today.

I don't expect the changing of our Christian name any time soon.

The point is Christians need to display greater saintliness or holiness.
The fellowship of the churches should be a beacon of life to the world.
Life that, like Jesus, grabs the world's attention.
Life that in word and deed convinces and convicts the world of its sinfulness.

Agree wholeheartedly!

The Roman Catholic church is one obvious example. I'd have to put the Joel Osteens and Benny Hinns up there, too.

But what do you think about the local churches? Should the pastors be preaching on holiness more?

Doesn't seem like we should ever say "Jesus wants you just as you are." But I don't often hear "repent and be saved" these days.

 

[Idolater]

The Catholic Church may not use the sword to convert or keep its adherents, but its teachings are authoritarian and make threats for non compliance.

Here is a threat of non compliance:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnationh to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

​

If you are unworthy, then you are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, because you cannot licitly eat and drink the Lord's Supper. That's Paul, verbatim.

And the Catholic Church recognizes that everybody who believes in Christ is a Christian.

The apostles appointed elders in the churches but after the apostles this developed into cardinals and popes and bishops that have unquestionable authority to dictate doctrines.

You're questioning it right now.

That is using force!

Using force is using force. Saying a thing is not using force. And every religion has the right to declare an office tasked with teaching the religion.

The church is organised as a business with constitutions and lawyers and protocols and numerous policies. Whereas an organism is built on and depends on relationships of love and fellowship between one another

There isn't a dilemma here, from the earliest days, the Church was both organized, and organic, in your words. There was always a hierarchy of teachers in the Church, the pastors were always there; at first it was only the Apostles themselves, but we read right in the New Testament that it didn't remain that way, and that the Apostles created pastors, the bishops.

without the need for the organisational aspects

With or without 'the need,' the Apostles themselves started the Church with 'organisational aspects' baked right in.

of todays church. An organism has life but a business does not!

I don't think many people think the Catholic Church is a business, but we can agree to disagree.

 

[Idolater]

Agree wholeheartedly!

But how to convince and convict the world of sin is the question. The answer is not through the use of force. The answer is not Christendom. For me, the answer is to preach the Gospel, and focus on being in full communion with the Catholic Church, which handles the matter of holiness in the Christian life, by focusing on the holiness of the Eucharist. We cannot partake of the Eucharist licitly unless we are 'worthy' to partake, and it is so serious a matter to partake 'unworthily,' that Paul warns that it is being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and that it is tantamount to eating and drinking "damnation" to ourselves to do it.

The Roman Catholic church is one obvious example. I'd have to put the Joel Osteens and Benny Hinns up there, too.

But what do you think about the local churches? Should the pastors be preaching on holiness more?

If they knew the truth, they should be preaching to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. See above.

Doesn't seem like we should ever say "Jesus wants you just as you are."

In a way, we certainly should, in the sense that you don't need to get cleaned up, tie up all your loose ends, before calling on Him, and believing the Gospel. In that sense, "Jesus wants you just as you are." He's going to clean you up Himself.

But I don't often hear "repent and be saved" these days.

Believe that He is risen.

 

[Derf]

But how to convince and convict the world of sin is the question. The answer is not through the use of force. The answer is not Christendom. For me, the answer is to preach the Gospel, and focus on being in full communion with the Catholic Church, which handles the matter of holiness in the Christian life, by focusing on the holiness of the Eucharist. We cannot partake of the Eucharist licitly unless we are 'worthy' to partake, and it is so serious a matter to partake 'unworthily,' that Paul warns that it is being "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and that it is tantamount to eating and drinking "damnation" to ourselves to do it.
If they knew the truth, they should be preaching to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. See above.
In a way, we certainly should, in the sense that you don't need to get cleaned up, tie up all your loose ends, before calling on Him, and believing the Gospel. In that sense, "Jesus wants you just as you are." He's going to clean you up Himself.
Believe that He is risen.

Oh, you're absolutely right! Why didn't I think of that?? If we have a bunch of our priests commit indecent acts with children surely THAT will convince the world of sin and bring them into the communion of the church!

How ingenious!

 

[Idolater]

Oh, you're absolutely right! Why didn't I think of that?? If we have a bunch of our priests commit indecent acts with children surely THAT will convince the world of sin and bring them into the communion of the church!

How ingenious!

Nobody is defending any sins committed by any Christians, clergy or otherwise. Yes, it's terrible, horrible, evil, and wicked, what has happened. It's a dark age for the Church. And we brought it upon ourselves. Nobody's denying that.

 

[Derf]

Nobody is defending any sins committed by any Christians, clergy or otherwise. Yes, it's terrible, horrible, evil, and wicked, what has happened. It's a dark age for the Church. And we brought it upon ourselves. Nobody's denying that.

So why do you think getting everybody back into the Roman Catholic Church will help with the topic? Is it because of the authority structure that exists there? Or because the RCC is more holy than other church bodies? Or because you don't recognize other churches as actually being part of the body of Christ, and therefore until they are, they can't be considered true Christians?

 

[Idolater]

So why do you think getting everybody back into the Roman Catholic Church will help with the topic?

Because it's the gameplan. With the focus of Christian life re-centered upon celebrating the holy Eucharist, Christians will become more holy. We will come to understand that if we eat and drink 'unworthily,' that we are taking our lives in our hands. We will apply our understanding, by striving for holiness and worthiness, watching our choices, our thoughts, our behavior, and confessing our sins, especially our grave ones, because they fracture communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, communion is not just mental assent to the Magisterium's authorized teachings, but also the licit physical partaking of the Eucharist, which is only accomplished when we are worthy to partake.

Is it because of the authority structure that exists there?

Not 'because of,' no. But the hierarchy of the pastorates of the Church are Apostolic, and biblical. So wherever the authentic pastors of the Church are celebrating Mass, there is authentic Church worship, and we should be there, in remembrance of Him.

Or because the RCC is more holy than other church bodies?

Absolutely not, not in the way in which you mean that, no. But where the authentic pastors are celebrating the Eucharist, the Eucharist there is most holy, so in a way, perhaps, yes, because of the holiness of the Eucharist, celebrated by the Church's own authentic pastors/priests, who are tasked with celebrating the Eucharist validly.

Or because you don't recognize other churches as actually being part of the body of Christ, and therefore until they are, they can't be considered true Christians?

No. The Catholic Church declares everybody who believes in Christ to be members of the Body of Christ, and we are rightly named 'Christians,' whether Catholic or not, or in full communion with the Catholic Church or not.

 

[Derf]

Because it's the gameplan. With the focus of Christian life re-centered upon celebrating the holy Eucharist, Christians will become more holy. We will come to understand that if we eat and drink 'unworthily,' that we are taking our lives in our hands. We will apply our understanding, by striving for holiness and worthiness, watching our choices, our thoughts, our behavior, and confessing our sins, especially our grave ones, because they fracture communion with the rest of the Body of Christ, communion is not just mental assent to the Magisterium's authorized teachings, but also the licit physical partaking of the Eucharist, which is only accomplished when we are worthy to partake.
Not 'because of,' no. But the hierarchy of the pastorates of the Church are Apostolic, and biblical. So wherever the authentic pastors of the Church are celebrating Mass, there is authentic Church worship, and we should be there, in remembrance of Him.
Absolutely not, not in the way in which you mean that, no. But where the authentic pastors are celebrating the Eucharist, the Eucharist there is most holy, so in a way, perhaps, yes, because of the holiness of the Eucharist, celebrated by the Church's own authentic pastors/priests, who are tasked with celebrating the Eucharist validly.
No. The Catholic Church declares everybody who believes in Christ to be members of the Body of Christ, and we are rightly named 'Christians,' whether Catholic or not, or in full communion with the Catholic Church or not.

Bravo for a detailed response!

But your last answer--that "rightly named 'Christians'" don't need to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church belies all the others. If they don't cease to be Christian by being in other churches, then are they really outside the will of their Lord, Jesus Christ? They are still "little Christs", right?

And if so, then a focus on celebrating the eucharist validly, by which you seem to mean in the context and only in the context of a RCC mass, doesn't seem to be enough, nor does it seem to be necessary.

If, however, you were to narrow your focus to the idea that Christians should partake of the body and blood of Christ (whether figuratively or literally) only in context of His Lordship, I and [MENTION=18784]BoyStan[/MENTION] would both applaud, I think.

 

[BoyStan]

Here is a threat of non compliance:

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnationh to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

​

If you are unworthy, then you are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, because you cannot licitly eat and drink the Lord's Supper. That's Paul, verbatim.

And the Catholic Church recognizes that everybody who believes in Christ is a Christian.
You're questioning it right now.
Using force is using force. Saying a thing is not using force. And every religion has the right to declare an office tasked with teaching the religion.
There isn't a dilemma here, from the earliest days, the Church was both organized, and organic, in your words. There was always a hierarchy of teachers in the Church, the pastors were always there; at first it was only the Apostles themselves, but we read right in the New Testament that it didn't remain that way, and that the Apostles created pastors, the bishops.
With or without 'the need,' the Apostles themselves started the Church with 'organisational aspects' baked right in.
I don't think many people think the Catholic Church is a business, but we can agree to disagree.

I reject Catholicism outright.

 

[Zeke]

Yeah but who did you get that idea from, did you get it from a new age teacher?

You reap what you sow by how you judge, nothing new age about that dead letter truth.

 

[God's Truth]

You reap what you sow by how you judge, nothing new age about that dead letter truth.

No one reaps what they sow in this life, according to the Bible, only in the after life. False religions teaching karma.

 

[Zeke]

No one reaps what they sow in this life, according to the Bible, only in the after life. False religions teaching karma.

Ok enjoy the after life, it's a oxymoron though.

 

[God's Truth]

Ok enjoy the after life, it's a oxymoron though.

Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad in this world.

 

[Zeke]

Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad in this world.

Only one power, man believes in good and bad with a god that judges by appearance, a wheel of cause and effect, as a man thinks (cause) so is he (effect).
Job-For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.

 

[God's Truth]

Only one power, man believes in good and bad with a god that judges by appearance, a wheel of cause and effect, as a man thinks (cause) so is he (effect).
Job-For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me.

For the Christian, we reap what we sow for the next life, because this life you don't always get what you deserve.

 

[Idolater]

Bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad in this world.

One of those bad things is being murdered. In the earliest Church, when Christians were murdered for their faith, for their witness to Christ's Resurrection (martyrs), it was felt among many of them, that it was glorious. To be murdered for Christian faith was glorious. The Church celebrated the 'birthdays' of martyrdoms/Christian murders. It was horrific and tragic, but many in the Church believed that it was an exceptionally good thing, when this bad thing occurred. It reflects just how deep was their faith in Christ, our King. To die for Him, witnessing of Him, was glorious only because of the depth of their faith. It's something to think about.

 

[God's Truth]

One of those bad things is being murdered. In the earliest Church, when Christians were murdered for their faith, for their witness to Christ's Resurrection (martyrs), it was felt among many of them, that it was glorious. To be murdered for Christian faith was glorious. The Church celebrated the 'birthdays' of martyrdoms/Christian murders. It was horrific and tragic, but many in the Church believed that it was an exceptionally good thing, when this bad thing occurred. It reflects just how deep was their faith in Christ, our King. To die for Him, witnessing of Him, was glorious only because of the depth of their faith. It's something to think about.

Well, true, but I was speaking about other things, to a new age believer. There are religions that preach karma and reaping what you sow. That is a new age belief from false religions, religions like Hinduism, and Buddhism, and Sikhism.

 

[Idolater]

I reject Catholicism outright.

A lot of bona fide Christians do, and yet she teaches that all those who believe in Christ compose the Body of Christ, the Church; Catholic, or 'Catholics on their way to full communion,' which are the two types of Christians the Catholic Church acknowledges.

 

[Idolater]

Bravo for a detailed response!

But your last answer--that "rightly named 'Christians'" don't need to be in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church belies all the others. If they don't cease to be Christian by being in other churches, then are they really outside the will of their Lord, Jesus Christ?

The difference (or an important difference anyway, if not 'the' difference) is between those bona fide believers who acknowledge and joyfully receive the 'wedding gifts' that Christ continually bestows upon His Bride, the Church, primarily in the form of the Church's bishops' authentic teachings on matters of faith and morals, and in the form of the sacraments; and those who regard these gifts with suspicion, derision, and contempt.

We are His flock, and His job as Shepherd is to care for us, but those of us who reject our Shepherd's feed, are surely worse off than those who gratefully receive it. This of course is only true if I'm right, but if I'm right, then I believe that this also is true.

Are non-Catholics 'outside the will of' Christ? Sure. In the same way that we are all sinners. It's never His will that we sin, yet we sin. It can never be said that we sin because that is His will for us. And in the same way, it can never be said that us not licitly partaking of the Eucharist, is His will for us either. He wants/wills us to celebrate the Eucharist. It's right in Acts 2:42 KJV, Paul devotes much of a chapter to it in 1st Corinthians 11, and it is the 'common' celebration of the Eucharist, in which all the members of His Body the Church, are truly in 'union' with each other, making up the one Body. 'Common' + 'union'

iow, it doesn't make us not a Christian, to not be in full communion with the Church, but it is His will that we be in full communion with the Church.

They are still "little Christs", right?

:chuckle: Kudos on the Keith Green reference. Two of his songs are really amazing. Although I learned that one of them, 'Easter Song' I believe is the title, is actually a cover, and that somebody else wrote it. 'Still amazing. It gives me shivers and brings tears to my eyes sometimes.

All's to say is that I investigated the claim that 'Christian' means 'little Christ,' and found the evidence for that claim to be less than firm. But regardless, 'Christian' has always meant a follower of Christ, a believer in Christ, a believer in Christ's Resurrection, and those who believe that He is the Jewish Messiah.

And as I said, not being in full communion, does not render a person who genuinely believes in Christ, from being a bona fide Christian, so yes, we are still Christians, apocryphally 'little Christs' or not.

And if so, then a focus on celebrating the eucharist validly, by which you seem to mean in the context and only in the context of a RCC mass

The Orthodox Mass also celebrates the Eucharist validly, since the Orthodox bishops also validly celebrate Holy Orders, along with Catholic bishops, and all of them too descend from Apostolic lineage. If the world could revert to all Christians being either Catholic or Orthodox (largely what the world was before the Reformation), then that would be a big step in the right direction, in my view.

, doesn't seem to be enough, nor does it seem to be necessary.

It's not necessary for eternal salvation, but wrt it being 'enough,' idk how carefully Christians have 'examined' themselves (1Co11:28KJV), even to this day, before partaking of 'this bread' and 'this cup.' idk that the bishops have as thoroughly catechized the faithful concerning the gravity of partaking 'unworthily,' as they perhaps ought. Or, perhaps the teaching is there, but the application is not there among the faithful.

But beyond that, and outside the Church, I do think that while the first 15 centuries of Christianity was the 'big step in the right direction' I mentioned above, it was, beginning in the 4th century, in the global political context of 'Christendom,' which is a mingling together of Christian morality with civil authority and power, i.e. force.

In America and the West, we are undressing society from this defect right now, it began in force during the Reformation, and it continues to this day, with more and more laws being invalidated or nullified or repealed, whose source is not 'the consent of the governed,' but instead the Christian moral code/God's law. I believe that it will be 'enough' that all the Church be in full communion together, and that our world is rid of 'Christendom' on the civil side of things.

If you think about it, that'd be a return to a brief moment in history, between when Constantine legalized Christianity, and when later on in that same century, all the other religions/paganisms were outlawed. It'd be a return to that time.

If, however, you were to narrow your focus to the idea that Christians should partake of the body and blood of Christ (whether figuratively or literally) only in context of His Lordship

A person who genuinely believes in Christ would always necessarily be partaking 'in context of His Lordship,' wouldn't they? If not, I don't understand what this phrasing signifies.

, I and [MENTION=18784]BoyStan[/MENTION] would both applaud, I think.

'Something to shoot for.