Church Ordinances vs Church Sacraments ~ From Christ Or From Man?

THERE IS OFTEN CONFUSION between Ordinances and Sacraments in the church today.  What is the difference?   And, are they binding upon Christian believers?

Sacraments in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and a few other Protestant denominations are seen as a means of attaining and keeping God's grace and salvation.  The seven sacraments are baptism, confirmation, holy communion, penance (confession), marriage, holy orders (ordination), and anointing of the sick. 

According to the Roman Catholic Church: “There are seven sacraments. They were instituted by Christ and given to the Church to administer. They are necessary for salvation. The sacraments are the vehicles of grace which they convey.”   In the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, "The sacraments are efficacious (effective) signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us" (#1131).

Ordinances in most Protestant churches are symbolic expressions of our faith, not a means of attaining, keeping, or losing God's grace.   In the Bible, as interpreted by the majority of Protestant churches, Jesus Christ left only two ordinances for all believers:   Baptism, where we follow Him in symbolic death and resurrection as we publicly declare our eternal commitment to Him as members of His family ~ AND ~ Communion, which we do to symbolically remember His sacrifice on the cross when He suffered and died to offer eternal life and salvation to all who will follow Him.

Baptism and communion are separate from grace and are not a means to it.  The rituals of the church do not confer grace, and they cannot merit salvation.  It would be more proper to say the ordinances are the "signs of grace" ~ not the means of grace.

Water baptism is not a means of grace - it is the "outward expression of an inner change."  It is an act of obedience (accomplished) after salvation has occurred.  The examples of water baptism in Scripture all show that baptism happened after the person was born again (e.g., Acts 8:26-39).  Being immersed in water cannot change a person’s heart; that is the Holy Spirit’s work.  “The Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).  Crucial to our salvation is faith in the heart, not water on the skin.

Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is not a means of grace - it is a memorial of Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and a picture of our fellowship with Him.  At the Last Supper, when our Lord shared the Passover with the disciples, He said, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:19).  Jesus was telling them (and us) not to forget His sacrifice on the cross.  It was Christ’s death that provided the remission of mankind’s sin.  ("What is the difference between ordinances and sacraments?" - www.gotquestions.org/ordinances-sacraments.html)    [underline, italic, and parenthetical emphasis is mine]

And,

What is an ordinance?   It is not a sacrament (a church ritual that is thought to have saving values).  The Bible clearly states that through Christ alone we are saved (Ephesians 2:8-9, Acts 4:12, Titus 3:5).  It is a command to be obeyed (cf. "City Ordinance").  It works no grace or special spiritual operation.  The two church ordinances are visible enactments of the Gospel message that Christ lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven, and will some day return.  Put simply, the church ordinances are visual aids to help us better understand and appreciate what Jesus Christ accomplished for us in His redemptive work.

How is an Ordinance determined?  Three distinguishing marks characterize the New Testament ordinances:

• They were instituted by Christ.
• They were taught by the apostles.
• They were practiced by the early church.

www.new-testament-christian.com/ordinancebaptismandcommunion.html

Where in the Bible did Jesus Christ institute the two ordinances? 

Baptism, Matthew 28:18-20 tells us, "Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”

Communion, also called the Lord’s Supper, Luke 22:19 tells us, “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.’”  

How often should a church fellowship celebrate Communion, and in what manner?

It would seem that, since we take the Lord’s Supper to remember Christ’s death, we should take it fairly often.  Some churches have a monthly Lord’s Supper service; others do it bi-monthly; others weekly.  Since the Bible does not give us specific instruction as to frequency, there is some latitude in how often a church should observe the Lord’s Supper. 

It should be often enough to renew focus on Christ - without being so often that it become routine.  In any case, it’s not the frequency that matters but the heart attitude of those who participate.  We should partake with reverence, love, and a deep sense of gratitude for the Lord Jesus, who was willing to die on the cross to take upon Himself our sins.  ("How often should the Lord's Supper / Communion be observed?" - www.gotquestions.org/Lords-Supper-observed.html)

And,

How often should the Lord's Supper be celebrated?  Scripture does not tell us.  Jesus simply said, "As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup. . ." (1 Corinthians 11:26).  Paul's directive here regarding worship services would also be appropriate to consider: "Let all things be done for edification" (1 Corinthians 14:26). 

In actuality, it has been the practice of most of the church throughout its history to celebrate the Lord's Supper every week when believers gather.  However, in many Protestant groups since the Reformation, there has been a less frequent celebration of the Lord's Supper, sometimes once a month or twice a month, or, in many Reformed churches, only four times a year. 

If the Lord's Supper is planned and explained and carried out in such a way that it is a time of self-examination, confession, and thanksgiving and praise, then it does not seem that celebrating it once a week would be too often, however, and it certainly could be observed that frequently "for edification."    ("The Lord's Supper," from "Bible Doctrine, Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith " - Chapter Twenty-Eight, Pages 387-394 - by Dr. Wayne Grudem)

I have been in Filipino-American Baptist churches for the past thirty years, and all have celebrated the Lord's Supper on a monthly basis.  On the first Sunday of each month, at the end of our worship service and before leaving the fellowship, we find that partaking of the Lord's Supper gives us spiritual strength to enable us to stand firm in our Christian faith as we go back into the secular world around us.    We pass the elements to all believers, pastor reminds us Scripturally what we are doing and why we are celebrating this ordinance.  Then we, together, take the elements in remembrance of Him (Luke 22:19).

If the Lord's Supper is celebrated only every three months, or once a year - are we saying that it is not really that important?  Once a month, to me, keeps His sacrifice fresh in my heart - whereas doing it weekly would tend to make it more of a ritual, done by rote.  If the Lord's Supper become only a ritual - are we missing out on that spiritual strength and on that great spiritual blessing?  Are we relegating the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to a lesser position of importance in our worship?

Once, for a special occasion, Dory and I attended a large non-denominational church in our area.  When time for Communion, the Lord's Supper, came - the ushers passed the elements to us.  And we were told beforehand by the pastor to just go ahead and just do our own private celebration of the Lord's Supper when we received the elements.  There was no pastoral devotion, no sharing about the meaning of this ordinance - just, when you receive your elements go ahead and do it yourself.  Not celebrating the Lord's Supper in fellowship with all other believers present, to me, relegated it to the level of, "Have as cup of coffee."

At the same time that this individual Lord's Supper event was happening, on a large display screen in the sanctuary we were viewing a baptism which was occurring in some other part of the building.  It was as though they were telling us, "These are the two ordinances.  But for expediency sake, and to save time, we will have both simultaneously.  Just watch the screen as your take Communion by yourself."  Somehow I just did not feel any spiritual connection with either event.   

There are other questions regarding the Lord's Supper besides timing and method.   Who should participate in the Lord's Supper?  Can visitors to our church participate with us?  Can only Baptists share the Lord's Supper in our Baptist church?  

So, let's clear the air. On the Day of Pentecost 33 AD, Jesus Christ instituted His church, His body of believers - which has grown to His body of believers worldwide.  He did not institute the Baptist church, the Roman Catholic church, the Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Nazarene, or any other denominational church - only His church - His body of believers worldwide.  

So, who should take Communion, the Lord's Supper, with us?  Answer:  Every born-again believer who has joined us for worship, regardless of which denominational hat he/she wears.  We are sharing His Supper with His family of believers - not just our local church family, but all present who believe and have received Him as Lord and Savior.

Is Baptism a prerequisite for receiving Communion?  If you answer yes, then you are saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation - which goes against the teaching of Ephesians 2:8-9, that we are "saved by grace through faith" alone.   Such a prerequisite for Communion would be a validation of the false teaching of Baptismal Regeneration, i.e., that we are saved through baptism. 

And, if Baptismal Regeneration is true - then the thief on the cross was not saved.  Yet, Jesus Christ told him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise"  (Luke 23:43).  Was Jesus Christ wrong - or are we, and the thief on the cross, truly "saved by grace through faith" alone?

I pray that my thoughts on Ordinances vs Sacraments has been helpful to you.  I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

As Abe Lincoln Said, "I Can't Spare This Man, He Fights!"

To all my Friends and Family in Alabama, and to all my Friends around the world - recently a Christian Friend responded to a Friends Ministry eNewsletter asking that I not send her anymore newsletters which have any political content.  And while the vast majority of my blogs and eNewsletters are apologetic and doctrinal, it is very difficult to leave out all political comments for two reasons:  First, due to the way my internet provider censors e-mails I have had to organize my mail list in a manner that makes it difficult to selectively pull a person's address from the full mailing. 

And, second, while God, in the Bible, does tell us in Romans 13:1 that we should:  "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God" - the Bible does not tell us that we should turn a blind eye toward evil sometimes perpetrated by those leaders.  Nor that we should not do what we can to encourage and help those leaders do what is honorable and right in God's eye.

In the soon-to-be-decided election campaign for the next United States Senator from Alabama, the Liberal Left has pulled out all the stops.  Just as they attacked, and are still attacking, President Donald Trump - they are using the same back-alley, gutter tactics against the man most qualified to be the next Senator from Alabama, Judge Roy Moore.

They have brought out 40-year old, suddenly remembered claims of immoral acts supposedly committed by Roy Moore; and they have tried to blacken his character because he took a positive, moral stand for the Ten Commandments and against Same-Sex Marriage and the Gay Agenda.  Yet, throughout, Roy Moore has maintained his conservative dignity, statesmanship, and propriety - and his honor - and will be the next Senator from Alabama.  For we Alabamians respect such a man.

That said, today I received an e-mail containing a great article posted on TownHall-dot-Com responding to the Liberal Left's slanderous attacks against the best president we have had in many years, President Donald Trump. Some have wrongly attributed the article to Dr. Marshall Kamena, a registered Democrat and the elected mayor of Livermore, California.  But this article was written by Evan Sayet.  Below are key excerpts from that article.  I highly recommend you read the full article.

HE FIGHTS
By Evan Sayet, TownHall, Posted: Jul 13, 2017 1:57 PM
https://townhall.com/columnists/evansayet/2017/07/13/he-fights-n2354580

(Evan Sayet is the author of "The KinderGarden of Eden: How The Modern Liberal Thinks."  His lecture to the Heritage Foundation on this same topic remains, some ten years later, by far the single most viewed lecture in their history.)  

My Leftist friends (as well as many ardent NeverTrumpers) constantly ask me if I’m not bothered by Donald Trump’s lack of decorum.  They ask if I don’t think his tweets are “beneath the dignity of the office.”   Here’s my answer:

We Right-thinking people have tried dignity.  There could not have been a man of more quiet dignity than George W. Bush as he suffered the outrageous lies and politically motivated hatreds that undermined his presidency. 

We tried statesmanship.  Could there be another human being on this earth who so desperately prized “collegiality” as John McCain? 

We tried propriety – has there been a nicer human being ever than Mitt Romney?  And the results were always the same.

This is because, while we were playing by the rules of dignity, collegiality, and propriety - the Left has been, for the past 60 years, engaged in a knife fight where the only rules are those of Saul Alinsky and the Chicago mob. .  .  .  .

The Left has been engaged in a war against America since the rise of the Children of the ‘60s.   To them, it has been an all-out war where nothing is held sacred and nothing is seen as beyond the pale.  It has been a war they’ve fought with violence, the threat of violence, demagoguery, and lies from day one – the violent take-over of the universities – till today.

The problem is that, through these years, the Left has been the only side fighting this war.  While the Left has been taking a knife to anyone who stands in their way - the Right has continued to act with dignity, collegiality, and propriety.

With Donald Trump, this all has come to an end.  Donald Trump is America’s first wartime president in the Culture War. .  .  .  .

Trump is fighting.  And what’s particularly delicious is that, like Patton standing over the battlefield as his tanks obliterated Rommel’s, he’s shouting, “You magnificent bastards, I read your book!”   That is just the icing on the cake, but it’s wonderful to see that not only is Trump fighting, he’s defeating the Left using their own tactics.

That book is Saul Alinsky’s "Rules for Radicals" – a book so essential to the Liberals’ war against America that it is and was the playbook for the entire Obama administration and the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis.   It is a book of such pure evil, that, just as the rest of us would dedicate our book to those we most love or those to whom we are most indebted, Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.

Trump’s tweets may seem rash and unconsidered but, in reality, he is doing exactly what Alinsky suggested his followers do. .  .  .  .

Bill Gray Note:  Quote from the Liberal Left's playbook, written by Saul Alinsky:  “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins - or which is which) - the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer.”  (Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals)

So, to my friends on the Left – and the NeverTrumpers as well - do I wish we lived in a time when our president could be “collegial” and “dignified” and “proper”?

Of course I do.   These aren’t those times.  This is war.  And it’s a war that the Left has been fighting without opposition for the past 50 years.

So, say anything you want about this president (Donald Trump) – I get it, he can be vulgar, he can be crude, he can be undignified at times.  I don’t care.  I can’t spare this man.  He fights.

To my Alabama Friends and Family I urge you to stand tall alongside Roy Moore, our next Senator from Alabama.  To all my Friends, I urge you to be aware that for many years in America, the battle between the Liberal Left and the Conservative Right has not been a fair fight.  The Liberal Left fights using the tactics created by their role model, SaulAlinsky.  And, in turn his role models seems to have been Karl Marx, Lucifer, and other communist and socialist leaders.

So, please join me in standing with President Donald Trump and with soon-to-be Senator Roy Moore - and let's Make America Great Again.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

The Ten Commandments And The Sabbath

The race for United States Senator in Alabama is becoming one of the most watched elections today.  At stake is a choice between electing a Liberal Democrat, Doug Jones, who strongly supports abortion and other liberal social issues ~ OR ~ electing a Conservative Republican, Roy Moore, who in the past has risked his position asChief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and his judiciary career - as he stood strong for his Christian faith, refusing to remove a Ten Commandments statue from the Alabama Supreme Court building lobby, and for taking a stand to support Traditional Marriage.

It seems that discussions regarding Judge Roy Moore always find their way back to his stand on the Ten Commandments.   In a recent Facebook dialogue, an Alabama Lady Political Blogger raises the question of the Fourth Commandment, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy" (Exodus 20:8) and asks:

"Bill, as a Christian, my problem with the Ten Commandments is the Sabbath.  Unless one is a Seventh Day Adventist, which neither you nor I are, we don't follow the Ten Commandments today.  We're under the new law.  Also, if we post the Ten Commandments, we have to post other doctrines.  You want to do that?"

We both agree that the Bible, God's full revelation to us - consists of both the Old Testament and the New Testament, both equally inspired by the Holy Spirit to be God's Written Word given to man.  God gave us the Old Testament to point us toward the Cross ~ then He added the New Testament to fully explain the Cross.

In other words, theNew Testament stands upon the Old Testament and continues to expand upon, not exclude, Old Testament teachings.  Yes, parts of the Old Testament laws were intended only for the Jewish people, His chosen people, as temporal means of pointing them toward their coming Messiah and the Cross.

That said, let me share an excerpt from a good explanation of how we should view the Sabbath:

A common error in the Sabbath-keeping debate is the concept that the Sabbath was the day of worship.  Groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists hold that God requires the church service to be held on Saturday, the Sabbath day.  That is not what the Sabbath command was.  The Sabbath command was to do no work on the Sabbath day (Exodus 20:8-11).

Nowhere in Scripture is the Sabbath day commanded to be the day of worship.  Yes, Jews in Old Testament, New Testament, and modern times use Saturday as the day of worship, but that is not the essence of the Sabbath command.  In the book of Acts, whenever a meeting is said to be on the Sabbath, it is a meeting of Jews and/or Gentile converts to Judaism - not Christians.

Is there anything wrong with worshiping on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath?  Absolutely not!  We should worship God every day, not just on Saturday or Sunday!  Many churches today have both Saturday and Sunday services.  There is freedom in Christ (Romans 8:21; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Galatians 5:1).

Should a Christian practice Sabbath-keeping, that is, not working on Saturdays?  If a Christian feels led to do so, absolutely, yes (Romans 14:5).  However, those who choose to practice Sabbath-keeping should not judge those who do not keep the Sabbath (Colossians 2:16).   (https://www.gotquestions.org/Sabbath-keeping.html)

The best way to understand the Ten Commandments is to see how Jesus explains them:

Matthew 22:35-38 (nkjv), "Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, 'Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?'  Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.  This is the first and great commandment.' "

Matthew 22:39-40 (nkjv), "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'  On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

If we look at the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, we find that the first four speak of our relationship with God: 

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall make no idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy.

And, the last six commandments deal with our relationship with our neighbor, our fellow man:

5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

Jesus Christ did not do away with the Ten Commandments, He only compressed them into two commandments: (1) Love your God, and (2) Love your fellow man.

The teachings found in the New Testament stands upon the foundation found in the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments.  Can anyone actually keep the Ten Commandments?  No.  And God knew that.  He did not give us the Ten Commandments as a means to gain salvation.  He gave the Law to the Jews and the Ten Commandments to all of us - to make us aware of our sin, not to give us salvation and eternal life.  Salvation, for the Jews and for the Gentiles - can only come through a saving relationship with our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Jews' Messiah.

In the Law, God gave the Jews animal sacrifices as a means of temporal forgiveness of sin, not as a means of salvation.  They had to repeatedly sacrifice animals to continue gaining temporal forgiveness.  But once Jesus Christ came and was sacrificed, once for all, that gave all of us a path to salvation and eternal life.  There can be no more sacrifices - for the Perfect Lamb of God has purchased forgiveness for all who will receive His "paid in full" gift of eternal life, purchased for all mankind by His Perfect Blood.

So, yes, the Ten Commandments are still the foundation of our Christian faith - and we have to look upon the Two Commandments Jesus gave us in Matthew 22 as representing the full Ten Commandments found in Exodus 20.  Yet, that said, we are saved, from the first man, Adam, to the last person raptured into heaven, "by grace through faith in Jesus Christ - alone" (Ephesians 2:8-9).  Nothing else is needed nor accepted.

So, to respond to my Political Blogger Friend, I will ALWAYS stand with a man such as Roy Moore who supports the Ten Commandments and our right to display them, a man who fights against abortion, same-sex marriage, and other unBiblical moral issues ~ AND ~ I will ALWAYS stand against anyone (in this case, Doug Jones) who supports killing babies, same-sex marriage, and affirmation of the LGBTQ++++ lifestyles.

My Blogger Friend asks me, "Also, if we post the Ten Commandments, we have to post other doctrines.  You want to do that?"

Yes, if it is appropriate to display other doctrines, then by all means, display them.  However, when the Bible is printed, it does not always include all the canonized books of the Bible.  Is that wrong?  Of course not.

In my own personal library, I have a number of Bibles which include both theOld Testament and the New Testament - I have some which also includes the Apocrypha (which I do not support as Biblical canon).  And I have Bibles which include only the New Testament.  Is it wrong to print only the New Testament alone?  No.  Nor is is wrong to display only the Ten Commandments without displaying other Biblical Christian doctrines.

That said, I do strongly believe that a Christian believer should be intimately aware of, knowledgeable of, and affirming these Christian doctrines which are essential for our salvation:

1. The Deity of Jesus Christ:  God Incarnate - fully man; yet, fully God.
2. The Trinity:  God eternally existing; manifested (revealed) in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
3.  The Bible:  Is the Holy Spirit inspired Written Word of God and is the sole authority for Christian faith, salvation, and to guide our Christian lives.
4. Salvation by Grace:  By grace you are saved, through faith in Jesus Christ – plus nothing else.
5. The Resurrection of Christ:  He rose from the dead, that we may also be resurrected.
6. The Gospel:  The birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ according to Scripture.
7.  Heaven and Hell:  Both are real places and are the only two eternal destinations available to all mankind.

And, there are many Non-Essential Christian doctrines and teachings, i.e., eschatology, baptism method and timing, to tithe or not to tithe, Sabbath or Sunday worship, musical instruments or no instruments, etc. -  which, while important to understand, interesting to discuss, and are helpful in making us more mature believers and better witnesses - DO NOT define nor affect our salvation.

So, in summary, yes, we should honor and strive to keep the Ten Commandments and we, as Christian believers, should support a candidate for office who also honors and stands strong for the Ten Commandments.  That is why I urge all my Alabama Family and Friends to vote for Roy Moore to be the next United States Senator representing my home state of Alabama.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

What Do YOU Think About CoExist and The LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP Movement?

Last Sunday, in our worship service at International Bible Baptist Church (IBBC-Riverside), our associate pastor, Paul Garcia, shared a photo of a bumper sticker which has been seen on many cars in the past several decades.  The bumper sticker suggests that we should COEXIST - and, with that I can agree.  However, we must look much deeper at what that bumper sticker is advocating.  What is it really suggesting?

After the service I shared with Pastor Paul that one of the oldest churches in our city of Riverside actually teaches that misguided theology - that people from all religions, including atheism, can come together, sitting side by side, with each worshiping his own god or gods:

The Universalist Unitarian Church of Riverside, previously known as the All Souls Universalist Church, is a Universalist Unitarian church located in Riverside, California, United States.  It was built during 1891-92 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as "All Souls Universalist Church" in 1978. 

According to their web site:

We live out these Principles within a “living tradition” of wisdom and spirituality, drawn from sources as diverse as science, poetry, scripture, and personal experience.  These are the Six Sources our congregations affirm and promote:

•  Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life;

•  Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love;

•  Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life;

•  Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

•  Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;

•  Spiritual teachings of earth-centered traditions, which celebrate the sacred circle of life and instruct us to live in harmony with the rhythms of nature.

 
Another Universalist Unitarian church web site tells us: 

Universalist Unitarianism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions.  Unlike most religions, it is not centered on specific theological beliefs.  Universalist Unitarians are free to search for truth on many paths. 

Universalist Unitarianism arose from two liberal religions, both of which were originally part of the Christian tradition.

Unitarians believed in the oneness of God and questioned the Trinity.

Universalism was founded on the premise that a loving God would not condemn a person to eternal punishment for earthly errors.

The two denominations merged in 1961.  Over the years, Unitarian Universalism has evolved into an even more open and accepting faith.  (https://peoriauuchurch.org/whoweare_1.html)

 
And, following that line of thinking, we have this sermon from a Universalist Unitarian pastor who claims to have initially been a Baptist:

A Unitarian with a Dash of Baptist
Sermon by Universalist Unitarian Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof, May 28, 2017
http://uuspokane.org/WP2/services/unitarian-dash-baptist/

One of the most frequent questions I’m asked is how I went from being a Southern Baptist to becoming a Universalist Unitarian?  As theologically different as these two faiths are, there is also much they have in common.  For me, becoming a UU wasn’t a radical shift, but the continuing evolution of the core values that drew me to the Baptist faith to begin with, values that abide in me still, values that are also at the core of Unitarian Universalism. .  .  .

Bill Gray Note:  Very similar rationalization which is used by most atheists and non-believers to justify a false theology or a self-imposed blindness toward God and spiritual reality.

My father, on the other hand, whom I’m confident was an undiagnosed, untreated paranoid schizophrenic, often spoke in religious terms, though only about his version of an authoritarian, punitive God of the Old Testament, and never about Jesus or as if he considered himself a Christian.  In his mind, he was God’s anointed agent, a delusion of grandeur symptomatic of his illness, and, in our home, he acted as if he was God. .  .  .

Bill Gray Note:  To deny God, he first denies his Christian earthly father, which he does with typical atheistic flair.

Yet we, as Universalist Unitarians, remain free to ordain and install our own ministers, and, thankfully, have a long history of breaking with tradition, calling upon women, gays, lesbians, transgenders, even a few atheists, to minister to us and to occupy our pulpits.

Bill Gray Note:  What more can be said?  In that church anyone who wants to stand and declare that their knowledge exceeds that of God - is welcomed into their pulpit and into their clergy.

If you will google "Humanist Manifesto" you will find three Manifestos published by the American Humanist Association whose logo declares "Good Without A God."  These declarations are:  Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933)  ~  Humanist Manifesto 2 (1973)  ~ and Humanist Manifesto 3 (2003).  Looking at these Manifestos, they are basically the American Humanist's atheistic Statements of Faith.  

And, very important to note - you will find that many of the people who signed these Humanist Manifestos are Universalist Unitarian pastors, along with many theologians from liberal universities and colleges.

On the web site for Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933) we find this introduction:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world.  The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes.  Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs.  Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience.

In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism.  In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.   (https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/manifesto1/)

And, all of that brings to me my reason for writing this blog.  Folks we have often heard the old idiom "from the sublime to the ridiculous."   What is an idiom?  It is a word or phrase used to describe a situation where something serious and important - is followed by something absolutely silly and ridiculous.  And I doubt I will ever find a better example of an idiom than this article posted on Facebook today. 

Basically it is taking us from Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in His own image;.  .  . male and female He created them"  ~ to LGBT, then LGBTQQIAP, and now to LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP.   I know it is a silly question - but what can possibly follow this new Liberal slap in the face of God?

Teachers Attend 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' Sensitivity Training
BY Megan Fox, NOVEMBER 26, 2017
https://michaelsavage.com/2017/11/27/teachers-attend-lggbdtttiqqaap-sensitivity-training/

Gather 'round children!  The Canadian Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (Canada) has some super interesting new information for you!  First, we're going to learn a new acronym.  Can you say, "LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP?"  Let's try it to the tune of "Old MacDonald!"  Everyone sing along!  Next, we'll learn what these letters mean.  Are you ready?

L — Lesbian  -  Everyone knows what this is, right?

G — Gay  -  And I'm sure I don't need to explain this to you smarties!

G — Genderqueer  -  Now this one is new.  So let's make sure we all understand what this means:  "Genderqueer; denoting or relating to a person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders."  That's easy, isn't it, kids?  Basically, this is a person who has no idea who or what "x" they are, okay?

B — Bisexual  -  That's self-explanatory, isn't it?

D — Demisexual  -  Oh boy!  Another new one!  Let's get out the ever-expanding queer dictionary to figure it out!  "A demisexual is a person who does not experience sexual attraction unless they form a strong emotional connection with someone."   This used to be known as monogamous love.  But now we throw the word "sexual" on it to make it attractive to the kids.  Got it?

T — Transgender  -  You all know all about this one!  These are boys or girls who dress up like the opposite sex and want everyone to pretend not to notice!

T — Transexual  -  You are familiar with these people too!   Same as above, only they've gone through irreversible surgery to remove healthy body parts because of feelings.  Let them in your bathroom.   Everything is fine.

T — Two-Spirit  -  Oh my goodness!  How exciting!  It's another category no one on earth has ever heard of!  This one is complicated, dear ones.  For sure you have to be a Native American.  And smoking a lot of peyote could only help to understand what the heck a two-spirit is.  It appears to be a third gender, not yet discovered by science, and only found in the Native American community by gender studies majors who take adventure vacations and hang out in sweat lodges.

I — Intersex  -  This is that very rare condition that we used to call hermaphrodite, where a child is born with both sex organs of male and female.  It is very rare, as in, hardly ever happens.  It is a birth defect.

Note:  We are just motoring through all these new terms and if you need a snack to recharge, choose something high protein!  We are going to need those brains functioning at peak capacity for this one!

Q — Queer  -  Just when you thought you couldn't use the word "queer" because it's an insult, think again!  It's back!  Queer is an umbrella term designed to describe all people who aren't normies.  I think.  It's hard to tell.  These things do change on an almost daily basis.

Q — Questioning  -  This is a term used for people who are still deciding where they are going to fall on this list.  It seems contradictory to the "born that way" theory - to have a bunch of people still questioning their sexuality - but the LGBTQWTF brigade says it's fine, so rest assured, there's nothing to question about questioning.

A — Asexual  -  People who have no interest in sex.  This also used to be known as "people who are married with kids."  See the classic TV show "Married with Children" for an example.

A — Allies  -  People who "virtue signal" constantly on Twitter about supporting their LGBTQWTF friends and family.  These people aren't gay, queer, or even questioning!  They're simply shielding themselves from the "gaystappo" squads who come around looking for people who aren't properly broadcasting their approval of the queer agenda.  Be an ally, children... if you know what's good for you!

P — Pansexual  -  Just a more confusing way to say bisexual.  There really is no difference, only we pretend there is so we can use a word that reminds us of Greek mythology and it sounds more interesting than bisexual, which is so last decade.

P — Polyamorous  -  People who are basically leftover Hippies, who miss their communes.  Or hardcore Mormons.  Either way, they are people who like to have more than one partner, sometimes at the same time.

Now that we've finished our lesson for today, children, it's time for questions!   What's that?   "Why are there no furries on the list?"

AAAARRRRGHHHH!!!  The discrimination is rampant!  Get the markers!  Add a letter!  Print new flyers!

If you are wondering where all this could lead and why I take the time to post such blogs, you might want to read these two articles:

The LGBT Agenda vs. Religious Freedom
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/13/lgbt-agenda-vs-religious-freedom/

LGBT Activist Threatens to Burn Down Church
https://pjmedia.com/faith/2017/09/21/lgbt-activist-threatens-to-burn-down-church-over-traditional-marriage-billboard/

And, if that is not convincing to you, take a look at this very recent video posted by the professional hockey team, the Anaheim Ducks, to celebrate the 100th anniversary of hockey in America.  In it one of the Anaheim Ducks players is filmed walking through the Anaheim Ducks headquarter offices totally nude - while unsuspecting office workers look on in shock.  And this video was obviously approved by the Anaheim Ducks' management.  Does that give you food for thought?

Is this the Anaheim Ducks' management and team's way of giving all Christian believers, and God, the "Shove It!" salute?  Works for me - about as well asColin Kaepernick's salute to America and our American military.

(Anaheim) Ducks celebrate NHL anniversary with nude Ryan Kesler video
https://www.cbssports.com/nhl/news/ducks-celebrate-nhl-anniversary-with-nude-ryan-kesler-video-then-apologize-for-it/

Folks, I realize I have given you a lot to think about - but, how else will you know how to respond when someone in the secular world asks you, "What do you think about the LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP Movement?"  Now you will not have to respond, "The what movement?"   Glad I could help.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Just Be Ready!

In the wee hours of the morning on November 25, 2012, a Friend on the TimesDaily Religion Forum asks me:

Bill,  Do you believe those who claim to have near death experiences, who say they went to heaven and were sent back to earth?  And, are angels all males or are there female angels?  Are we near the end of time?  So many say we are.

 
Let's break her questions down:

First,  "Do you believe those who claim to have near death experiences, who say they went to heaven and were sent back to earth?"

We know that Hebrews 9:27 tells us, "And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment."   That tells us that no one has died and then come back.   But, you asked about "near death experiences" - which I do believe can happen.

But, do those people truly see heaven or hell?   Or is it something which happens due to preconditioning of their minds?

Years ago, I frequently drove the Los Angeles freeways in my field engineering and then computer sales work.   At that time, I purposely preconditioned my mind to react when and if danger quickly came upon me.  When driving, I would repeatedly think to myself, "If you have a blow-out, or your car starts to spin - turn your wheels into the spin - not against it."   I told myself this, and other precautions, over and over - until my reaction became second nature.

And, I can attest that this saved my life several times.  Once, when driving north on Freeway 5 going through Buena Park, California - I had a blow-out while driving 70 mph in the fast lane, in mid-day traffic.  My automatic preconditioned reaction helped me put the car into the ditch on the side of the road - instead of rolling over or hitting another car.

Another time, the second trailer in a tandem trailer configuration broke from the 18-wheeler truck and first trailer, right in front of me - and while I was maneuvering around that trailer, the front trailer broke off and jack-knifed right in front of me.   Only my preconditioned reflexes saved me.

All this is to say that people can precondition their minds:  for driving dangers as I had done - or - about seeing heaven or hell.  And, in a near death experiences those preconditioned thoughts can seem to be very real to them.  That is what I believe happens.

Next, my Friend asked, "And are angels all males or are there female angels?" 

Even though the angels mentioned in the Bible always have masculine names - I believe angels do not have a specific gender, that they are neither male nor female.   

When the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus with the story of the women who married seven brothers in succession (Matthew 22:23-30), by asking Him, "In the next life, whose wife is she?"

Jesus told them, in Matthew 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."

God made us male and female so that we might marry and have children, i.e., "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 1:28).  That is the same thing He told Noah and his sons after the flood (Genesis 9:1).

Angels were not created to procreate - so, they have no need to be either male or female.

Next, my Friend asks, "Are we near the end of time?  So many say we are."

Jesus tells us:

Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone."
 
Acts 1:7, "He said to them, 'It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority.' "

In Matthew 24, Jesus gives us food for thought about the end times, i.e., there will be wars, heavenly disturbances, calamities on earth, increasing apostasy, etc.  All of these are happening now, but will happen to a greater extent during the seven year Tribulation, which is what Matthew 24 is describing.  One last key gating factor for the Rapture to occur, is the return of Israel as a nation.  That did happen in 1948.  

We know there is growing apostasy.  For we see the world and the United States becoming more and more secular, allowing secular society more and more freedom to spread their aberrant teachings and lifestyles in all levels of our schools and in our society.  And we see growing persecution of Christians worldwide.  There are many signs.  But, from Scripture we know absolutely that NO ONE knows the time, day, or hour of His coming.

That is why we are told to be ready at all times.  Just as I preconditioned myself for automatic reaction in times of danger while driving - we must precondition ourselves spiritually to always be ready for our Lord and Savior to return - when least expected.

Luke 12:40, "You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not expect."
 
Matthew 24:44, "For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will."

So, regarding the End Times and when Christ will come to Rapture His church; the best advice anyone can give is - always be ready.  Have your spiritual house in order and be ready for Him to come at any time.  It could be today, tomorrow, next year - or not for a hundred years.

But this we know beyond all doubt.  The Rapture, Christ taking His bride, His church, into heaven, will happen. 

John 14:1-3, "Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.  In My Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you.  I go to prepare a place for you.  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also."

1 Thessalonians 4:16-18, "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.  Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.  And thus we shall always be with the Lord.  Therefore comfort one another with these words."

He is coming for us when we least expect it (Matthew 24:44).  Just be ready.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

  

Who Should Decide - You Or "Big Brother"? ~ Flash Back To A Dialogue With Dr. Fred Saure

Those of us who have been living in the Wonderful World of Internet Technology for a long while have most likely experienced many of the horrors imposed on us by the Internet Big Brother team of AOL and then Yahoo.   Almost thirty years ago, God gave me a Christian writing ministry.  First it was doing a snail-mail Christian newsletter I named "The Good News."  Then my long time Christian brother, Pastor Freddy Cortez, suggested I start using e-mail to send my newsletters via the internet.  As he told me, "You can send to thousands of people and it is far cheaper than the printing and postage needed for snail-mail newsletters."

Never one to ignore good advise, about twenty years ago I began doing my Friends Ministry eNewsletter via e-mail - using the old and slow dial-up internet connection.  It took a while to send the messages, especially when I built my mail list to about 600 folks around the world.  But it was exciting.  I met a lot of interesting folks and many good Christian Friends along the way.

Then AOL and later Yahoo began to impose their version of censorship on our e-mails.  Especially those with Christian content.  And that led to the dialogue below with my long time Christian brother,  Dr. Fred Saure.

On June 23, 2007, I sent the following eNewsletter, which was written in response to Dr. Saure, but sent to all in my Friends Ministry eNewsletter mail list.  It was titled "Who Should Decide - You Or 'Big Brother'?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Today, I received an e-mail from my Friend, Dr. Fred Saure, retired president of the Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary in Baguio, now living in the United States.  Dr. Saure has been a Friend in my Friends Ministry for quite a while, and has been very supportive of the writing ministry God has given me.  I truly appreciate the support, suggestions, and encouragement he has offered me - once telling me, "Bill, if you will put your writings into a book, I will be first in line to get one."   Coming from a Christian leader and teacher such as Dr. Saure, that was very encouraging.

Initially in this e-mail, I was only going to respond to Dr. Saure.  But then decided that I should include all my Friends.  In reading over my response, I realized that this goes far beyond AOL, Yahoo, or any other self-ordained protector of our cyber-world messages.  So, I decided to share this with all my Friends Ministry eNewsletter Friends.

Please do not get me wrong; I absolutely, firmly, believe that we MUST have more control over the content of the internet.  Pornography and all sorts of abhorrent information and images are rampant on the internet.  And, through the Liberal imposed "freedom of speech" rhetoric - the pornographers and other predators have free rein to send those images to everyone, including our children. 

Some years ago, I was writing about the assassination of President Kennedy.  I went on the internet and did a search for Kennedy Assassination - and was rewarded, maybe assaulted is a better word, with a pornographic image.  Can you imagine how many times this has happened to our young children under similar circumstances when doing research for school work?

So, my dialogue with Dr. Saure is not about having no control over the content of internet information.  Rather, it is about NOT having Corporate Big Brother telling YOU which e-mails you may receive, and which e-mails you may not receive - without asking you if you want those e-mails or not.

I will reiterate that I am firmly behind, supportive of, and demand that internet pornography and other such distasteful poison should be removed from the internet.  On the other hand, if you and I, as Christians, want to consensually send Christian messages to Friends - Corporate Big Brother should not interfere.  By the same token, if a Mormon wants to send a Mormon message; or a Muslim wants to send a Muslim message; or an Atheist wants to send his atheist message to his Friends - Corporate Big Brother should not be a self-ordained censor or gate keeper.

Pornographic images are bad and distasteful, except to those making money from it - and should be eliminated.  They may have the First Amendment right to free speech - but, you and I have the same right to not have that vulgar speech and image forced upon us and our children.

Spam mail is another issue; but, I feel that it is best left to the individual to handle this situation.  As I say in my response below to Dr. Saure, by using Spam Blocker software and setting up a special BLOCK folder, I have this under control.  Another thing I did was to build a special Spam Friends folder and send them my messages, which is not Spam because I am only responding to the e-mail they sent to me.  Amazingly, in resolving my Spam issue, I have found a number of new Friends through this effort.

As you can see, I do have very strong feelings about both the issue of pornography on the internet and about e-mail censorship.  Share this with you Friends, Relatives, Associates, and Neighbors --- all your FRANs.  Together, we can beat the Porno Monster and the Censorship Monster - and bring the internet back to the positive usage it was designed to give us.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr. Fred Saure wrote:   "On Yahoo Blocks"

Dear Bill,

When I was still at the seminary in Baguio, some of my group e-mails could not go through because the recipients exceeded the limit.  Or, so it was internally explained.  I then merely resent the email by installment.

But you seem to think there is censorship involved here.  Is this so?

Thanks and God bless!

Fred Saure

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Hi Fred,

Yes, since the advent of DSL there are several things happening in the realm of e-mails.  For quite a while, AOL was blocking on content.  So, if your e-mail appeared to have words that smelled like Christian, or if you had URL links which had that same smell - AOL would block your e-mail.  It appears that AOL has quit being the bulldog; and now it is Yahoo doing the censorship.

Yahoo, in attempting to control the Spam problem (so they say), has established themselves as the Gate Keeper without asking the owners of the gate.  This is something they should leave up to the client.  Personally, I receive about 500 Spam e-mails each day.  What I have done is to set up a BLOCKED folder and train my Internet Security to recognize Spam and divert it to this folder.  

Then, I can scan that folder quickly to see if any good e-mails have been diverted by mistake, and delete the remaining e-mails.  It is aggravating and time consuming to have to do this; but, it is far better than having a company such as Yahoo make my decision for me which e-mails I can receive and which I will not be allowed to receive.  I want to be my own censor, not have a corporation force their censorship upon me.

Bill Gray Note:  Today I use a program called MailWasher which flags Spam and unwanted e-mails so they can be deleted before being downloaded.

When I began my e-mail ministry about nine years ago (1998), I was using dial-up internet service from Pacific Bell and I had no trouble sending to my complete list of about 600 people.  Then SBC and Pacific Bell merged; and even then still with dial-up service, I had no trouble sending to my Friends Ministry mail list.

But when SBC introduced their DSL service, they joined with Yahoo to offer the service.  It became SBC Yahoo DSL.  All of a sudden, I was told that I could only send to 25 recipients in one e-mail.  With over 600 in my mail list, that would have meant that I would have had to rebuild and send each e-mail 24 times.  And that would have been prohibitive to my writing ministry.

I called someone in SBC administration and asked about this problem.  I was told that, with the advent of DSL, SBC Yahoo was concerned with people sending Spam.  I reminded the lady that, every day, SBC sends e-mails to tens of thousands of people - and most do not request those e-mails.  Her response was, "Yes, but we use T1."   Well, duh!  Because SBC uses an even faster method of transmitting e-mails - their e-mails are not Spam?  Yet, when I moved up from dial-up to the mid-range DSL, my e-mails became Spam?  There seemed to be some inconsistency in that logic.

T1 is merely a faster method of sending than DSL.  So, in effect she was telling me that my e-mails were Spam because I was sending over DSL which is faster than my previously used dial-up.  But SBC's much larger volume of e-mails, by using the T1 faster method of transmission, are not Spam.   Really?

At this point I made a telephone call to the office of the president of SBC Corporation in Houston, Texas.  After talking with a lady in his office and through her, by talking with the office of the president of SBC DSL in St. Louis, they finally assigned a man to help me.  He did whatever was required to allow me to send to my full list without restrictions - and all was well.

That solved my problem of sending e-mails.   But then Yahoo decided to take it upon themselves to censor e-mails BEFORE they arrive at the Inbox of the recipients.  In other words, Yahoo is now not limiting my sending of e-mails - but Yahoo is now deciding which e-mails YOU are allowed to receive, without you having an opportunity to decide for yourself.

When I spoke to a person at Yahoo Tech Support about this, I was told that, if I send to 50 or more Yahoo recipients in a period of several hours - Yahoo will stop those e-mails from being delivered.  Yet, I have found that Yahoo also blocks based upon content.  If an e-mail has a URL link to another web page and it is an active link, i.e., if it contains the http in front of the www.web page name.com - very often Yahoo will block the e-mail.  The reason for adding the http is for the convenience of the reader; so that you merely have to click on the link to visit that page.  Otherwise, the reader has to copy/paste the URL into their browser.

To get around this, in my e-mails to the group, I leave off the active link http.

I have also found that Yahoo does not block the e-mails to all the Yahoo users in my mail list.  It appears to be a "selective" blocking.  However, there are many that appear to be consistently on their blocked list.  So, I have built several separate Yahoo Blocked folders, using those e-mail addresses.  That way when I get a "mail blocked" message back from Yahoo - I can rebuild and resend the e-mails just to those special folders.  However, I do not resend all messages - for I get busy and do not always have the time.   Because of this censorship, often many Friends who have requested my Friends Ministry eNewsletter - do not receive it.

When it was SBC Yahoo blocking me from sending; I could take action - which I did.  And I worked with them to resolve the problem.  However, this problem now is not on my end; but, on the recipient's end.  And I have no control over that.  Only you, the Yahoo client, can complain to Yahoo about this censorship.  As with any business; if a company begins to lose clients, begins to lose business - that will get their attention.  Otherwise, they just continue on like the fat and happy cow, chewing her cud, and blocking the gate.

Fred, back to your original question about censorship; we will always find varying degrees of censorship when our messages are Christian in nature.  The censorship tends to come and go, much like that by AOL before.  Since those who censor are obviously not Christian, appealing to them on that basis would be futile.  The only appeal which reaches their ears - is through their wallet.  When enough clients say, "Enough!  I will find a more Christian friendly, or user friendly, e-mail provider" - then that secular corporation will take notice.  Many people just make the assumption, "Oh, I am only one person, what can I do?   What difference will it make if I switch?"

An election can be decided on one vote.  The Supreme Court swings on a single vote.  Many bills in Congress and other legislative bodies have been decided by one vote.  Then, when that one vote becomes two, then three, then more - suddenly "We The People" are back in control, rather than the corporation or the legislative body - as our founding fathers designed the system.

Fred, thank you for your response.  I always enjoy hearing from you.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill 

In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity - Revisited

It is often good to revisit ideas and discussions, to refresh our thoughts and to see if any new insights or revelations have occurred which would change or alter the way we view that issue today.

With that in mind, let's revisit a blog I posted on June 14, 2014, titled "In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity." 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In recent dialogues on the TimesDaily Religion Forum, two Forum Friends, one a Protestant and the other Roman Catholic, have been discussing the meaning of the world "catholic." 

My Protestant Friend wrote, "Neither Ignatius nor any other person in the First Century A.D. employed the word 'catholic' as a title for the Church of Jesus Christ, or some inauthentic division thereof.   He used the word simply as an adjective, meaning 'universal,' which is, of course, what Jesus intended His church to be."

And, my Roman Catholic Friend responds by starting a new discussion which he titled "For The Record."   There he copy/pasted a long article from the web site "New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia - Catholic."  (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm)

In the article excerpts below I found that, from the first paragraphs of the article in the URL link my Roman Catholic Friend has given, it confirms that the word "catholic" means only "universal."

The word Catholic (katholikos from katholou — throughout the whole, i.e., universal) occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense.

Thus we meet such phrases as the "the catholic resurrection" (Justin Martyr), "the catholic goodness of God" (Tertullian), "the four catholic winds" (Irenaeus), where we should now speak of "the general resurrection" - "the absolute or universal goodness of God" - "the four principal winds" - etc. 

The word seems in this usage to be opposed to merikos (partial) or idios (particular), and one familiar example of this conception still survives in the ancient phrase "Catholic Epistles" as applied to those of St. Peter, St. Jude, etc., which were so called as being addressed not to particular local communities, but to the Church at large.

The combination "the Catholic Church" (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110.  The words run: "Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church."

Bill Gray Note:  In the paragraphs above, the writer acknowledges that the word "catholic" means universal.  Yet then he states that the "Catholic Epistles" - meaning the New Testament epistles, are addressed to the church at large, i.e., the worldwide church.  But please notice that he capitalizes the word "Church" - which I take to be an inference that he is speaking of the worldwide "Roman Catholic Church." 

Why do I draw that conclusion?  In past discussions I have written "Roman Catholic church" - and have been chastised for not capitalizing the "C" in church.  To me the "church" is a common name (boy versus Bill, girl versus Mary) and not capitalized, i.e., Roman Catholic church, Baptist church, Lutheran church, etc.  So when the writer takes the high road and writes "the Church at large" - I must assume he has fallen back to interpreting "catholic" as being, not universal, but meaning the Roman Catholic Church. 

After Constantine formed his Church of Rome, it eventually began to be called the Roman Catholic church.  But, that is a misuse of the true meaning of the word "catholic."    Jesus Christ founded one church on the Day of Pentecost 33 AD, the Christian church!   It began with 120 members; then added 3000 more; then within a few days it grew to over 5000 members.  Since then it has grown to billions of saved people, His church.

On the Day of Pentecost 33 AD and in the week following, the body of believers grew to over 5000 people.  At that time they were called followers of the Way.  At a later date, as the initial body of believers began to grow, antagonists in the city of Antioch coined a new derogatory word for the followers of the Way, spitefully calling them "Christians" - meaning "Christ followers" or "Little Christs."  Yet, even though it was meant to be derogatory - we gladly wear that name as a Mantle of Honor.

On that Day of Pentecost, Jesus did not found the Roman Catholic church; He did not found the Baptist church; He did not found the Lutheran, nor the Methodist, nor any of the many non-denominational churches.  He founded what soon became the Christian church, His body of believers.

And, in years after the Day of Pentecost 33 AD - man began to found his churches, i.e., Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Church of England, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Baptist, Methodist, etc.  Thus we have the numerous churches, denominations, and the claims of so many to be the "only" church.  What did Jesus really say about His church?

Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

This verse describes how Christ built one Church.  Matthew 16:18: “…I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”  Jesus is speaking here in very vivid and bold language.  He is emphatically stating that the church He built would never disappear.  In fact, Jesus promised to build His Church - singular!

Jesus does NOT say, “I will build my churches.”  One has to wonder what Jesus would say about the mess of confusion and often infighting that is seen today, not only within different denominations but also within the individual churches.   Many Christ-followers do not seem to agree on anything.  (http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/5-most-overlooked-bible-verses/) 

German Lutheran theologian of the early seventeenth century, Rupertus Meldenius, in a tract on Christian unity written circa 1627, wrote: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.“    If only we could all live by those wonderful words.

We all should be able to acknowledge that there are Essential Christian doctrines which define our salvation and which cannot be compromised.

And, there are many Non-Essential Christian doctrines and teachings which, while important to understand, interesting to discuss, and are helpful in making us more mature believers and witnesses - DO NOT define nor affect our salvation.

What are the Essential Christian Doctrines which cannot be compromised?

1. The Deity of Jesus Christ:  Preexisting deity, God incarnate - fully man; yet, fully God.  (John 1:1, 1:14, 4:25, 8:58)

2. The Trinity:  God eternally existing; one God manifested (revealed) in three persons: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. (Genesis 1:1, 1:26,  John 1:1, Luke 3:21-22)

3.  The Bible:  Is the Holy Spirit inspired Written Word of God and is the sole authority for Christian faith, salvation, and to guide our Christian lives. (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21)

4. Salvation by Grace:  By grace we are saved, through faith in Jesus Christ - plus nothing else. (Ephesians 2:8-9, Isaiah 51:6, Galatians 2:16, John 3:16, 6:47, 10:27-28, Romans 6:23, 10:9, 10:13, Hebrews 9:15)

5. The Resurrection of Christ:  He rose from the dead, that we may also be resurrected into eternal life.  (1 Peter 1:3, John 11:25-26, Acts 10:39-43)

6. The Gospel:  The birth, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return of Jesus Christ according to Scripture.   (Luke 1:26-38,  Matthew 1:20-25, Acts 2:24, 2:32, Romans 8:33-34, 1 Timothy 2:5, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Matthew 24:36)

7.  Heaven and Hell:  Both are real places and are the only two eternal destinations available to all mankind. (Acts 1:9-11,  Hebrews 9:24, Psalm 139:7-8, Matthew 10:28, Mark 9:47, Luke 16:19-31)

Another way of defining the Essential Christian Doctrines is found in the Five Solas which came out of the Protestant Reformation:    

Sola Scriptura  -  Scripture Alone  (2 Timothy 3:14-17)  ~ The Bible alone is our highest authority.

Solus Christus  -  Christ Alone  (1 Timothy 2:5)  ~  Jesus Christ alone is our Lord and Savior.

Sola Gratia  -  Grace Alone  (Ephesians 2:4-5, 2:8-9)  ~  We are saved by the grace of God alone.

Sola Fide  -  Faith Alone  (Galatians 3:11)  ~  We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Soli Deo Gloria  -  To The Glory Of God Alone  (1 Corinthians 10:31)  ~  We live for the glory of God alone.

That is telling us:  "We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed in the Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone."

My Friends, instead of bickering over which church is His church.  Instead of bickering over the numerous Non-Essential Doctrines such as Eschatology, Method and Timing of Baptism, Apostolic Succession, Liturgical Traditions, what is contained in the Communal Elements, etc.  .  .  .  What would happen if we ALL just concentrate on sharing His Gospel:  That He came, died, rose again, and ascended into heaven so that YOU and I would have the opportunity to receive His free gift of eternal life? 

What would happen if we ALL concentrate on sharing that Gospel with all those who do not yet believe in Him?

Can you just imagine what a difference that would make in our families, in our communities, in our nations, in all the world? 

That is the Great Commission He gave to ALL believers:  "Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, TEACH THEM. . .  Be My witnesses in ALL the world"  (Matthew 28:19-20, Acts 1:8, Mark 16:15).

How about it, my Friend, can YOU and I begin that transition, that new mode of dialogue about God and eternal life?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill