Another lesson in futility

Kumtekmeon continues to misunderstand the nature of Scripture, especially in light of the nature of Christ. He seems to be a "red letter" reader, thinking that Christ's words are only those stated in the red letters of a standard Bible, those uttered during His earthly ministry. What he obviously misunderstands is that the entirety of Scripture IS Christ's words, but isn't that the way it goes when attempting to justify sin? I don't mean to sound mean but it is what it is.

Kumtekmeon's words are in brown, mine's in black...

When making a case against a group of people, it would do good to speak SPECIFICALLY to that group of people. Confusing homosexuality with pederasty only goes to show how BIAS and DECEPTIVE you are.

Wrong. Pederasty is still homosexual sex even if it is with boys. Remember, the issue is homosexual sex and not a man with homosexual feelings or tendencies. It is the acting on these feelings or tendencies, whether in thought or in deed, that Secondly, not every citation in the video was “specifically” about pederasty. Pederasty just happened to be the coveted form of homosexual sex at the time. By the way, the only bias and deception being presented is your comments, considering you’re not thinking this through.

Pederasty is what is considered pedophilia today.

Wrong again. Pederasty was “specifically” sex with boys. Pedophilia is sex wth children, both girls and boys.

Where is the evidence to show that homosexuals go about abusing children.

What is the sexual orientation of a man who has sex with boys? It isn’t “straight” I assure you. You do know how to google, don’t you.

You need to be enlighten to the reality that homosexuals ARE NOT only adults. So far we have 5 gay suicides in 3 weeks and they were all youth, NOT adults.

So what is the relevance?

So where is the link?

What “link” is it that you want?

Speaking to sexual immorality in the church and practices of anal sex among males, AND to sexual acts to that of lesbians ARE NOTHING NEW! Paul in Romans 1 pointed to these, BUT in order to support your homophobic agenda, have deliberately changed the context.

Why is it that when someone sees what is evident in Scripture and points it out, they automatically become “homophobes.” I believe the word is used frivolously and to vilify those who see it as sin. I’m no more a “homophobe” than you are. As to your statement regarding Paul, well, that’s odd? On the one hand you admit that Paul speaks of these, but on the other you say that the context has been "deliberately changed." How? I would dare you to consult any of the ancient church fathers who commented on Romans 1. Did they change the context? Rather, it is the gay interpretation that is novel and attempts to "change the context" to solace their lifestyle. Yet, historically, the ancient Jews and Christians understood Scripture to condemn the homosexual act as sin.

Citing men of old, even those who were apostles to John etc proves NOTHING!

LOL! It only proves that this is the way these passages were ALWAYS understood. It only proves that gay theology is nothing more than twisting Scripture. It is a hostile witness against those who claim that Scripture doesn't condemn the homosexual act.

Isn't it a fact that the books of the prophets were known to the Pharisees, YET they failed to recognize Jesus?

The story of the Pharisees is a story of rebellion. They were witnesses of Christ’s ministry, including His miracles, but were revealed to be hypocrites by Jesus. Because they rebelled doesn’t contrast with what the Scriptures state so clearly regarding homosexuality. Even the Pharisees would have agreed with the condemnation in Leviticus 18:22 as, of course, a condemnation of homosexuality. Their “misrecognition” has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with their rebellion. In the same way, those who attempt to use Scripture to validate what Scripture condemns are just as rebellious.

Isn't it a fact that the same bible we have today was had in Pre and Post Slavery time, YET blacks were not fully accepted into the church. Men are prone to mistranslate AND misrepresent the word of God.

That is a fallacious argument. Men using or misusing the Bible has no bearing on the truth that is WITHIN Scripture. Sure, the Bible can be used to validate a host of errors, but proper exegesis of Scripture leads away from the error.

So tell me what Jesus said and not what man said.

SCRIPTURE, the entirety of the word of God, IS WHAT JESUS SAID! I believe I corrected you on this before. Men wrote it as they were moved by God. The word is “theopneustos” which means God literally “breathed” it out as the prophets and disciples wrote His words. It came from the very mouth of God. Have you even read 2 Timothy 3:16? Do you believe that Jesus is God? I assume you do considering your question differentiates between Jesus and “man.” So, if Jesus is God, why is it that you do not recognize ALL of Scripture as being what Jesus "said"?

Isn't it funny how you can neither quote Jesus NOR any of His disciples to support your homophobic agenda!

Rather, it is funnier that you don’t seem to recognize that Scripture IS Jesus talking. ALL of Scripture are the words of Christ. Even the words of Leviticus and Romans. It’s ALL Christ! Have you even read John 1, where it speaks of Christ? It states that “in the beginning was the Word” and that the Word “was with God” and that the Word “was God.” Well, this “Word” became “flesh” and dwelt amongst us. It’s odd that you want specific words from Christ as evidence when the ENTIRE Bible is Christ’s specific words. You see, your argument isn’t with me, but with Christ! You just can’t seem to understand it because it goes against your position.

By the way, once again, there is no "homophobic agenda." You simply toss those words to attack the man and not the argument. You think that vilifying me lessens the impact of Scripture. It doesn't.

It is people like you why hatred and division remains.

There you go again equating disagreement to “hatred and division.” If one holds the conviction that homosexuality is condemned by God via Scripture and that it is rightly sin, he therefore becomes a hater and a divider according to your logic. You seem content in poisoning the well, but a sensible person would understand religious conviction enough to know that there is no wrong intent.

Jesus said ''Come unto me, ALL [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'' MAN cares about sexuality NOT God.

Jesus also inspired the words of Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 and sexuality remains an issue with God. The fact is that all SIN remains an issue with God, irregardless of your Scripture-tossing. Scripture-tossing, as you do here, doesn’t validate right belief and the verse you cite has nothing to do with sexuality and God.

Come on baby! Let's do the Twist...

Kumtekmeon responded to my blog post via a YouTube personal message. It seems that the combox doesn't allow for large responses. This is probably preferable. Comboxes are very limited and not format-friendly.

Most of Kumtekmeon's responses is second-handed considering he sent me a previously written response to an unknown person. Yet, considering the nature of the argumentation, I will have to treat it as if he's asserting that I'm arguing the same way. Why else would he send it to me? The reader will note that his argumentation is not new, but can be found on websites such as the Gay Christian Network or the Metropolitan Community Churches. Please pay close attention to the way Kumtekmeon interprets Scripture. Is it valid? Let the reader decide.

Kumtekmeon's words are in blue, mine's are in black. We begin...

Churchmouse, if my position on homosexuality and the bible was unmoving, you wouldn't have seen the need to address my points in detail. So please desist from undermining my position.

If you read through my blog you will see that I’m details-oriented to begin with, regardless of how strong or weak the counter-argument is. The truth is that I don’t see your argument as valid, especially when the weight of Scriptural exegesis and church history is firmly behind me. Your arguments are not new to me. They are novel, recent, and have been proven to lack exegetically. So, if it seems I’m “undermining”, its not intentional, it’s only because the facts of Scripture are contra your position.

Now (as expected) your FIRST point of reference points to Sodom, a city that was destroyed by God for a multitude of sins, AND NOT for the inhabitant of a few homosexuals who might've been living there at the time. However, you have chosen to follow in the LIE of man that Sodom was destroyed due to homosexuality. How ignorant can you be?

Whoa! You’re building a straw man. Would you care to show me WHERE I made the argument that Sodom was specifically destroyed for its homosexuality? It’s quite the contrary. Sodom was destroyed for its wickedness. The homosexual act these men attempted to perform was but one of the evils for which it was destroyed. For all we know, the men who attempted the rape might NOT have been homosexual, but the act of homosexuality itself was evidently abominable. Again, I’ll repeat this so you don’t get confused: Sodom was destroyed specifically for its wickedness. The Sodomites were not necessarily homosexual, but attempted to commit a homosexual act. It was the act itself that was abominable. Practicing homosexuals fair no better considering this act is a part of their lifestyle. The story of Sodom accentuates the “male on male” prohibition that was later defined in Leviticus 18:22. Still, God had already planned to destroy these cities BEFORE the men surrounded Lot’s home.

In addition Jesus' response to a specific question regarding marriage in a traditional setting in the [then] Jewish culture, IN NO WAY supports your twisted view on homosexuality. Let me hasten to remind you that Jesus pointed to what Adam said, 'A man shall leave his parents and cleave unto his wife.' BUT Jesus THEN spoke profoundly and universally by DECLARING that 'who God put together, let no man put asunder'. This is a GENERAL statement…

The only thing “twisted” is what you are doing to divine Scripture. You are clearly taking the Scriptures OUT of their context. Contextually, Matthew states…

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, And said, For this cause shall a MAN leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his WIFE: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:4-6)

What is it that God “joined together”? He joined a man (male) and his wife (female) to be “one flesh” and no man can take them apart. That is the context of the passage and not a “GENERAL statement.” You ignored the CONTEXT of the passage (marriage, divorce, and the created order in Genesis) and then isolated one word to make an argument that is foreign to the context. Doesn’t that tell you something about yourself?

…therefore Who are you to say Mary and Sarah were not joined together by God, especially now when they are celebrating their 50th anniversary of being together?

That’s pragmatism! Just because something “worked” doesn’t mean it is God ordained. If “Mary and Sarah” died in complete faithfulness to one another it doesn’t therefore follow that it was a God-ordained union. It only means that THEY were completely faithful to one another, yet were living in sin because God ordained it as sin.

What then is your measurement to determine the term 'joined together'?

Proper Biblical hermeneutics! Again, you read the CONTEXT of the passage and go from there. God doesn’t join what he doesn’t approve, namely homosexual marriage, due to the prohibitions He gives in His Word.

Churchmouse, I am here to point you to the truth, because for far too long you have been living a lie!

Beating your chest as if you had some form of forsaken “truth” isn’t doing you any favors. Again, one only has to read the Bible without inflicting their own biases to find that your interpretation really doesn’t hold any water. My guess is that you’ve been reading some gay theological material, maybe from some website. Yet, as I’ve said, these arguments are started with the intent of making Scripture fit the gay lifestyle rather than submit the gay lifestyle to Scripture.

Since Sodom is your primary base, let us examine it> (The below points were taken from a response I sent to another sometime ago).Let us examine Sodom. This was an ancient city or a place where people lived. Sodom was one of five cities which included Gomorrah, but these two are famous because of their destruction. Now tell me, HOW do you know someone is from NYC or say Nashville? By their inward and external characteristics.

If you are addressing these points to me (as you said, this response was to someone else), I would have to treat it as if it were to me. That said, I have no idea what it is that you are saying here. Not everyone from “NYC” or “Nashville” share the same “inward and external characteristics.” If you meant that folks in a given city share some sub cultural tendencies, such as accents and lifestyles, that might be true for a large portion, but it’s not the norm for all. For example, if a man from Dallas speaks with a thick Texas drawl and wears a cowboy hat, that might determine that he is from the South, but it’s fallacious to say that all men from Dallas speak with a drawl and wear cowboy garb.

Therefore, when one refers to someone as a Sodomite that person should be exerting characteristics of behavioral patterns existed or common to Sodom.

Well, there is only one commonality that the Bible gives us for Sodom, that being that ALL were wicked and that not even one righteous man could be found. Again, I have no idea what this has to do with our dialogue or how it factors in.

Now homosexual men are WRONGLY referred to as Sodomites in a negative manner (stemming from God's destruction). I specifically used the word wrongly, because the evidence regarding the character of a typical Sodomite DOES NOT lend itself to homosexuality. The story in Genesis did not tell us much about the people of Sodom OTHER than what took place at Lot's house.

Homosexual men are referred to as Sodomites??? In whose world? The word “sodomy”, which finds its roots in the actions of the Sodomites (the citizens of Sodom) means (according to the Merriam Webster dictionary)…

“anal or oral copulation with a member of the same or opposite sex; also : copulation with an animal”

Note that it doesn’t say “a homosexual.” It’s only the act that is relegated to the word. Now, homosexuals engage in sodomy, but it isn’t unique to them. The same can happen between a man and a woman but that doesn't make them homosexual. And what about prisons? Men may rape one another, yet it doesn't mean that they are homosexuals. They are guilty of sodomy, but they surely aren't homosexual. Yet, this remains the stigma of Sodom that a word was formed with their actions (anal sex) in mind. This is also the stigma of homosexuals considering that sodomy is a large practice amongst them, but it in no wise means that the word “Sodomites” strictly pertains to homosexuals. Again, you are beating a dead horse because no one is making an argument for Sodom being a city of homosexuals. I don’t even know why you even brought this argument up.

We have been told from childhood, be it directly OR indirectly, that a group of GAY MEN went to Lot's house wanting to have sex with the 2 male strangers who were staying there, and we have grown to accept this account as true. HOWEVER, if we actually read the bible AND apply basic comprehension, we will see that we have been MISLED.

If one reads the Bible and applies basic comprehension than the account of Sodom stigmatizes the homosexual act, verses such as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 condemn homosexuality, Romans 1 condemns it as well, and 1 Corinthians 6:9 becomes blatant. If one gets technical and applies the principles of basic hermeneutics the argument becomes stronger against homosexuality.

No, once again, you are building a straw man. I don’t know what “childhood” has to do with this, but I assure you that no one tucked me into bed and read me the story of “The Evil Gay Men from Sodom.” Again, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in the story and many homosexuals are only guilty in that they practice the sexual actions of the Sodomites. Yet, to correct another misconception of yours, it isn’t the account of Sodom and Gomorrah that is our “ace in the hole” regarding homosexuality, but what Scripture states as a whole. There are passages within Scripture that are more direct in their condemnation of homosexuality than merely focusing on Genesis 19.

God had sent those 2 angels in the form of man to DESTROY Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. In Genesis, the act of wickedness was not specified, and the story went on to climax at Lot's door. NOW, we've always been given the imagery of an all male gay mob at Lot's door, BUT that's a lie, because Genesis 19:4 reads: But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, ALL THE PEOPLE from every quarter.This clearly tells us that it was not only men at Lot's door WOMEN AND CHILDREN were also there. Why? Because what was taking place was a cultural practice of dealing with strangers; The people of Sodom did not take kindly to strangers coming into their city. Lot lived on the outskirt of Sodom and apparently someone saw the men entering Lot's home and informed the 'officials' who rallied and led the entire town to Lot's door in order to carry out their unkind tradition.

Still, I must point out that your words here are stated with a claim I never made. I never asserted that the Sodomites were all gay men. That is a straw man that you continue to beat. Let’s get some clarity on this: I only pointed out that the actions of the men from Sodom constitute the homosexual act. It is the homosexual act that is abominable to God.

Now we've been told the men of Sodom wanted to have sex with the strangers, I have NO OBJECTION, except for the kind of sex intended. If a man rapes a woman, it is still SEX he had with her. This is exactly what the men of Sodom intended to do to the strangers: they wanted to rape them. How do I know this? Genesis 19:9 reads: And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now WILL WE DEAL WORSE WITH THEE, THAN WITH THEM. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near TO BREAK the door.

Actually, what you cite here DOESN’T relay what they planned to do to the men. The intent of homosexual rape is found in verse 5, where the men wanted to “know” them. Now, if you attempt to make a case that “know” doesn’t necessarily mean “to have sex with”, walk very carefully because I can prove very conclusively that “know” is a sexual term within this context.

The use of the word worse TELLS that the men of Sodom planned to be abusive to the strangers. From this account can you SERIOUSLY show me how this action relates to the characteristics of Homosexuals. Do gays go about beating down doors demanding strange men be brought out so that they rape them? NO! In fact the mere thought of Lot suggesting his virgin daughters to calm the mob CONFIRMS that those men were not homosexuals, because homosexuals ARE NOT attracted to women, so Lot's (on knowing the 'nature' of the PEOPLE) suggestion CONTRADICTS any idea of the men being gay.

You continue to argue as if I asserted that these were gay men. Please point me to where I made the assertion. The proper exegesis of Scripture proves that the homosexual act is the “worse” part of the story. “Rape” isn’t the key point because Lot offers his daughters to be raped. It is the sex between men that really stands out. How do we know this? Because Lot calls this an “evil deed” and attempts to counteract it by offering his daughters (females) in their stead. So, within that context, rape isn’t the “evil deed” within the passage. Some have attempted to argue that the “evil deed” is the rape of angels, but that can’t be because none were aware that these were angels, even Lot (see verse 5 where the angels were clearly called “men”). Evidently, the “evil deed” is the homosexual act—men having sex with men. Regardless of their sexual orientation, the act is prominent in the passages. Again, context is the key to properly understanding the account.

Furthermore, Judges 19 TELLS a similar story of men from a certain city wanting to rape a strange man, luckily for him they agreed to take his concubine instead and they raped and abused her to her death!

You are only making my case for me. Yes, the same incident happens in Judges 19, but here lies the difference—the homosexual act was NOT carried out. But it wasn’t without consequence because it resulted in a war with the Benjaminites. See the difference? In Genesis 19 the men of Sodom intended to perform the act and were destroyed, but the men in Judges 19 didn’t follow through. Humiliation couldn’t have been the driving force considering that sexual copulation remains the intent of the act or else why would the “certain sons of Belial” settle for the woman. Evidently, sex appeased the men. There are clear differences between the two accounts and the homosexual act remains prominent as the “evil deed” in BOTH accounts.

This is an example of what might've happened to the strangers IF the people of Sodom had their way. Such behavior in no way reflects that of homosexuals. YES there are gay men who have committed rape, LIKEWISE straight men have committed rape. BUT the hypocrisy is that when a man rapes a woman he is a rapist, but when a man rapes a man he is a homosexual?

To the contrary, it is the homosexual act that is prominent in BOTH stories, but is not carried through in the latter, regardless of whether it is forced upon (such as rape) or not. The parallels you make sidestep the real issue. Even the parallels are not properly constructed. For instance, if a man forces himself sexually on a woman, of course! He is a rapist. If a man forces himself sexually on another man, of course! He is still considered a rapist. Yet, I have never heard anyone in any court of law state that the man is guilty of “homosexuality” if the rape of another man occurred. Sodomy, yes, guilty of homosexuality, no. You are way over the top on this one.

So far I have shown you that a Sodomite IS NOT a homosexual, because the character expressed from the people of Sodom does not match that of typical homosexuals.

No one is arguing that a Sodomite is a homosexual, so you really haven’t shown me anything. You really need to pay attention to what I have asserted and stop making up an argument I never made.

So who are Sodomites? Well according to GOD in Ezekiel 16, He identified Sodomites by their sins, as their sinful nature characterizes the people in general, unlike today where you find a mixture of righteous and unrighteous existing 'together' in one city. All the people of Sodom except for Lot and his household indulged in sin which became their character. Thus, God said in Ezekiel 16:49 - BEHOLD, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy, And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.

The Sodomites were the people of Sodom, plain and simply. God points them out for their wickedness, but he also delineates that they committed an “abomination” (singular). This abomination is alluded in Ezekiel 16:50 and in Jude 1:7. Hmmm…yet, you cite Ezekiel 16, focused on the inhospitable treatment of others, but danced around the “abomination” aspect of it. No one denies that hospitality was an issue, but did you notice verse 50 which reads “…and committed abomination before me.” It isn’t all about “inhospitality” but the conjunction “and” makes a distinction between the other sins and the abomination. There is only one other thing that is clearly abominable in Scripture and we both know what that is.

Here you have it, ACCORDING to God Himself, a Sodomite is someone who is well off , yet unkind, selfish, idle. Is it fair to say such traits are ONLY exhibit by Gays OR isn't it a FACT that Heterosexuals are also guilty of such traits? Bear in mind that Jesus made reference to Sodom on two occasions and AT NO TIME He accused homosexuals of Sodom's destruction. So my question is, Whose report are you following? Certainly, NOT God's!

Once again, this is just bad argumentation. Jesus didn’t make references to many things and the Bible isn't exhaustive. Are we to assume that when Jesus doesn't mention something than it’s not sinful? Just because Jesus didn’t delineate the homosexual aspect of Sodom doesn’t mean that it wasn’t abominable in God’s eyes. And you still seem to ignore that apart from being "unkind, selfish, idle" the Sodomites were guilty of an abomination. Keep that in mind because you are trying to argue from silence.

Churchmouse, you went on to speak foolishly about Leviticus 18:22 referring also to homosexuals. READ THE BIBLE for once in your life! Where is the evidence that being gay is a learnt behavior?

It refers to men having sex with other men. Homosexuals fall in by default. Once again, you are beating a straw man because I never said it was “learnt behavior.” If you cannot see what is so plainly in Leviticus 18:22 then the foolishness falls with you. As for reading the Bible, I would venture to say that our dialogue is public record by virtue of this blog. The reader can determine for himself if my Bible knowledge lacks or if it is spot on. Furthermore, they can determine for themselves if your verbosity (calling me foolish, “blinded your mind”, your condescension, etc.) is warranted. In other words, they can read our dialogue and determine what is being said, bypassing all the verbosity. I’m okay with that.

Who is training boys and girls in the most homophobic countries, BEFORE the advent of Television and internet and other forms of media on how to be gay? RIDICULOUS!

I have never asserted that the media is training our children to be gay. Are you asserting that they are? What is truly “RIDICULOUS” is how you continue on with an argument I never made. Once again, I dare you to show me where I claimed such a thing.

I asked such questions because if you had read the passage you would've seen that the laws God gave in that passage were DIRECT reactions to customs/practices the Jews picked up from the Egyptians and Canaanites, so you need to show me that being gays is learnt in order to render that Leviticus verse valid! In addition the structure of the law itself raises contradictions BUT your desperation to accurse gays have blinded your mind.

LOL!! Once again you show your naïveté regarding Scripture and human nature. God wanted His people to be separate from the practices of the heathen, but still persisted due to their own sinful natures. This included homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be “learnt behavior” but rather succumbing to their sinful natures. I would like to see what you mean by the Law “raising contradictions” because it sounds like you would resort to an “out” if need be. In other words, even if Leviticus does condemn the act (which it does) you will attempt to find a way around it. That won’t happen.

I will continue on your follies tomorrow (hopefully).

It will be just another opportunity to address the issue and show how Christianity and homosexuality are not compatible.

Excuses, excuses....

Over at youtube, a poster by the name of "Kumtekmeon" replied on the issue of homosexuality and the Bible. This was after I responded to "dreamequality", a gay man who deleted his first channel only to resurrect it with, yet, another one. "dreamequality" persists in his twisting of Scripture and in his attempts to legitimize homosexuality via the Bible. Considering that Scripture IS VERY clear in its condemnation of homosexuality, I responded. Yet, Kumtekmeon reiterates the very same novel arguments, by which it seems he is only trying to convince himself.

Kumtekmeon's words in blue, mine's in black...

You saying that the law against homosexuality (which NEVER existed) still reamins in the NT yet you cannot show me where Jesus at anytime uphold such a law! Saying something DOES NOT make it true WITHOUT FACTS! As said before the bible does not condemn homosexuality..

Never existed??? From the sin of Sodom (Genesis 19) all the way to Christ’s reiteration of who marries under the creation order (Matthew 19:4-6), you have nothing but a condemnation of homosexual perversion. Furthermore, regardless of how evil men attempt to twist them, the Scriptures are clear in that men are not to lay with men as they do with women (Lev.18:22, 20:13). Now, I have heard many homosexuals attempt to bypass what Scripture clearly states by claiming that Jesus never said anything against homosexuality. In other words if Christ didn’t “verbally” state it in the New Testament then there's nothing wrong with it. That’s fallacious at best. Christ wasn’t exhaustive during His earthly ministry. He didn’t say something about everything. Yet, we do know that He always appealed to the Old Testament Scriptures as the Law of God. Furthermore, we also know from 2 Timothy 3:16 that ALL Scripture is God-breathed (the Greek word is “theopneustos”, meaning that it finds its origin directly from the mouth of God), thus ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is spoken by God. God spoke through men, they being the vessels used to convey what what He breathed out (2 Peter 1:20). The prophets didn’t write what they “interpreted” from God, but were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God had said. Now, take this to its conclusion:

1. Jesus is God
2. God spoke through men who, in turn, wrote what God spoke (Scriptures)
3. God condemned homosexuality in various verses (transitioning from the Old Testament—Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22, 20:13—over to the New Testament—Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9).
4. Thus, Jesus, who is God, condemns homosexuality.

Of course, this is built on the premise that Jesus is God. If you don’t believe He is than I guess I really can’t help you. Yet, you appealed to Christ as the authority. Which is it?

What you've been taught to be homosexuality IS NOT dealing with homosexuality

Rather, what YOU’VE been taught (by those who which to legitimize this perversion) is not true. Historically, God’s people (the Jews and the early church) understood that it was homosexuality that God speaks of within the Scriptures. The interpretations you’ve accepted are novel at best, attempted by men who seek to justify their sin.

I hope you know that by accepting Leviticus 18 to be speaking to homosexuality, that you are in turn labeling God BIASED and CONTRARY! This is so because what reason is given as to why God then DID NOT condemn lesbianism. I know you love to point to Romans 1, BUT that's centuries after.

Again, ALL Scripture (Old and New Testament) is inspired by God. Whether it is Leviticus or Romans, it ALL comes from God. To claim that it is men that Leviticus speaks of (at the exclusion of women) is arguing semantics. Again, the Jews always understood this to be perversion and against God’s law. This finds its logical conclusion in Romans 1, where it points out what the Jews (and now the Gentiles) have always understood— that regardless of homosexuality or lesbianism—it remains WRONG.

Also You are saying God did not care about homosexuality among the other nations except the Jews.

What I said that God’s laws were meant to keep a people (Israel) separate from the rest of the world and consecrated unto Him. Salvation belonged to the Jews and they were to be a light to the world. Homosexuality?? Eveyone else was a pagan and these perversions were rampant. Of course, some of these laws have changed in this age of grace, but the condemnation against homosexuality remains.

You have got yourself in a pickle as in Acts Peter declared NOT to put the YOKE around the gentiles neck!

LOL! Where did Peter say that and what has this to do within the context of homosexuality? Are you saying that sin cannot be clarified for fear that it would become a “yoke”??? Are you serious?

In relation to the By-Laws in Leviticus 18, IF you read the entire passage you will see that those laws came about as a DIRECT result of customs and practices the Israelites picked up in Egypt and Canaan, which includes, men sleeping with men AS WITH women.

Firstly, these weren’t “by-laws” but LAWS. Secondly, whether it was a result of “customs and practices” or not, is pointless, considering that it remains a detestable act to God. That’s the point and, to your behest, you are making it for me. Lastly, I sense that you are attempting to draw a parallel between a man who lies with a man versus a man who lies with men and women. Are you saying that bisexuals are what God speaks of here and not pure homosexuals? What is the “abomination” being spoken of here? I think that a cursory reading of the verses shows that homosexuality, in any form, is what is being spoken of here. Why? Because of God’s created order—men and women—and His intent for us (Genesis 2:24-25, which again is reiterated BY CHRIST in Matthew 19:4-6). This is why homosexuality is an abomination to Him and a perversion of His divine order.

Am I to believe homosexuality is a learnt behavior? Are you saying that religious boy back in 1919 in Virginia was trained by his Baptist parents on how to be gay?

Not at all! Is adultery “learnt behavior”? Is stealing “learnt behavior”? It all boils down to the depraved nature of man. Apart from God we are ALL condemned because of sin. We all struggle with sin, some our entire lives, but we consecrate our lives to Him and allow Him to work within us, shunning sin at all cost. Our wills bound by His grace. It all goes to what Paul stated concerning the Potter (God) and the clay pots (men). Are we going to ask God why He made us the way we are? Do we have the right? Have you read Romans 9? God does as He wills and for His purpose. We are at His mercy.

It is not a crime to apply common sense to your logics.

Who said it is my “logics” [sic]? I simply read Scripture and deduce that man is sinful and capable of anything. What makes it worse is when men take God’s Holy Word and attempt to justify their sinful nature. Woe to those who do so. Just as you said, it isn't a crime to apply common Scriptural sense to your logic.

Let me show you that I DO understand scriptures. At NO TIME God condoned sex with animals, this is so because animals are of a DIFFERENT FLESH!

I have no idea what it is that you are trying to say here or how you deduce that “different flesh” is what God means by all this. If I use your line of logic, I can easily say that God doesn’t condone “male on male” sex because they are of the SAME GENDER. I contend that you really don’t know Scripture and are interpreting it at a whim, as you clearly show with the statement above. Again, the prohibitions found in the verses are homosexuality, incest, and bestiality. You would decry incest and bestiality even today, why not homosexuality? Selectivity doesn’t trump truth.

God did not show any objection to Abraham marrying his half sister Sarah, it was in Moses time such a law came into being.

As you stated, this was BEFORE the law and is clearly delineated in Scripture. After all, where did the wives of Adam and Eve’s sons come from? God’s purpose allowed for this at one time, but changed afterward. However, looking at the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God clearly detested this sin even BEFORE the Law came into place.

As you so rightly said in OT God separated Israel from the gentiles BUT this was a failure which is why Jesus had was to come with a new covenant.

BUT Christ reiterates God’s order (again Matthew 19:4-6) and the New Testament (again, which comes from the mouth of God) condemns homosexuality. Thus, the new covenant doesn’t legitimize the homosexual act but condemns it. You are without an excuse, even in the new covenant.

Homosexuality WAS NEVER addressed in the OT you need to prove that!

I don’t know how clear it has to be for you. The verses that I have cited (add 1 Timothy 1:8-10 into the mix as well) are a condemnation of homosexuality. No amount of eisegesis is going to change this sin into an acceptable practice. Furthermore, careful exegesis of Scripture, such as when employing Jude 1:7 and Ezekiel 16:49-50 (not merely vs. 49 as many gay-advocates love to quote) add to a serious condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, the historical understanding of these verses (the early Jews and the early church) goes against you as well. If you cannot see it, that’s not my problem, but my guess is that you know exactly what I’m talking about. You may not like it, but you know it and, therefore, you're left without an excuse.

Brother Moishe has left the building....

A couple of days ago, May 19th to be exact, a wonderful brother in Christ, Moishe Rosen, the founder of Jews for Jesus, entered glory. Moishe left a letter of encouragement and hope that is currently posted on the website. We all praise the Lord God Almighty for the ministry He placed in the hands of His faithful servant. He will be missed by those of us who dwell on earth, but take heart all you saints, he ran the race and has received his reward. Can you imagine the overwhelming joy Brother Moishe felt when he beheld the face of Christ for the first time? O, blessed be the Lord!!

Banned from Catholic Answers: Happy to have a Blog

So, yesterday, I get this message from the Catholic Answers Forum moderator warning me about an infraction I committed. The message stated…














He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...







Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…









Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…



Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…



So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…



Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…



I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.

Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.

Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.

Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...



By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).

CM

Turretinfan Responds to Steve Ray

My online buddy, Turretinfan, has posted a series of responses to Steve Ray's rather loaded "35 Questions for Bible Christians." Turretinfan aptly dismantles each straw man systematically and provides clear responses to each question. When I get some time, I think I'll repost each entry here on the blog in a clear "1 through 35" format. It's a worthy read. You can visit his blog by clicking here.

Silence Isn't Always Golden: the Ignorance of GCN

I posted another video dealing with the Gay Christian Network's misconstruction of the account of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19). I've responded to their video "Were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed for being gay?" by posting in their combox and via other videos I've posted, yet it seems they are very selective in the responses allowed. Oh well.

The following is a shorter video but one I believe nullifies Justin Lee's assertion that the account is merely about gang-rape and violent submission.

A New Endeavor

It is no surprise that the sin of homosexuality is being promulgated as a legitimate lifestyle. Furthermore, it doesn't surprise me that homosexuals are attempting to legitimize their sin via Scripture. No verse is sacred if it can be conformed to the homosexual agenda, especially when conscience is concerned. I posted two videos on YouTube in response to a group called the "Gay Christian Network." It seems to be their practice not to post responses to their videos if it goes against their views. I hope to post more videos as time allows, but it saddens me to see the gospel of Christ being manipulated. Peter's words are key here...

"He [Paul] writes the same way in all his letters [Scripture], speaking in them of these matters. His letters [Scripture] contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

Here's the first of the videos I posted.

The Maccabees Revisited: Purgatory Undone

One of the worst things about the blogging world is when one can't keep up due to being ultra-busy. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to blog, but it can be rather disappointing when one can't finish what he started. Factor in complacency and the blog becomes an afterthought, only to be remembered from time to time. Become aware that it has been months since your last entry and you become aware that you don't have much to say. The blogosphere has become too big and you are oh so small. Oh, well.

I read a response from "Joe" to my blog entry "Purging purgatory from 2 Maccabees " some time back. I meant to respond but found myself getting complacent once again. A wife, four kids, church, and a time-consuming job can invoke complacency big-time. Yet, I will fight it off just to provide this response. Joe's words will be in blue, mine in black.

Before addressing the dogma of purgatory I must correct an error in your understanding of Catholicism. You claim that the statement below is Catholic teaching;“Those who die in a state of mortal sin cannot be prayed for. They are lost.”Whose soul would we pray for if not for that of a loved one who died in a state of mortal sin. No true Catholic would presume to know the disposition of anyone’s immortal soul nor believe that any soul is beyond the infinite mercy of The Lord.

Hi Joe,

I believe that the statement I made accurately sums up the Catholic position on mortal sin and, although Catholics don’t believe one can presuppose the state of anyone in the eternal, one can make a determination regarding the sin in which these men died. Therefore, in the Maccabean account, it is the 1st and 2nd commandment that is broken and that would involve mortal sin, thus cutting them from God, making it futile to pray from an alleged purgatory. To be fair, Catholics are told they can pray, this is part and parcel of Catholic doctrine, but my point has always been that there is inconsistency, especially when an obvious sin is committed and pointed out as the reason for their destruction (vs. 40). Considering that the nature of this sin implies the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin, these men went to hell, where prayer is ineffectual, and Judas’s eye seems to be on the resurrection, with the hope that the sin would be blotted from God’s remembrance as stated in the text. Again, this doesn’t imply a purgatory in the least, but an appeal to mercy in the Day of Judgment. Yet, these men didn’t die “godly” (vs. 45), which Judas presupposes, and winds up making quite the prayer request. Furthermore, if one assumes that their valiant actions, on behalf of a godly cause, would demand a more positive restitution, what about the “high places”, the pagan altars reused for the service of God? Was God pleased with His people's "noble" cause? What about Uzzah who evoked God’s anger when touching the Ark of the Covenant in an attempt to keep it balanced (2 Samuel 6:6-7; 1 Chronicles 13:9-10)? Was God pleased with his "noble" effort?

I would challenge your disbelief in purgatory in two ways, both in the case of the scripture you mention and using general logic. I would start with a definition of purgatory. Purgatory describes the state of soul that has not been damned but that requires purification before being worthy of the presence of God.

I am familiar with the doctrine of purgatory and there is really nothing to challenge. I believe that purgatory is an offshoot of the Catholic view of sin, a manmade doctrine. Furthermore, I don’t think that we can “rationalize” it into existence just because fallible human beings tend to categorize.

If the fallen comrades in 2 Macabbees had been judged at the moment if death, there would be no point in praying for them or offering sacrifices for them. If they are saints in the presence of The Lord, they require no sacrifice. If they are damned, there is no reason to sacrifice for them. The text clearly suggests a third state where prayers and sacrifice would be of use.

Or Judas could be making it up as he goes along, considering these men died for what he perceived a godly cause, so he acted upon his presumptions, thus you’re posing a false dilemma. I really don’t know how you can surmise that this demands a third state when Judas’s actions seem to appeal to God’s mercy in the Day of Judgment. In other words, if there were no purgatory inflicted INTO the verse, it winds up being a prayer for God’s mercy and involves actions based on hopes for His forgiveness and forgetfulness. Purgatory is simply being forced in.

I would also ask you consider how God (who is the source of our understanding of justice) could not allow for a purgatorial state. Take 2 cases;

1. The Blessed Virgin Mary who was without sin, was perfectly obedient to God, and mother to the Jesus.

2. A pedophile and murderer (who rapes, torments, steals innocence, destroys families and kills children) who, in his last hours of life repents for his sins and accepts Jesus. Surly there must be mercy for even so twisted a soul. But that soul cannot expect to be immediately received into Gods presence in same fashion as Mary after a life so full of egregious sin.

Why not? Why can’t a pedophile and murderer sincerely repent and turn to Christ, even in his last hours, and still enter the kingdom? What about Paul who persecuted the church and responsible for the murders of Christians? What about the thief who was told that “TODAY” he would be with Christ in paradise? Is it possible that God be that merciful? I believe that God can without the need for afterlife purification and there is no reason to believe that one must go through a purification process, in the afterlife, in order to attain heaven when the blood of Christ is perfect and able to cleanse us perfectly.

Just couple of points to consider.....You may also want to look at;1 Corinthians 3:11-15

I already commented on this in another blog entry. Purgatory doesn’t factor in. Read: http://churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/lets-look-at-1-corinthians-312-15.html

Luke 12:58-59

I don’t see anything “purgatorial” about the verses. If we interpret them on a spiritual level, there really isn’t any way to pay the “very last cent” (NASB), because we don’t possess the ability to pay for our sins. Only Christ can do this. Besides, you pose a bit of a conundrum because the Catholic position doesn’t claim that purgatory is for “payment” but for cleansing. I really don’t think you want to go further then what the verses plainly state.

Thinking of converting to Rome?

Think about what you're converting to. From my friend Jim Swan on his blog, a must read on conversion stories

After a long hiatus...

Click this link. Head over to "index" link, then to the "Chicago" link, and finally the "Virgin Mary Wall" link. This happened way back in April of 2005. Yet, as we drove by it last week, we see that the water stain is gone, but the flowers and candles continue to be replenished day to day. Hmmm...wonder where's the "correcting church" when you need it? A little John 21:29 for what ails the soul...

Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

Amen and amen.

From Jesus through Mary

Here ye, Here ye! Found on the internet...

Top Ten Reasons Why We Should Consecrate Our Lives To Jesus Through Mary

1. To emulate the sanctity of our previous Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, who selected the de Montfort Consecration (True Devotion) for his own Marian Spirituality

2. To provide the easiest, safest, fastest, most secure, and surest path to Jesus and to our own salvation

3. To obtain Our Lady's help in bringing us from our own unworthiness to the level of conversion, holiness, and perfection in our lives needed to enable us to become saintly

4. To turn our lives over completely and without reservation in service to Jesus through Mary to reflect our love and our trust in them now and for all eternity.

5. To obtain special graces and protection under Our Lady's sheltering mantle

6. To help bring others to Jesus through Mary for their conversion, holiness, and perfection through this total consecration devotion

7. To hasten the day of the Triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart and the day when Mary and Jesus will reign in all hearts

8. To fulfill Our Lady's request for individual consecration of our lives to her Immaculate Heart, as given to us through Sister Lucia during the Fatima apparitions

9. To become an effective counter-force to the legion of evil so prevalent in the world by offering up our prayers, sacrifices, and sufferings to Jesus through Mary

10. To renew our Baptismal promises and to evangelize the world to Jesus through Mary

Now if one promises to do the above they will receive...

...a free Saint Louis de Montfort Total Consecration package, anywhere in the world, at no cost to you, if you pledge to use the package to Consecrate your life to Jesus through the Blessed Virgin Mary (for full text see here)

We go to the Scriptures and fail to find one instance of anyone going to Jesus through Mary. The message of Scripture is that we have an advocate to the Father in the Son. It defeats the purpose of the gospel-- where we find an advocate in Christ (1 John 2:1), the "only one" mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5)-- if we need another advocate to get to the Son. But within Roman Catholicism, we find Mary as both an advocate for us and an mediatrix to Christ. Even at the feast at Cana (where Catholics attempt to derive from this story a spiritual application to Mary), no one went through Mary to get to Christ. Mary simply asked Christ upon hearing of the dilemma and was rebuked for attempting to "speed up" His ministry. The writer goes on to cite some early fathers, but nothing earlier then the late 3rd century (granting that these are cited within their context).

In a church were there are many "mysteries" this is surely an oddity. I guess that's what happens when one incorporates the fallibilities of human reasoning. You wind up with sophistry.

Cruising around the WWW

Every now and then I look around the web to see if anyone has written anything that's bypassed me. I've found some good things and some bad in regards to my articles. Some demand more attention then others do and some, due to time constraints, will remain in the backburner until I'm free to devote some time to them. Some I don't feel the need to respond to given that the writer(s) haven't really refuted anything I've put on my blog (or any of the articles I've written for Jim's blog for that matter). Although, I may eventually respond to these as well. Well, I found a response to my article Onesiphorus in Purgatory?, by a poster who calls himself "Mad Dawg." The article itself was submitted by a poster named "Ottofire" on the Free Republic forums. The responses are over a year old, but I registered on the forum and am presently awaiting approval. My intent is to let "Mad Dawg" know of my response here.

Mad Dawg's words will be in blue blockquote, any citations will be in brown blockquote, and my response will remain in black and standard format....

The first thing to say is that this is sloppy. What exactly does "according to Rome" mean? Is the statement de fide, an opinion, or what? and "the majority of us" is the majority of whom, please? Certainly we'd guess that the majority of those whose final stop is heaven will spend some time in purgatory, but that's not doctrine.

“According to Rome” means according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. I’m sure he is fully capable of understanding that Purgatory is a de fide teaching and, yes, it is understood that the majority of Christians, with the exception of martyrs and saints, WILL be going to purgatory. I never said that the amount of those going there is a “doctrine” but only that this is what is proclaimed by Catholics. I base the latter on my experience as a Catholic, on the dialogues I've had with Catholic clergy and laity and from the Catholic apologists I’ve interacted with.

ALL of those who "endure", as churchmouse puts it, Purgatory, will end up in Heaven. Purgatory is an interval, a way station, a pause, and from the point of view of eternity, almost a triviality. SO I think it's tendentious to call it "quite an oversight."

I am only using a word (endure) which has been used by many Catholics in my discussions. I think the word is appropriate considering this is ultimately what those in “purgatory” must do, they must "endure" the temporal punishments, the purgings, while awaiting their release (regardless of how instantaneous or prolonged it may be) to heaven. Mad Dawg trivializes the concept almost to the point of it being just a mere "waiting period" in a sea of infinity but this wasn't always the case. Prior to the Reformation, the emphasis was great on purgatory which was portrayed as a realm to which the souls were subjected to suffering in fire. How Rome portrayed the concept of purgatory historically is downplayed today. Yet, considering that the majority of Christians will go to purgatory, it isn’t a triviality, its impact on Christians cannot be downplayed, thus it speaks volumes that the “state/realm/place” where most Christians go doesn’t muster a single clear passage in Scripture. Instead, we are told that there are “implications” of the doctrine within it, but there is no evidence that these "implications" were interpreted as such by the early church? As medieval scholar Jacques Le Goff proves in his book The Birth of Purgatory, the concept didn't appear in the writings of the church until Clement of Alexandria and Origen. They were those who planted the seeds that would lead to a full-blown doctrine several centuries later. Thus, there is no purgatory in which to call an “…interval, a way station, a pause…” or even a “triviality.”

As a matter of fact, we do not "Realize" that,l and that statement is indicative of the lack of care which characterizes this attempt at a refutation. What churchmouse can reasonably say is that we have no surviving record from before Origen and Clement of "afterlife purgatorial thought". He cannot conclude from that that "there was nothing which even remotely resembled ...." He does not know. (or if He does know, he doesn't show us how he knows.

Using the same logic, the absence of any “surviving record” can mean there was no purgatory to teach. Yet, there are other ways of gleaning that no such concept was being taught in the early church. Not only is there no evidence of it being taught prior to Clement of Alexandria and Origen, but even even Augustine regarded it to be a theory. The question arises: How does one theorize that which is claimed to have been taught historically by the church? Either it was taught or it wasn’t and there would be no need for “theories” if it was truly a teaching of the church. In light of this, Mad Dawg's appeal to silence really doesn’t make much sense. And, yet there are other ways to show that the church didn't teach purgatory, but we'll get to this in a bit.

Succumbing to the temptation to present conjecture as known and demonstrated fact is easy and hard to avoid. In this case it casts doubt on the reliability of the writer.

As I have shown, it is hardly conjecture and CAN be derived from the history of the church. Rather, it is completely illogical to assume that a belief in a purgatory was the norm when there isn't any evidence of even the "recognition" of the concept. Again, why claim it as an Apostolic teaching when these same men aren't aware of such a teaching in the church and are left to speculate it? If purgatory were truly a teaching of the church then WHAT is there to speculate. It seems Mad Dawg's attempt to cast “doubt” isn’t grounded considering he is the one who assents to purgatory, yet doesn't provide any evidence that the church truly taught the concept.

And that doubt is justified, since we find Tertullian writing in the early 200's about 'sacrifices' for the dead being a custom of Christians. I think that would count as "before Origen" and as remotely resembling.

Tertullian doesn’t justify the concept. Le Goff clearly proves that Tertullian held no concept of purgatory in his eschatology. Tertullian believed in the concept of refrigerium (see the link below) which is much like the Orthodox. He believed in an intermediate place (Abraham’s Bosom and the hell of the damned of Luke 16) where the dead enjoy a “foretaste” of their eternal destiny, the righteous in Abraham's Bosom and the wicked in the hell of the damned. There is no comparison. For further evidence of what Tertullian believed, see my blog article here: Purgatory and the earliest Fathers

I wonder what churchmouse thinks of the doctrine of the Trinity and and its mention or lack thereof in the early days.

You know, I’ve always viewed this as a red herring. I don’t need the word “Trinity” present, front and center, to validate what Scripture teaches regarding the Godhead. I view the Trinity as a logical extension of Scripture. The "early days"? What did the Fathers see in the "early days"? Did they appeal to a longstanding “tradition” in the church regarding the Trinity? Or did they appeal to what I use—Scripture! For example, Augustine stated:

"For we behold and see as it were in a divine spectacle exhibited to us, the notice of our God in Trinity, conveyed to us at the river Jordan. For when Jesus came and was baptized by John, the Lord by His servant (and this He did for an example of humility; for He showeth that in this same humility is righteousness fulfilled, when as John said to Him, 'I have need to be baptized of Thee, and comest Thou to me?' He answered, 'Suffer it to be so now, that all righteousness may be fulfilled'), when He was baptized then, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Spirit came down upon Him in the form of a Dove: and then a Voice from on high followed, 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' Here then we have the Trinity in a certain sort distinguished. The Father in the Voice,-the Son in the Man,-the Holy Spirit in the Dove. It was only needful just to mention this, for most obvious is it to see. FOR
THE NOTICE OF THE TRINITY IS HERE CONVEYED TO US PLAINLY AND WITHOUT LEAVING ROOM FOR DOUBT AND HESITATION. For the Lord Christ Himself coming in the form of a servant to John, is doubtlessly the
Son: for it cannot be said that it was the Father, or the Holy Spirit. 'Jesus,' it is said, 'cometh;' that is, the Son of God. And who hath any doubt about the Dove? or who saith, 'What is the Dove?' when the Gospel itself most plainly testifieth, 'The Holy Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove.' And in like manner as to that voice there can be no doubt that it is the Father's, when He saith, 'Thou art My Son.' THUS THEN WE HAVE THE TRINITY DISTINGUISHED." (Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament, 2:1)

And what about his mentor Ambrose who stated...

""God, then, is One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit....But if you require the plain statement of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it cannot have escaped you that it is written: 'Now the Lord is the Spirit.' Which the course of the whole passage shows to have been certainly said of the Holy Spirit....So he not only called the Spirit Lord, but also added: 'But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as from the Lord the Spirit;' that is, we who have been before converted to the Lord, so as by spiritual understanding to see the glory of the Lord, as it were, in the mirror of the Scriptures, are now being transformed from that glory which converted us to the Lord, to the heavenly glory." - Ambrose (On the Holy Spirit, 3:14:94, 3:14:101-102)

And Basil certainly wouldn't agree that Scripture is unclear on the matter...

"But all who maintain that either Son or Spirit is a creature, or absolutely reduce the Spirit to ministerial and servile rank, are far removed from the truth. Flee their communion. Turn away from their teaching, They are destructive to souls. If ever the Lord grant us to meet, I will discourse to you further concerning the faith, to the end that you may perceive at once the power of the truth and the rottenness of heresy by Scriptural proof." (Letter 105)

And then there is Gregory of Nyssa who said...

"For that there is a Word of God, and a Spirit of God, powers essentially subsisting, both creative of whatever has come into being, and comprehensive of things that exist, is shown in the clearest light out of the Divinely-inspired Scriptures." (The Great Catechism, 4)

And Hilary of Potiers claimed that he knew of the Trinity through his study of Scripture before he heard the Nicene Creed (forgive me if the Greek fonts don't translate)...

"I call the God of heaven and earth to witness, that when I had heard neither word, my belief was always such that I should have interpreted o0moiou/sion by o0moou/sion. That is, I believed that nothing could be similar according to nature unless it was of the same nature. Though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile, but the Gospels and Epistles suggested to me the meaning of o0moou/sion and o0moiou/sion." (On the Councils, or the Faith of the Easterns,
91)

Overall, I'm in good company. I see the Trinity in Scripture without the need for councils, but cannot derive a purgatory in the same way.

But I guess it needs to be said yet
again that the role of "proof from Scripture" is very different in Orthodoxy and
Catholicism from what it is in much of Protestantism.

Excuse typos, etc. In haste here ...

If I asked for “proof from tradition” would Mad Dawg be able to produce purgatory for me? And, ironically, he demeans the Protestant rule of faith and parallels his view with the Orthodox, but regardless of Scripture, tradition, or the authority of the church the Orthodox hold to no such doctrine and yet, claim the same antiquity as Rome. Why is it that the Orthodox share the same history, yet completely deny purgatory? How can one church claim that it was an apostolic teaching while the other denies it was ever taught, yet both claim to have received their teachings from the Apostles? And we are talking about a church that split with the West in the early 11th century? This implies that there was no real purgatorial view in the West until after the schism and none in the East? I think the answer is obvious folks—there was no such teaching in the church and the concept arose later through the musings of two Greek church fathers which would eventually lead to a full-blown belief in purgatory for the West.

On Sola Fide and Canon

Xavier, a Catholic participant at the Bereans Forums, commented and questioned some things I stated regarding Sola Fide. Considering his post also implicates canon issues, I thought I would post it here. If there is a question of context, I would ask that the reader review the original thread found here What Sola Fide Is/Isn't

Xavier's comments will be in blue font and blockquote. Mine's comments remain as is. Citations are in green font and Scripture verses in brown. He states:

It is essential to point out why this statement is misleading.

1.Martin Luther who first defined Sola Fide never thought that works was essential for justification. This is why he had reservation about the canonicity of James. He exerted considerable effort to have James bracketed with the deuterocanonicals all because James was very clear about the role of works in justification.

The doctrine is justification by Faith alone not by Faith and acts of Faith alone.

You are misrepresenting Luther. There were other factors by which Luther judged the epistle of James, the first being that it was questioned in the early centuries of the Church (along with 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation, etc.). This is why he held Paul’s view regarding justification over James, of whom Luther thought put a great emphasis on works. The only “misleading” being done here is in your attempt to draw a conclusion by associating his criticism of James TO his views on Sola Fide. Luther recognized clearly that a faith that is alone is no true faith at all. Why else would he state…

“Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith.” (Luther’s Works 69:46, 20).

“Accordingly, if good works do not follow, it is certain that this faith in Christ does not dwell in our heart, but dead faith…” (Luther’s Works 34:111)

Again, all the way up to the time of the Reformation, the Catholic Church had no fixed canon and various views abounded as to what comprised canon. Contemporaries of Luther, such as Erasmus, who published the first Greek New Testament in 1516, questioned the canonicity of books such as James, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, Revelation, etc. and cites Jerome as an authority. Cardinal Cajetan, the same who opposed Luther, in his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament commends Jerome for separating the canonical from the uncanonical. We all know that Jerome excluded books which Trent later deemed “canonical.” Cajetan goes even further and brings up Jerome’s skepticism of the book of Hebrews. As Lutheran theologian J.A.O Preus II rightly states in his expository The New Testament Canon in the Lutheran Dogmaticians…

Thus, when Luther in 1522 published his German New Testament with its much-quoted strictures on Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation, he was re-echoing some rather common, though new, thinking of the period. In other words, if Trent had not condemned Luther, his views perhaps would have gone largely unnoticed. Luther rejected these books partly on the basis of historical precedent and partly on the basis of his own rather subjective criterion of canonicity, namely, their seeming lack of witness to Christ.

And then there was Cardlnal Ximenes who, in his Complutensian Polyglot Bible, distinguishes between the apocryphal and the canonical books. My whole point in telling you all this is to show you how you tend to isolate Luther and paint him into someone who would stop at nothing to promote a Sola Fide devoid of works, even at the cost of endorsing the “Luther hated James” straw man once again.

2.Faith alone and Faith that is not alone mutually excludes each other. If Faith
is taken with Charity and Hope, then it is not alone. Faith + Charity +Hope does
not equal Faith Alone. Faith + good works does not equal Faith Alone.

Once again, this is but semantics on your part. The Protestant position is that salvation comes by “faith alone.” That’s it! There is nothing to add to salvation. However, the salvation which comes via “faith alone” does NOT present itself empty, devoid of works. This salvation presents its legitimacy by the works which comes as a result of that salvation. It is a byproduct of true salvation. It is not “faith + good works” but faith alone which results in good works through Christ.

3. St James made it very clear that good works was not a result of justification
but that justification resulted from good works.

Where does James say that justification “results” from good works? You are evidently reading something into James that he isn’t saying, but we’ll see this as we go on.

James 2:21-24
21Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

22So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did.

23In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name 'friend of God'.

24You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified.

25There is another example of the same kind: Rahab the prostitute, was she not justified by her deeds because she welcomed the messengers and showed them a different way to leave?

As shown by James, Faith and Works are distinct but inseparable when it comes to salvation. And this is also taught by Paul who taught that God will give to each person according to what he has done.

It must be remembered that James is addressing “Christians’ who, evidently (from the context of the verse), aren’t helping brethren in need, but WHERE is James equating works to salvation? Especially in light of what other Scriptures say about “salvation” apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 4:5; Titus 3:5). Usually, it has been my experience to see Catholics isolating these verses FROM what Scripture states elsewhere, but here you divorce these verses from vss. 17-18 where James state very clearly…

Even so, if it does not have works, faith is dead, being by itself. But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works.

Furthermore, preceding these verses, James speaks of the hypocrisy of saying one has faith, but fails to help their brethren when they are in need…

If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and if one of you says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, but you do not give them those things which are needful to the body, what good is it? (James 2:15-16)

Who is it that James is speaking to here? It is the church, to those who claim to be Christians. Given this fact, no, James is NOT saying that works “save.” These folks believe to be saved already. Neither is he saying that the equation of faith and works brings salvation. He is rebuking those who allow needy brethren to walk away in their need under the false superficial religiosity that only serves to disprove their faith. James is telling them the truth—it is “dead faith” to think that salvation exists in a vacuum, void of good works. The type of faith that leads to justification is evidenced by the works which proves this faith. Again, one cannot take verses out of their context and out of what Scripture states as a whole to make a case for their own biases.

CM