Differences in Religions

[Sitaram]

Hear ye, all idlers on this Hill of Mars
always seeking some new thing.


I have been subscribing to these daily messages for 7 years now. This one caught my eye, this morning.


DIFFERENCES IN RELIGION



Religion is not an end in itself. One's union with God is the
ultimate goal. There are so many religions because immature people
tend to emphasize trivial differences instead of important
likenesses. Differences between faiths lie in creeds and rituals
rather than religious principles.






Some people indulge in quarrels, saying, `One cannot attain anything
unless one worships our Krishna,' or, `Nothing can be gained without
the worship of Kali, our Divine Mother,' or, `One cannot be saved
without accepting the Christian religion.' This is pure dogmatism.
The dogmatist says, `My religion alone is true, and the religions of
others are false.' This is a bad attitude. God can be reached by
different paths.






It is my personal belief, after thirty-five years' experience of it…
that the spirit of Christianity and of our ancient religion is
essentially the same.




OneTruth1Homepage:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OneTruth1

[thepauper]

That is a foolish observation. Let me give an example. Chrisitianity is the only religion in which getting into heaven is not reliant on works. Rather Christ paid the penalty for our sins. That is a HUGE difference from any other religion. To try to pass that off as unsubstational is ludacris.

[Sitaram]

Thank you for taking the time to read my post and make a response.


Socrates, in the dialogues of Plato, frequently stressed that whenever someone presumes to know the truth, then they cease from inquiry and learning. After all, why should we inquire into and seek after that which we feel we already possess and fully grasp? Socrates would often refute people, not to prove himself correct, or be mean to them, but to restore them to a proper state of open-mindedness, where they might once again continue on the journey of the learning process.

It is naïve to say that all Christians are the same. There is a world of difference between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, which came to a head in the year 1054 when Rome and Constantinople mutually anathematized one another.

And among the Easter Orthodox, one may demonstrate a world of difference between the Greeks and the Russians. Among the Greeks, there is a world of difference between the “Old Calendarists” and the “New Calendarists”. Among the Russians, there is a world of difference between the “Old Believers” and the “New Believers.” And among the “Old Believers” there is a world of difference between the “Papovsi” (those with bishops and priests) and the “Byez-Papovsi” (those with no bishops or priests.)

Among Protestant denominations, there is a world of difference between Calvinists, Arminians and Baptists (to name just a few radically different denominations).

Take a look at this handy chart of all the differences just between Arminianism and Calvinism:
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html




http://www.imarc.cc/edit/harted11.html

In recent years of this so-called awaking of Evangelical zeal within the United Methodist church, most who have a Biblical concept have given themselves to associating and defending those who hold to the doctrines of eternal security, election, immersion, sanctification, and tongues. That, my friend, is not Wesley's Methodism. One of the main problems with the rehabilitating efforts of the Good News and Confession people is that they refused to be just Methodistic followers of Christ. The reason for this is that many leaders in these para-Methodist movements feel that they need all the help they can get from without to reclaim their beloved church with their beautiful cemeteries. It is a mockery to reason the way they act toward real Biblical Methodist Arminian doctrine and theology. Where are the books against eternal security, Calvinism, or even immersion? You will find none. For they too are guilty of the very thing that destroyed the UM Church. These reformers seem to be tolerant of all other denominational theologies and intolerant to their own theological heritage. Now look to see who is calling the kettle black.


Few people realize that the Southern Baptists originally split away from the Northern Baptists because the northerners felt it was wrong for a minister to own slaves, but the southerners felt it was permissible.

There is no religion which has not undergone sectarian division. Sectarian division is as fundamental to religious life as cellular division is to biological life.

There is a world of difference between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. In fact, one member of this forum, living in the U.A.E. privately wrote to me that each day they thank God that they are Shia, and not Sunni.

It is a point of Islamic belief that there will always exist 73 sectarian divisions in Islam, but only one of the 73 shall be saved. See

http://online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3958




As in early Christianity, the most general and abstract Islamic heresiographical schematizations were numerological. In fact, the leit-motif of the heresiographical genre as a whole is the famous Tradition (or hadith) in which the Prophet predicts a division of the Islamic community into seventy-three sects, seventy-two of which are destined for Hell and only one for salvation. As the pioneering Western Islamicist, Ignaz Goldziher, remarked, this hadith "formed the basis for the history of religion and of sects in Muhammadan literature."



There is a world of difference between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravadin (or Hinayana) Buddhism.

There is a world of difference between the Digambra Jains and the Svetasvatara Jains.

I have always felt that the Protestant Reformation became confused on the distinction between Works and Faith.

Some Christian denominations focus very heavily on proselytizing to “win souls” for Jesus; to convert people, to save others. Other denominations put such missionary work on the back burner of the stove, so to speak, though it is still there.

Religious Revival meetings will always, at some point, invite people to dramatically come forward, step up to the “rail” and accept Christ as their personal savior.

Whenever you encourage anyone to “step up to the rail” or fill in a postcard or match-book cover, mail it in and “confess Christ”, then you are asking them to “do” something, to “take the next step”, to make a decision and perform a very specific action. Professing one’s faith, publicly, officially, is not faith; it is works.

The Protestant denominations did not appear until Martin Luther of the 16th century launched the so-called “Reformation.” Protestant denominations are unable to see the vast differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. All the Protestants can see is the externals of vestments and ceremony and icons and statues and veneration of saints.

Martin Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of St. James from the canon of New Testament books because what is said in that epistle clashes with Luther’s doctrine of “sola fides” (salvation by faith alone).

http://bible.cc/james/1-27.htm

http://bible.cc/james/2-14.htm

Martin Luther based his entire theology on one verse from the Old Testament, from the Prophet Habbakuk, “For the just shall live by Faith.” Habbakuk (2:4)

St. Paul quotes this same verse from Habbakuk in the Epistle to the Romans: "The just shall live by faith." Rom. 1:17.

But Martin Luther did not take equally serious the Old Testament versus which demonstrate how important it is to pay one’s vows to the Lord.

Martin Luther made a solemn vow of life-long celibacy. He was under no constraint to make such a vow. He was free to choose to take a wife and raise a family. But, having made that vow, it was his personal obligation to keep that vow for life.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425/page407.htm



When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee.




Ecclesiastes 5:4 When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed.
Ecclesiastes 5:5 Better is it that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay.


It is in the Book of Judges that we may we see the significance of vows illustrated in the strongest terms by an incident which otherwise seems very bizzare in the context of Jewish and Christian morality. It is the account of a man who, desirous of a military victory and seeking divine assistance, vowed to sacrifice as an offering the first thing which he might see when he returned to his home. As fate would have it, the first thing he saw was his daughter. But as you will see, even his daughter encourages him to honor his vow to slay and sacrifice her.


Judges 11:30-36 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! Thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

[Sitaram]

I did a google search on “I never knew you”, Christ’s disturbing words to those who will come to him at the judgment and say “Lord, lord! We worked miracles in your name.”

Here is one of the many useful links that I found:

http://www.2preslex.org/S050529.HTM



Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven, On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'


Surely, these folks who cry out "Lord! Lord!" were people who confessed Christ and expected to be saved by their faith alone!

You know, in the 6th. century, St. John Climacus, in his Ladder of Divine Ascent, said, "You shall recognize the righteous at the judgment, because their heads shall be hung low, and they shall say we have done nothing worthy.


All I have to do is make one google search on: "When did we do all these things" and, bingo, it returns 31 links regarding a different group of people at the judgment who are quite surprised to learn that they are invited to paradise.

http://www.ccsb.ca/literacy/TheSheepandGoatsLesson.htm

Unitarian sermons are often exceptionally worthwhile:

http://www.cliftonunitarian.com/toddstalks/mysticfabric.htm


http://www.wcg.org/wn/00february/only_one_name.htm

Somehow, I get the impression that this salvation business is not simply a matter of paying some lipservice at one point in your life, or stepping up to the rail, or filling out a match-book cover or postcard and mailing it in.




What can it mean when Jesus tells us that on the final day he may not know some of us, his own disciples. And, what can these words mean – this dramatic connection between doing and the kingdom of heaven – what can these words mean to Protestants, to those of the Reformation tradition, who proclaim that we are saved by grace through faith alone




Matthew gives me a pain. Life is never as clear-cut as he makes it out to be; I cannot sort things out the way he does.

. . . . But Matthew also gets my attention. He seems so sure about what is right and what is wrong-about who is blessed and who is cursed- that I get anxious about doing the right things, about getting on God’s good side, so that when my time comes I will be sent to the right and find myself not among the doomed goats but the favored sheep.

So when I hear a story like this one I review my list. First I read over very carefully and note that I need at least one hungry person, one thirsty one, one stranger, one naked person, one sick person, and one prisoner so that I can supply in that order-food, drink, a warm welcome, some clothes, a hospital visit, and a prison visit. Then, presumably, I will have satisfied all the requirements for ending up with the sheep instead of the goats. Now isn’t that absurd?

But-as often happens when I try to make law out of gospel-there is a problem.




former chaplain at Yale University and someone who has long argued that faith needs to be at the heart of all parts of our lives, including our political and intellectual lives, said it this way,

God’s love doesn’t seek value, it creates value. It is not because we have value that we are loved, but because we are loved that we have value. Our value is a gift, not an achievement. Because our value is a gift, we don’t have to prove ourselves, only to express ourselves, and what a world of difference there is between proving ourselves and expressing ourselves.

[Sitaram]

This thread has turned into the interesting topic of Faith vs. Works.

Hopefully, the things I am about to mention occurred enough years ago that they have aged from the raw grape juice of politics and current events and have now been transubstantiated into the fine wine of history.

The sermon cited above happens to quote William Sloane Coffin, who was interviewed by Bob Abernethy last year on PBS "Religion and Ethics in World News".

During that interview Bob Abernethy asked Rev. Coffin, "Are you a pacifist?"



Fifty-one/forty-nine. I'm a nuclear pacifist, that's for sure.

But there is an irremediable stubbornness about evil. We have to recognize it,
including our own complicity in it. We have to constrain it, but I doubt we will
ever eradicate it. To say, "Grant us peace in our time, O Lord" -- God must say, "Oh, come off it! What are you going to do for peace, for heaven's sake?" It's not enough to pray for it. You have to think for it, you have to suffer for it, and you have to endure a lot for it. So don't just pray about it.



When I related all this to my 88 year old father, a very patriotic veteran of World War II, he gnashed his teeth and called Coffin a traitor. Some of you who are old enough may remember a bumper sticker which said "I'm not Fonda Hanoi Jane."

I pointed out to my angry father that, technically, George Washington was considered a traitor by King George III in 1775 when the King proclaimed the Colonies to be in open rebellion.

My suggestion that George Washington could be a traitor made my father even more angry, which, believe it or not, was not my agenda.

I wrote a post about these issues, in which I said:



How does one judge any person's life and actions in totality? How does one sift out the patriots from the traitors in the winnowing fan of historical hindsight?


William Sloane Coffin is an excellent example to examine with regard to the controversy surrounding salvation through Faith vs. Salvation through Works.



It's clear to me, two things: that almost every square inch of the Earth's
surface is soaked with the tears and blood of the innocent, and it's not God's
doing. It's our doing. That's human malpractice. Don't chalk it up to God. Every time people say, when they see the innocent suffering, every time they lift their eyes to heaven and say, "God, how could you let this happen?" it's well to remember that exactly at that moment God is asking exactly the same question of us: "How could you let this happen?" So you have to take responsibility.


Along side William Sloane Coffin, we might line up Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Mohandas Gandhi.

Now I realize that Gandhi was not a Christian, but he was a great admirer of Jesus and made the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount something central to his life.

Let's take a look at those Beatitudes



"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn,
For they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
For they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
For they shall be filled.

Blessed are the merciful,
For they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart,
For they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.


Notice, first of all, that there is no mention of simple Faith. Jesus does not say "Blessed are those who believe in me, and confess me as God, and accept me as their personal savior."

Whenever I see the words "peacemaker" nowadays, I cannot help but think of Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is certainly a good example of a believing, devout Christian who took up a life of action and works, even in retirement, when one might expect him to be more retiring.

I never leave home without having in my back pocket two little books. One book is the New Testament and the other is the Bhagavad-gita. In the cover of my New Testament are scribbled the numbers of some interesting verses.


Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but not much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.


But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.


For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


(God) will render to every man according to his deeds:
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:



Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off




And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.




(women) shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.


I am running out of time this Monday morning, but all the above verses hint that mere profession of faith at a single point in one's life is not sufficient for salvation. Perhaps it is necessary, but not sufficient. What is required also is a continual and on-going perserverance and struggle until the very end of life.

Faith and Works go hand in hand in the process of salvation, with an ongoing freewill consent and cooperation on the part of the individual.

What purpose is there in having a day of judgment if one's forgiveness and salvation are totally assured and guaranteed through faith alone?

Jesus himself said that "you shall be judged by every word which procedes from your mouth."


But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.

The notion of "sola fides" or salvation by faith alone was the innovation of Martin Luther in the 16th. century. If such a notion were intended to be a part of Christianity, then it is curious that it took 1500 years before anyone caught on to a principle which seems so simple, obvious and fundamental.

[Sitaram]

Since this thread has turned to the topic of "salvation by faith alone", and since Martin Luther, father of the Reformation, is the "discoverer" of this doctrine of "sola fides", it is worthwhile to take a long hard look at the man himself, Luther, his life and works.

Here are some links on Sola Fides (Salvation by Faith only)

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/3975/fides.htm

http://www.catholictradition.org/sola-fides.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/SOLAFIDE.htm

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/06-10/08-5.htm

This next link says something which is quite useful and clear:

http://www.oakandyewpress.com/essays/The_Active_Christian.html



I would like to suggest that the term "sola fides" (by faith alone) is an unbalanced and potentially heretical term, except when it is used in contrast to the (itself heretical) idea that salvation depends on human works, not on the finished work of Christ. In other words, the bare statement, "We are saved by faith alone", is as far off the mark and as dangerous as the statement, "We are saved by our good works". The one clear statement that stands alone and accurate on this subject is "sola gratia" -- We are saved by grace alone. As the Apostle Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:

We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:8-10)
A balanced statement which brings these things together might be, "God saved us through the grace and work of Jesus Christ, giving us as free gifts faith and good works, that we might believe in him and serve him, for his greater glory."




It is useful to examine Papal Bull of Pope Leo X issued, regarding Martin Luther, on June 15, 1520 :

http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a040.html




The following is written from the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church but is a worthwhile read:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm


(Regarding Martin Luther's writing, entitled) "Opinion on Monastic Orders". Dashed off at white heat and expressed with that whirlwind impetuosity that made him so powerful a leader, it made the bold proclamation of a new code of ethics: that concupiscence is invincible, the sensual instincts irrepressible, the gratification of sexual propensities as natural and inexorable as the performance of any of the physiological necessities of our being. It was a trumpet call to priest, monk, and nun to break their vows of chastity and enter matrimony. The "impossibility" of successful resistance to our natural sensual passions was drawn with such dazzling rhetorical fascination that the salvation of the soul, the health of the body, demanded an instant abrogation of the laws of celibacy. Vows were made to Satan, not to God; the devil's law was absolutely renounced by taking a wife or husband.

Martin Luther realized that it is very serious to break a vow made to God. Luther was forced to find some rationalization which would demonstrate that he had not really made a vow to God.

These sentiments of Luther seem to fly in the face of what Christ said:


For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

And, consider Paul's words:





King James translation:
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.


NASB translation:
Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not see a wife. But if you should marry, you have not sinned, and if a virgin should marry, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.



We have the very obvious celibate ascetical figures of the Prophet Elijah (Elias) in the Old Testament and John the Baptist in the New Testament.





Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman."
(1Cor. 7:1)


"For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
(1 Cor. 7:7-9)




I am adding to this on and off during the day as time permits. I hope to polish this post more, later.

Martin Luther was certain correct in condemning the Roman Catholic practice of selling Indulgences and the burning of "heretics". One of Martin Luther's errors was to fail to take a look at the Eastern Orthodox church. The sale of indulgences was a practice that never arose among the Greeks.

The Greeks encouraged a married priesthood, but required that Bishops come from among the celibate monastics.

There are those who will argue against the requirement of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church by saying that it is celibacy which is responsible for the sexual abuses which have made controversial headlines in recent years.

The truth is that marriage is no assurance of morality. No religion or denomination exists in which sexual misconduct is unknown. I have personally, in my life, known of a situation in which a minister was married with children, but was leading the secret life of homosexuality. He was discovered when he was arrested by under cover police for soliciting in a public restroom.

All one needs to do is to google search on "rabbi charged with sexual" or "minister charged with sexual" and I am certain there will be news items returned from that search.

Here is an article about the sexual misconduct of a Presbyterian clergy member:

http://www.advocateweb.org/hope/mentormolester.asp

Another misconception is that there would be a greater supply of Roman Catholic priests if marriage were allowed. Yet, Protestant denominations, which have allowed married clergy for years, are also experiencing a shortage of people interested in a pastoral vocation.


We must ask what has happened to the place for asceticism in the Protestant tradition.

What does it mean to give away all one's worldly goods, take up one's cross, and follow Christ?

http://www.voiceofjesus.org/onthecross.html


And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him, You lack one thing; go, sell what you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, (take up your cross and)* follow me.


*Note: The phrase (take up your cross and) does not occur in all manuscripts.




In the Old Testament, in the Book of Proverbs, by King Solomon, it is written:


http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Proverbs/Proverbs%20LXX.htm


There are ways that seem to be right to a man, but the end of them looks to the depth of hell.

Now, the person who saw those deadly ways as good obviously had faith in those ways, but in such a situation, faith is not saving.


It might be argued that the sons of Aaron offered "strange incense" in good faith, but were struck dead by God. Uzzah reached out in good faith to touch the ark which was about to fall, but was struck dead by God.

http://www.123student.com/272.htm


And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron took either of them his censer, and put fire therin, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. (King James)


http://www.rationalchristianity.net/touch_ark.html




He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the Lord Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the Lord , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.

When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. The Lord's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.




There is some interesting material at this link (albeit very pro Roman Catholic in bias) which I want to examine further:

http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/luther.htm

[Sitaram]

I was so impressed by the explanation of Works and Faith given by James H. Trott, that I decided to search high and low to find out who he is.


http://www.oakandyewpress.com/essays/The_Active_Christian.html





Even so faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone. . . . You believe that God is one [the great Judaic profession]. The demons also believe [atleast to the same degree of bare profession -- but obviously without obedience] and tremble. . . . Just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also is faith without works dead. (James 2, verses 17, 19, 26)

(An interesting exercise for any who are not satisfied to see "sola fides" subject to the qualifications I mentioned above might like to try preparing a sermon on James 2:24, "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.")



http://www.cumberlandhouse.com/religion/sacrificeofpraise.asp

JAMES H. TROTT is a writer and composer whose poetry has appeared in numerous poetry magazines, The Banner, Christianity and Literature, and Cornerstone. He is a graduate of Harvard University in English and author of the chapbook Prisoner's Pardons. A Sacrifice of Praise is his first book. He lives with his wife and family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

ISBN: 1-58182-375-4


His explanation of Works and Faith is so excellent and balanced that it is even more impressive to me to know that he is not Roman Catholic but is a member of a Protestant denomination, and yet he expresses such a balanced view.




Huck [Finn] believes in Providence, but is torn between believing in
Miz Watson’s version or the Widow’s. In a chilling way, he perceives
the Duke also has a providence — the devil. Huck believes
“Providence” punishes sin and occasionally provides — in one case the
right words when they are badly needed to get out of a jam.
Huckleberry prays on several occasions, the best remembered
occasion being when he tries to pray repentantly about helping steal
Jim, but concludes “you can’t pray a lie,” which is solid theology
indeed. He prays along the lines of the prosperity movement, and gets
some fishing gear, but when he asks for the rest, he is not rewarded.
He concludes half an answer was no better than no answer at all.
—James H. Trott, Huckleberry Finn’s religion, Oak & Yew Press, 1999,


Oakandyewpress.com.


http://www.ransomfellowship.org/R_Trott.html

http://www.oakandyewpress.com/essays/Huck_Finn_Religion.html

http://www.oakandyewpress.com/essays/Rescue_Goals.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1581820445/ref=sib_fs_top/103-0239683-7358222?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00L&checkSum=Buhvh2aH49HVeTX0jzph7z8Z8XbHbJrQ4j0%2FOR4 Ih3Y%3D#reader-link



James H. Trott is a poet; a graduate of Harvard who lives in
Pennsylvania.

His collection of poems is entitled "Prisoner's Pardon".
He is editor of "A Sacrifice of Praise" with a forward by Larry Woiward.
A Sacrifice of Praise: An Anthology of Christian Poetry in English from

Caedmon to the Twentieth Century (Paperback)
by James H. Trott (Editor) "As the roots of the English language are in
Anglo-Saxon, so the beginnings of English poetry are in Anglo-Saxon
poetry..." (more)


*A Sacrifice of Praise* includes around 700 poems by about 200
poets. The poems are among the best; the poets are each described
in biographical paragraphs; each period has a short introduction; the
development of most of the major genres is described in special
sections. Both a title index and an author index allow
cross-referencing. (The general arrangement is chronological by poet's
year of birth.)

*Cornerstone* magazine reviewer Curt Mortimer says,
"The poems in *A Sacrifice of Praise* are chosen irrespective of
denominational tradition. On the other hand, they all touch on true
Christianity. And how do we know that? Donne's words say it best,
'Though truth and falsehood be near twins, yet truth a little elder is;
Be busy to seek her. Believe me this, He is not of none, nor worst, that
seeks the best... doubt wisely; in a strange way to stand inquiring
right, is not to stray; to sleep or run wrong is.'

[Sitaram]

http://www.crossroad.to/Persecution/Bonhoffer.html

It will be worthwhile to take a look at Dietrich Bonhoffer's The Cost of Discipleship



Only a man thus totally committed in discipleship can experience the meaning of the cross. The cross is there, right from he beginning, he has only got to pick it up there is no need for him to go out and look for a cross for himself… Every Christian has his own cross waiting for him, a cross destined and appointed by God. Each must endure his allotted share of suffering and rejection.

But each has a different share: some God deems worthy of the highest form of suffering, and given them the grace of martyrdom, while others He does not allow to be tempted above that they are able to bear….
The cross is laid on every Christian. The first Christ-suffering which every man must experience is the call to abandon the attachments of this world. … we surrender ourselves to Christ in union with His death—we give over our lives to death. … When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die. …death in Jesus Christ, the death of the old man [or nature] at his call. Jesus’ summons to the rich young man was calling him to die, because only the man who is dead to his own will can follow Christ. In fact, every command of Jesus is a call to die, with all our affections and lusts. But we do not want to die…

The call to discipleship… means both death and life… [It] sets the Christian in the middle of the daily arena against sin and the devil. Every day he encounters new temptations, and every day he must suffer anew for Jesus Christ’s sake. The wounds and scars he receives in the fray are living tokens of this participation in the cross of his Lord.

But there is another kind of suffering and shame which the Christian is not spared. While … only the sufferings of Christ are a means of atonement, yet…the Christian also has to undergo temptation [and] bear the sins of others; he too must bear their shame and be driven like a scapegoat from the gates of the city. (Heb. 13:12-15) …The passion of Christ strengthens him to overcome the sins of others by forgiving them. "Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. (Gal. 6:2) …

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26)

[Sitaram]

Here is an interesting article by a man who was pastor in Fundamtentalist churchs, and then moved through Methodist, Episcopalean and Presbyterian churchs, and, finally, resigned from the ministry to become a lay-person.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9006fea2.asp

This article is so interesting, that I pasted it into MS Word and saved it on my hard drive, because sometimes a URL will suddenly disappear.

The above link is part II of his article. Here is the link to part I:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1990/9005fea1.asp

Here is one amusing anecdote:


I recall an uproar at a church I once pastored when I preached on Jesus turning water into wine. Some upset parishioners took me aside and told me I mustn't mention that particular miracle again but should preach on those passages that depict the evil of strong drink. The Bible was to be set against itself with some passages ignored because other passages were found more agreeable.




In my church I went forward, repeated the sinner's prayer, asked Jesus to be my "personal Savior," and was immersed in the baptistry. My pastor assured me I was saved for time and eternity and would go directly to heaven when I died. How strange then that I still feared hell so morbidly and still felt "unsaved."



Greensboro had a strong chapter (klavern) of the Ku Klux Klan early in this century, and at least one of the town churches hosted a service for them. When immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe came to work the coal mines, our area was flooded with hate material aimed at "those Catholic foreigners," and much of that ill-will died out only when that generation died out.

The animosity lived on and was evident in 1959 when most of the Fundamentalists in my high school graduation class angrily protested to the principal over a picture of Pope John XXIII posted by one of the social studies teachers on his bulletin board. (A compromise was reached, and the teacher posted a picture of Billy Graham on his other board.)



Here is a Roman Catholic link which points out what it considers to be various Protestant errors regarding individualism and sectarian devisiveness

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ409.HTM



Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (see also 1 Cor 3:3)


Of the 1.7 billion Christian population cited by various World Almanac figures, there are one billion Roman Catholics, 200 million Eastern Orthodox, and the remaining 500 million are divided into over 1500 Protestant denominations.

Of all these Christian groups, the Roman Catholics have achieved the highest degree of dogmatic doctrinal and liturgical unity. If you step into a Roman Catholic service in any country of the world, on one given day, you will hear exactly the same scriptural readings and experience exactly the same mass. The only difference will be in the local language that is used. If you pick any large city in the USA, and go to a Baptist Church on one side of town, then what you experience may be radically different from a Baptist Church on the opposite side of town (or substitute Methodist or Presbyterian or Evangelical for the word Baptist, and the same diversity will hold true).




Bible vs. Tradition,
Conscience vs. Church Authority,
Individual vs. Community,
Subjective Experience vs. Objective Reason,
Grace vs. Nature (i.e., the Physical),
Faith vs. Works,
Mere Verbal Proclamation of "Salvation" vs. Discipleship,
Jesus as Savior vs. Jesus as Lord,
Priesthood vs. Laity,
Worship of God vs. Veneration of Saints,
Old Testament vs. New Testament,
Law vs. Grace,
Gospels vs. Epistles,
Matter vs. Spirit,
Formal vs. Informal Worship,





Some evangelists see converts as trophies in a big game hunt and measure their success by numbers . . . The result of all this is a watered-down message that, in large part, accounts for today's epidemic spread of easy believism, Christianity without cost.




Billy Graham (P) - of all people - could lay claim to "success" according to the criteria of the American god/idol pragmatism, as perhaps the preeminent evangelist of the 20th century (from either the biblical or pragmatic perspectives on what is "successful"). But he agrees with all the other opinions compiled above:

Billy Graham said: Nowhere do the Scriptures tell us to seek results, nor do the Scriptures rebuke evangelists if the results are meager . . . Evangelists . . . cannot convert anyone; that is the Spirit's work.



I discovered these several links, just now, by searching on
"WINNING SOULS FOR JESUS"
which returns about 1500 addresses

I wonder when the expression "winning souls for Jesus" was first used and when it first became popular. The notion that anyone can "win a soul for Jesus" is obviously a very distorted notion, when you consider that Jesus himself said "no man cometh unto me unless the Father draws him." I mean, Jesus himself clearly states that he is not "winning souls for Jesus".