I have always fallen back on the fact that if Jesus had not intended us to confess our sins to priests, why did he give the apostles the authority to forgive sin? It has always seemed pretty logical to me. That does not mean that we can't confess directly to God, which we are encouraged to do as well.

I guess the question that arises then, is which sins to do we take to God and which do we take to the local padre? I'm not sure that I have the answer to that, but I think it is more a matter of conscience than anything. It can't hurt to do both.

For me? Mortal sin puts me in the confessional. Venial is something I talk to the Man about.

I confess, when I think about it, during prayer/become aware of my failings at a more general moment, and weekly, during service.

Now, that is done silently, in service, and aloud at home. When I was first reforming my relationship with God, I had to confess aloud, at home.

Luther made an excellent point about how a man can go mad, trying to track, and confess, all of his sins.

I think the idea of confessing all of them to a priest, becomes a mere impracticality/a data problem. (As we are fallen, with imperfect knowledge, we will never have complete and full awareness of our sins.) As Christ intends for us to be forgiven, there has the be another path, rather than specific confession to a specific person, at a specific time.)

Our church has a main pastor (who does the theology stuff, and is brilliant,) and several semi-retired pastors, who do various things, as called.

The one who is mostly called to counseling asked me to go to lunch with him, and we ended up spending a few hours talking about what I've been dealing with (I've had a very dramatic 18 months, and I guess its been "showing".)

That is, I think, the purpose of the confessor's role. Not the passing stings that almost all men deal with, continually, but the "the devil has his hook in a hole in your soul, and how do we find it, and go about making repairs.)

An article I received in a newsletter from Chick Publications today...

quote:

In July, the Anglican Church in Wales appointed Cherry Vann as its 15th Archbishop —the first woman and the first openly gay leader in its history. Vann, who lives in a same-sex partnership, dismissed the controversy. “I’ve never heard God say to me, ‘Who you are is wrong, who you love is wrong,’” she told Premier Christian News. She added that the Bible is “open to interpretation” and that Christians “are not all of one mind on most things.”

The Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON), representing millions worldwide, condemned the move. Nigerian Archbishop Henry Ndukuba was blunt: “Sections of the Anglican world have resolved to abandon the truth of God’s word by sacrificing the authority of Scripture for a postmodern agenda.”

Vann, however, says she hopes to preside over “a church where we can learn to disagree” and hinted at formal recognition of same-sex marriages in the Church in Wales in the future.

The Long Slide of Mainline Protestantism
The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) recently shuttered its foreign mission agency —not only because of finances but because the denomination itself had lost its sense of mission. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), is watching its seminaries collapse and pews empty. Both denominations are rich in property but bankrupt in people and purpose.

Historian Carl Trueman says decades of chasing cultural approval left these churches hollow. “In seeking relevance,” he writes, “they declared their irrelevance to all.” Ecumenical “openness” blurred doctrine until nothing was worth fighting for —and nothing was left to believe. Leaders downplayed doctrinal distinctions until there was little left to distinguish their churches from the world around them. The result: collapse in numbers and in credibility.

Rome Opens Its Doors
Now, the Vatican and its shiny new pope are following suit. For the first time, the Vatican officially recognized LGBT+ pilgrimages during the 2025 Jubilee. Groups waving rainbow banners jubilantly marched through the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica —a symbol of repentance— celebrating what Scripture calls sin.

Pope Leo XIV even decided to meet with “We Are Church,” a radical Catholic reform group that campaigns for female ordination and the full inclusion of homosexual relationships.

Historian Roberto Mattei warned that the Jubilee was being exploited to signal a doctrinal shift. “Official [LGBTQ+] participation…has a clear intent,” said Mattei, “to make it appear that the Catholic church has changed its judgment on homosexuality.”

A Pattern Emerges
From Anglican Wales to Protestant America to Catholic Rome, the trend is unmistakable. Ecumenism, once billed as a way to strengthen churches through unity, has become a tool for softening doctrine until nothing distinct remains.

It doesn’t resolve differences—it erases them. The result is not a united church, but a watered-down faith that mirrors the culture and offers nothing the world doesn’t already have.

The Cost of Consensus
What these cases reveal is a pattern: when churches seek peace by trimming truth, they end up with neither. And history shows that when churches trade gospel truth for cultural approval, decline follows. As Trueman put it, “Why should anyone go to church to hear what can be heard elsewhere?”

Portions in bold done by me, to highlight portions that struck me.

Interesting. I don't pay a lot of attention to national or global church news or current events. If this article is any indication, I am glad I don't. It seems like it could only serve as a distraction. At the same time, I suppose it's good to know where we need to reinforce our defenses, or focus our efforts.

For those that don't know, Chick Publications produces comic-style Gospel tracts. The founder/originator, Jack Chick, is dead now. They are certainly a fundamental 1611 KJV Protestant organization, complete with anti-Catholic rhetoric. I don't condone, and avoid, their anti-Catholic material, but I think there is much value in their presentation of the Gospel.

This is an example of a Halloween-themed tract:

https://www.chick.com/products/tract?stk=1073&ue=d

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I referred to the terms "elect" and "whosoever" in the more general Calvinism vs broader Protestantism sense.

The Romans 8:28-30 actually doesn't use the "elect" language, but instead focuses on predestination, which is not eased by Greek translation.

It has been a point of contention within Protestantism between salvation by election or salvation by free will that both Calvinists and Arminians have expelled, imprisoned, and even executed members of the other side as history shows. Whether the doctrinal schism was simply a pretext for the power grab or an actual factor, still shows the logical practical unchristian result of the musings.

All the arguments on each side seeks to explain apparently opposing verses within the context of their belief. If you believe salvation is only for those elected before time, you're going to explain away any verses that appear to say anyone can believe and be saved. Likewise, the same holds true if you believe people are saved by exercising their free will.

My position is that this is one of the spiritual truths that fall in the same category as the trinity; truths that aren't able to be grasped by our human finite minds. It is not humanly logical to insist that there is only one and only one God and yet also believe the Father is God, Jesus Christ is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. But that is what the Bible teaches. For anyone to think they actually understand the full depth of the teaching of the triune God and can explain it by such examples as eggshell, albumen, and yolk or the three states of water as soid, liquid, and ice, I would say you've not fully dwell on what the idea of the triune God means.

Similarly, the Bible teaches the sovereign omnipotent omniscient God have predestined the elect in Christ (Romans 8:28-30, Ephesians 1:4-6, 11) and, in the very same Bible, we find that whosoever believes in Jesus shall have everlasting life (John 3:16) and that IF you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

If we can accept that the Bible teaches there is one and only one God at the same time it also teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, why can't we accept that Bible also teaches that salvation is by election and by whosoever will? I'm not saying salvation is by either or; I'm saying the Bible states both holds true in the salvation of any one person - election and personal volition through faith and faith comes by the hearing of the word of God. And how will they hear if no one shares the word of God? And how will they share if no one sends them? It's a truth so much bigger than our finite minds can fully comprehend.

I think more important than resolving this issue is resolving that if you believe in election, that you do your part in bringing the gospel to those who have been predestined to salvation. You may protest and say they're going to get saved whether you do anything or not but if that good work was one of the good works prepared beforehand for you to do (Ephesians 2:10) and you didn't do it, that's going to be part of the straw and stubble that gets burned up (1 Corinthians 3:12-15).

If you believe people are saved by the exercise of their free will, then what are you doing to execute the command given by Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 to make disciples of all the nations? And if you're going to protest that that command was given only to his disciples, I will point you to the rest of the verse: make disciples of all the nations,... teaching them to observe ALL that I commanded you...." included in teaching subsequent disciples all the commands Jesus gave them is that commandment itself - go and make disciples.

So…. I could be, wildly, wrong in this - and I’m not saying it makes sense, but I did take a few college courses on it - some more than once - but I always figured the Trinity was, essentially, similar to quantum states.

If particles can exist in multiple places/states at the same time - and can be proven to do so (slit experiment), then similar math should let God be in three states - admittedly, I never worked out the equation, but it should be doable.

Sigfreund's post near the bottom of this page, from Oct 1st, has prompted thought and research...

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...935/m/9210083715/p/4

You can see the resulting discussion in that thread. I want to consolidate further conversation in this thread. I want to better understand this.

As a former Catholic who is now a born-again Southern Baptist Protestant, I often find myself in the role of apologist for either. My mother is a Catholic and my uncle is a Catholic priest. I don't disrespect Catholics. Quite the opposite, actually. I also have a great deal of respect for my Protestant pastor, brothers, and sisters.

In researching in an attempt to better understand, and hopefully reconcile, perceived differences in doctrine, I have been pleasantly surprised. It seems that most protestants have little-to-no real understanding of Catholic doctrine. They just think Catholic=wrong/bad. The inverse is true as well; though, I think, to a lesser degree. Ultimately, the differences haven't been all that large, so far, within the scope of the specific studied aspects.

I have also found, in myself and my mother, a lack of knowledge of our own doctrines.

I'll use my learning-about Purgatory as an example. Being raised Catholic, I had an awareness of the concept. My mother did too. The surprising (for her and I) thing is that her knowledge wasn't much more than the mere awareness that I had.

Protestants like to take issue with Purgatory. They incorrectly perceive it as a Catholic belief in a "second chance". The fact is: it's not. Purgatory is for believers only, and it is not a place that can cleanse mortal sins. So, ultimately, a Catholic belief in Purgatory ought to be inconsequential in the eyes of most Protestants.

Another example is the sacrament of reconciliation. Protestants like to beef with this too. The fact of the matter is, according to the Catechism, the sacrament is not required for even the forgiveness of mortal sins. It is ultimately between the repentant and God. The sacrament is, of course, highly encouraged. Another interesting aspect of this particular item is the fact that this is a "spiritual gift" that Christ gave the apostles. Protestants have no problem believing in other spiritual gifts, as is evident in Pentecostal churches. Those two points combined, in my opinion, render this an inconsequential debate item.

Now we've arrived at the current subject of study: forgiveness. I have received no formal Protestant education on the matter. Only an impression from bible study and it's associated curriculum companion books. The conversation in the other thread prompted me to apply the same degree of research to forgiveness, as I had applied to the above-mentioned topics. The Catechism paragraph cited in the other discussion is more-or-less reinforced even by the Council of Trent Catechism, as best I can tell without having yet found the properly referenceable paragraph(s).

These are relevant articles I have found:

https://www.catholic.com/magaz...that-is-the-question

https://www.catholic.com/magaz...imits-of-forgiveness

https://www.ncregister.com/blo...ht-forgiveness-trent

The "limits" article is perhaps the most relevant, in the specific context of the Kirk assassination.

My biggest learning point from the day's research has been the idea that forgiveness is indeed a two-way street, and it isn't really "complete" or "official" unless the offending party is repentant, as was discussed in the other thread. However, it is our Christian duty to offer forgiveness, as Christ/God does for us. What does it mean to offer forgiveness? That I don't know. As the "Limits of forgiveness" article articulates: in any case, we should pray that the offender realize his sin, and come to repentance. More research and feedback from all you fine Catholics and Protestants on SIGforum will no-doubt refine the concept.

Thank you for your patience with this evolving post today.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

Sorry it took so long to get that written today. I look forward to any resulting discussion.

A final evolution of the Christian forgiveness "formula": We offer forgiveness and pray that the offender comes to repentance. If the forgiveness equation is indeed completed by repentance, we can then trust in God to help us forget the offense and heal. God tells us He forgets our transgressions. He also tells us our forgiveness works like His. So, the forget in "forgive and forget" is possible with God's help, in the true execution of the Christian forgiveness process.

This is a seemingly reliable source of the Catholic liturgical calendar.

https://www.usccb.org/committe.../liturgical-calendar

I have already had one question cleared-up. It is not an annual cycle.

I'll definitely appreciate this resource, as I like to talk about the week's services with my mother.

As it relates to the other recent discussion about the perceived quality of a preacher/pastor/priest, I think it illustrates how, even with reliable tradition and strict liturgical structure, we rely on pastors and priests to "deliver the message" or "interpret the message". Merely knowing the scriptures that are the source material for the week doesn't mean I am going to "get the message". So, in the context of attending a church in a foreign country, I don't think it's fair to say it's the same. Though, with so much information and so many opinions at our fingertips nowadays, we could certainly research the message for ourselves, after having attended mass with a foreknowledge of the scripture, and receiving the sacraments.

On the Eucharist in the Catholic Church:

It's my understanding that one must be in a "state of grace" to properly receive the sacrament of the Eucharist.

Committing mortal sin puts us in a condition other than a "state of grace".

The catechism defines mortal sin as "sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent". P1857

Grave matter is further defined as being specified by the ten commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the young rich man:
Don't kill
Don't commit adultery
Don't steal
Don't bear false witness
Don't defraud
Honor your father and mother P1858

The catechism goes on to say that these are ranked even further among themselves, and the target of the offense changes the severity as well.

That seemingly, to me, contradicts what Christ says elsewhere in scripture:

To think a hateful thought or look with lust is the same as committing murder or adultery. Sin is sin is sin.

He also says acts of kindness expressed to the least of our brethren we express to Him. It would logically work inversely, regarding unkind acts. So, why would the target of a sinner's sin change the severity?

That's not the point of the conversation though.

What I am wanting to know is what portion of a given Catholic congregation is merely eating a cracker every Sunday, because they are living in unreconciled mortal sin?

I can say with 100% certainty that I ate many crackers as a young man, because I wasn't mature in my faith due to lack of comprehension and commitment.

Bearing false witness is, so far as I can tell right now, especially nuanced. Honoring one's parents is dynamic too.

As I grow in my faith now, I realize more and more, on a pretty regular basis (almost daily), the weight of the truth. It's immense. Catholic or protestant.

Bearing (or baring) false witness.

Article eight in the Catechism, paragraph 2464-2513, details the eighth commandment.

Paragraph 2471 to 2474, and summarized in 2506, touches on the subtler aspect of this commandment.

Evangelizing, testifying, witnessing, whatever you want to call it, is our duty. Even if you want to interpret these paragraphs in a way that would relieve us of the great commission, you wouldn't be able to relieve us of the duty to defend the truth in moments of it being slandered.

If a coworker or acquaintance in a social setting is speaking ill of our Lord, we are duty-bound to witness by the eighth commandment. In not doing so, we'd be bearing false witness and committing a mortal sin. In such instances, to withhold the truth is no less an offense than outwardly lying.

In short, the mortal sin of bearing false witness is multifaceted and means potentially much more than merely "telling a lie".

All that said, I can hardly see how it's possible that the entirety of a congregation filing through for the sacrament of the Eucharist is fit to properly receive it.

As a random side note: perhaps there's some sort of connection between the condition of the recipients of the Eucharist and the occurrence of Eucharistic miracles. Either such a miracle occurs when the entire congregation is truly in a state of grace, or maybe a sort of "special occasion" of someone long-unrepentant of a mortal sin truly reconciling and properly receiving for the first time invokes the presence of the miraculous flesh.

I hope to hear folks' thoughts.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM: What I am wanting to know is what portion of a given Catholic congregation is merely eating a cracker every Sunday, because they are living in unreconciled mortal sin?

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Evangelizing, testifying, witnessing, whatever you want to call it, is our duty. Even if you want to interpret these paragraphs in a way that would relieve us of the great commission, you wouldn't be able to relieve us of the duty to defend the truth in moments of it being slandered.

If a coworker or acquaintance in a social setting is speaking ill of our Lord, we are duty-bound to witness by the eight commandment. In not doing so, we'd be bearing false witness and committing a mortal sin. In such instances, to withhold the truth is no less an offense than outwardly lying.

I hope to hear folks' thoughts.

I've been raised a Roman Catholic and still consider myself to be Roman Catholic. With regards to eating crackers, this is simply where the many Christian denominations diverge on its significance.

Roman Catholics and Lutherans hold to Christ being present in and with the bread and wine, same with the traditional Methodists. Baptists hold to the view that the Lord's supper serves as a memorial of what Jesus did to free believers from the bondage of sin in the same way that the Passover meal from which the Lord's supper originated serves as a memorial of what God did which freed the Israelites from the bondage of sin.

Eating the Passover meal didn't free the descendants of the slaves; they were already free. It served to memorialize the event for the benefit of those celebrating it and renew their relationship with God. In the same way, I believe eating and drinking the communion wine and bread doesn't free me from the consequences of sin; I was already freed when I placed my faith on Jesus. Psalms 103:12 says, "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.

With regards to evangelizing, I would say there is no relief for any believer from the great commission. If you are a believer and have come to know Jesus as Lord and Savior, the least you can do is to tell others about Jesus. That's what people in the New Testament did.

On the other hand, if you say you can interpret in such a way to be relieved of the great commission, it's convoluted reasoning to think you have a duty to defend the faith in moments of it being slandered.

First, God is big enough to take anyone slandering Him. He doesn't need us to defend Him; He could easily strike down anyone at their first instance of blasphemy. On the other hand, one should interpret such instances in your presence as an opportunity to exercise the great commission.

We need to understand the actual context from where that idea of defending comes from; it comes from 1 Peter 3:14-15 "And do not fear their intimidation, and do not be in dread, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, but with gentleness and respect."

2 Timothy 4:1-4 warns "For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine, but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires, and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths."

Colossians 4:5-6 says "Conduct yourselves with wisdom towards outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Your speech must always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person."

And, lastly, 2 Timothy 2:22-26 says, "But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord's bondservant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, skillful in teaching, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting... if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil."

I was not making the typical Catholic vs Protestant "crackers" argument. I (more-or-less) understand and respect all the sacrament(s). I was inquiring specifically about receiving communion in unreconciled mortal sin (I know Catholics aren't supposed to). In the Baptist church, we often hear comments like "We've got a lot of folks in church this morning, but many of you are lost". In the context of the sacrament of the Eucharist, the remark might be "Most of the congregation is filing through for communion, but some of you are living in unreconciled mortal sin".

In further considering mortal sin, it is very explicit that the offender knows what's at stake, and still makes the conscious decision to defy God's will. So, one can't commit a mortal sin by accident; it's seemingly impossible, by definition. Even in the casual social circumstance I mentioned, in an effort to illustrate how it could happen to many of us, in order to actually commit a mortal sin, one would have to:

1. Completely understand the offense qualifies as mortal sin
2. Deliberately proceed with the offense

So, in that hypothetical, many may not have a complete understanding of the eighth commandment, and would commit a mortal sin in ignorance, therefore making it not, in fact, a mortal sin at all.

And, back to the crux of the question: if someone receives communion in mortal sin, outside a "state of grace", is it the flesh and blood, or merely a cracker (for the sinful individual)?

quote:

one should interpret such instances in your presence as an opportunity to exercise the great commission

That is another (better) way of saying what I meant. The moment is proof of the person's not knowing Christ, and we'd be remiss not to, out of love and duty, inform him of the truth.

quote:

First, God is big enough to take anyone slandering Him. He doesn't need us to defend Him

Of course this thought occurred to me but, as I said, that's not what I was getting at.

Thank you for that bounty of relevant scripture!

A question: Does your church teach wariness of Christian outreach and evangelism efforts of other churches?

The question's inspiration: In my evangelism efforts, I have only been outright denied and/or turned-down five times in the last six months. Three of them were people (coincidentally all women) who had just the moment prior professed Christian faith.

When I encounter someone who "identifies" as Christian, says they attend church, etc, I either give them a tract that is authored to specifically target believers with it's message, or I give them a normal tract, and encourage them to enjoy reading it and then pass it on to someone else. I wager many of them need the normal tract anyway. I encounter folks who profess belief and say they attend church pretty regularly, as I live in rural NE Georgia.

Two of the aforementioned three women said something like "no, thank you, my church has it's own stuff for that." or "my church has it's own evangelism programs and literature."

I found it odd that they wouldn't take a tract just to be polite and friendly.

I am curious as to everyone's insight. Thanks!

Hindsight being 20/20, I should have asked them if I could see their tracts or other handouts. Had they not been able to produce any, I could've gently reminded them of Matthew 9:37...

"...The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few"

I certainly believe we need to hold each other accountable, as believers.

I adhere to one statement of faith which is reproduced below from the 1928 Episcopal prayerbook. A remarkably poetic and literary liturgy.

I have enjoyed reading this thread. My relationship with God is personal and unbreakable. I seek to live a life in God, although I often fail, one of my failures is that I do not evangelize. If you enquire of my faith, I will speak of it, otherwise, I do not bring it up.

May you all be blessed, and live your life in God.

I BELIEVE in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spake by the Prophets: And I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

@KSGM, if they are from a church with a strong program of discipleship/actual church, there is a message of wariness about references other than scripture.

Even the Lutheran Large Catechism, is something my pastor is encouraging me to work through, while in regular contact with him, to ensure I understand it properly.

I would think most pastors would want to vet the material.

Of course you're right, Aglifter. I suppose I was distracted by the specific context of evangelism. We all ought to be wary of false teachings, and churches should teach as much.

The tracts that I use are vetted by my pastor, and are VERY grounded in scripture. Specifically the KJV.

I am of the opinion that someone who professes belief to a total stranger who they know is of the same (at least similar) belief, and is evidently part of a church in a serious-enough way that they have particular preferences about evangelism, should have the maturity, confidence, and wisdom to vet material themselves. If they deem it inappropriate after inspecting it, they can discard it, and they've effectively removed that bit of false teaching from circulation. In denying it, they potentially enable someone else to be led astray. I think that denying it also has the potential to quench the Spirit of the evangelist.

I tend to be somewhat emboldened by these encounters, even if they do confuse me. But someone else could easily be discouraged. If, as Christians, we're discouraging evangelism by reacting poorly to someone else's efforts out of fear of the false doctrine boogeyman, there's a problem.

Fundamental, basic, introductory information about the truth of Jesus Christ I think is mostly free of any harmful false teaching. Also, I know we can trust God to use our material, and that of others, to guide the recipients to Him, regardless of errors we may or may not have made in its authorship.

I respect and agree with your thorough approach to study, Aglifter. I do think, however, that a completed academic study of one's catechism is definitely not a prerequisite to evangelism. I know that we want to feel prepared and know we're confident in our base of knowledge before we head out into a cynical, skeptical world, but the good news can be delivered in an easy-enough way, and we don't need to engage in follow-on debate. Pray before an encounter and after. We know prayer works and we trust God. He'll work on the recipient in accordance with His will in any case, so long as we're prayerful.

To illustrate some of what I am getting at, I can use a coincidental encounter from earlier the very same day. I approached a worker unpacking his surveying equipment in my employer's parking lot. After some small talk, I inquired about his faith. He was a believer, and he lit up. We went on to have a very excellent brief conversation, and it was very obvious that we were both enriched by the encounter. He was excited to receive the tracts I had with me, as he said he sometimes witnesses to coworkers. As Christians interacting with each other in the context of evangelism in public, we can choose to have enriching encounters, or discouraging and confusing ones.

I'll also add that this logic translates to simpler things too. If someone is wearing an article of clothing or jewelry that bears witness to the truth, compliment them on it, and express appreciation for them wearing it. Even if their character isn't the best representation of the truth, we can structure a comment that provokes consideration on their part. Prayer after the encounter will give us confidence that the Lord will work on them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

As an outsider looking in, this question piqued my interest, and an AI response about the number of different Christian sects in the world said there were nearly 50,000(!). Each one evidently holds that their interpretations of scripture and other doctrine are correct and therefore that others’ are wrong. Many of the doctrinal differences are minor, but based on my study of Christian history, they include disagreements about some very fundamental basic issues.

I would not find it odd that someone might not want to read tracts that could possibly promote what they consider to be false beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As an outsider looking in, this question piqued my interest, and an AI response about the number of different Christian sects in the world said there were nearly 50,000(!). Each one evidently holds that their interpretations of scripture and other doctrine are correct and therefore that others’ are wrong. Many of the doctrinal differences are minor, but based on my study of Christian history, they include disagreements about some very fundamental basic issues.

The Church was instituted by Christ, through the 12 apostles, but is run by men. Men are fallible, sinful, and prone to infighting.

I'm pretty open to different Christian sects all having a path to heaven. I don't get hung up on some of the doctrinal differences.

Do I wish we could all merge into one Church?
Yes, but it likely won't happen. No earthly leader who has developed a following wants to give that up.

quote:

I would not find it odd that someone might not want to read tracts that could possibly promote what they consider to be false beliefs.

In my anecdotes, the potential recipients had no basis from which to presume my beliefs were "wrong". It could have been that they were part of an extreme minority "sect", and therefore could relatively safely assume I didn't share their belief. There's still the question of why they wouldn't be compelled to take it from me and throw it in the trash, if they deem it false to the point of dangerous. I don't know how there could be a sect that uses the Bible (in any translation) that would discourage basic evangelism.