Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

Wgw said:

I have to confess, I am growing weary of threads criticizing the doctrines, praxis and liturgical rites of the traditional and in some cases ancient churches: the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Assyrians, and traditional Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and so on.

These arguments tend to take the form of an attack on some practice which is incorrectly regarded as being of Pagan origin. In many cases, they take the form of an argument against Roman Catholicism, predicated on the fallacious oremise that Catholics believe X, therefore X is Pagan/wrong/evil, traditional Protestants believe also believe X, therefore traditional Protestants are either Pagan/wrong/evil or lukewarm.

That structure od the argument is particularly annoying in light of the existence of the Eastern chuches: EO, OO and Assyrian, which were never Roman Catholic, and which provides what amounts to an independent validation of the legitimacy of Catholic and traditional Protestant faith, practice and worship.

Such arguments are also contrary to ecumenical reconciliation, which, contrary to popular belief, is not a diabolical conspiracy to create a one world religion of the anti-Christ, although I would be the first to criticize the Ecumenical Movement in general, and the WCC in particular for occasional excesses, self-defeating acts and outright silliness, for example, the risible Re-Imagining Conference in the early 1990s.

Attacks on the traditional faith also come from the liberal, postmodern, modernist and progressive approaches to theology, which tend to want to bash the traditional Christian faith as being Patriarchal, legalistic, misogynistic, sexually oppressive, and so on, to an extent that is either untrue or reflects a confusion about Christian morality. To some extent, the reactionary sort of chaps who attack traditional Christianity on the basis of extreme hostility to Roman Catholics play into this, by creating a caricature of traditional Christianity which people outside of the Body of Christ confuse with the "real thing." A particularly extreme and unpleasant example of this would be the notorious Westboro Baptist Church.

In closing, I propose that this criticism is wrong, as it is based on false premises, a false dichotomy, and a spirit which lacks proper respect for other Christians, particularly those Christians from centuries past who defended the faith against all odds.

Click to expand...

Just wait ... a couple hundred more years, and the modern denominations will appear "pagan" as well. It's just a carry over from the culture the denomination or tradition was founded in. Not a big deal just means some people will be turned off of it, because learning a new culture and a new religion is a pretty steep learning curve.

Thinking-Out-Loud said:

Good advice from yourself



What I am speaking of in 2 Thes can be shown elsewhere and confirmed in other epistles

As Paul was preaching the gospel there was some that mocked and others who would like to hear more on this

Acts 17:13 So Paul departed from among them.

And it continues...

Acts 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them.

And Paul found these two (among the others with them)

Acts 18:2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome and came unto them.

Why did he come unto these chose to abide with these two?

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers.

So stayed there (and with these specifically) because he was not looking for a free lunch but rather working labouring with his own hands (them being of the same craft as he)

Even as he says so much here

2Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

Which agrees and practicing what he preaches (in working) as we see him doing so he writes

2Thes 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

This is what he preached as well as what we see in him

This is also what we see in him (while he was preaching the gospel)

Acts 18:3 And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them, and wrought: for by their occupation they were tentmakers. (as was he)

So if you back up in 2 Thes 3, to when Paul says,

2 Thes 3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you; (contrast this wording with 2 Thes 3:11 even)

Paul continues,

2 Thes 3:8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:

The reason he gives,

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

He speaks to the power they had even in 1 Cr 9 as Paul writes, asking

1 Cr 9:4 Have we not power to eat and to drink?

1 Cr 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Cr 9:6 Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?

Because

1 Cr 9:12a If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?

Of course, which is in agreement with what Paul said in 2 Thes 3:9 concerning such power, as he writes

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

And so we see this same in 1 Cr 9:12 as Paul continues concerning this power

1 Cr 9:12b Nevertheless we have not used this power; but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the gospel of Christ.

My point is that there are not many who although might have such power follow Paul in his example

Even though in 1 Cr 9:14 Paul writes the Lord has ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.

Paul on the other hand still said,

1 Cr 9:15 But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void.

So I try not to make Paul's glorying void in this matter (even though it might be called "rubbish")

I think not.

And so again, its not as though he did not have power

2 Thes 3:9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

Its just that he did not use any of those things, and so there is a difference shown in Paul, and having power and not using it is two different things. Its not saying he does not, its saying he used it not.

Click to expand...

This post of your really makes little to no sense in the context of the conversation. You falsely accused someone of saying that they said baptism was in error when they clearly did not say that.

So many of these verses you quote show what I have agreed with that Paul earnt his way. This however does not change the fact that Paul clearly stated that he was entitled to get money from those he taught but chose not to. So why are you quoting all these verse agreeing with me while suggesting I should read what is written. Perhaps you could rephrase to make it clearer.

TheDag said:

This post of your really makes little to no sense in the context of the conversation. You falsely accused someone of saying that they said baptism was in error when they clearly did not say that.

So many of these verses you quote show what I have agreed with that Paul earnt his way. This however does not change the fact that Paul clearly stated that he was entitled to get money from those he taught but chose not to. So why are you quoting all these verse agreeing with me while suggesting I should read what is written. Perhaps you could rephrase to make it clearer.

Click to expand...

I haven't a clue to what you are going on about. Just take your own advice it was good.

Here, my post #101 (which stands by itself) not even quoting anyone else, from where you blame the ghost of your presumed context

Note no one is quoted here


Then you come along (say nothing of your presumed context from the start in Post # 132)




And then in your last post (above) post # 183 you begin saying,

"You falsely accused someone of saying that they said baptism was in error when they clearly did not say that."

Which is posted "after rubbish comment" to 2 Th 3 in post #101 which is followed up by the post 153, and then with #156 containing all those verses which further confirms Paul's own words (you call rubbish)

You gripe about nothing at all.

Thats fine unsubscribes, I simply added in one thing that Paul said and someone spewed his rubbish comment at what Paul confirms in the context of walking after the traditions it and then went on to apply his own false accusations at it.

He can have the last word, I will put him also on ignore to spare GT further of anymore back and forths

Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

One thing I've noticed is the traditional ones are still depended upon by Christians who reject tradition.

For example, even on this forum you can find Protestants who read the Catechism and accept at least parts of it in shaping their own beliefs. Heck, you can probably find a fair number of people admitting that much just here on CF!

Or here's another one. It's common for Protestants to attend Mass at Catholic parishes on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day because their own congregation doesn't have service that day (because the pastor wants to spend time with his own family). I attended Mass on Christmas Eve this year. The place was even fuller than normal. You might want to blame that on Christmas Catholics but I was standing in the back and heard a bunch of people whisper something like "Wow, never knew the Catholics did that" when they saw the incense or what have you. A good number of them were Protestants who understand that they should be worshiping either on Christmas Eve or on Christmas Day but they can't do it in their own venue. So they just use ours.

As a Catholic, part of me is annoyed that the Church gets routinely picked on and challenged by these same exact people the other 364 days of the year but that all gets put aside when they want to co-opt our parish for Christmas or our Catechism to resolve a tricky question that their pastor who graduated from "Bible College" is helpless to answer.

But then I remember that we're supposed to do good even for our enemies... so we should do at least that much for our separated brethren with grace, charity and kindness. It's not always very easy.

Broadly, I look around at Christianity in America today and what I see are traditionalist winning the argument. If the past few years have taught me anything, it's that this anti-tradition brand of Christianity is quickly vanishing. Before many more decades pass, a lot of those bodies may have to merge with each other just to stave off extinction. When the dust clears, I think it quite likely that the Christian landscape in America will be a choice between (1) traditional Christianity consisting of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church and possibly some Anglican body (ACNA?) in some type of communion with one another (2) a small coalition of generic evangelical Protestantism made up of whatever's left of the SBC, the charismatics and maybe a few others and (3) a yet smaller, liberal brand of Christianity consisting of the remnants of TEC, ELCA, UMC and possibly others.

Thinking-Out-Loud said:

I haven't a clue to what you are going on about. Just take your own advice it was good.

Click to expand...

A person said infant baptism was in error. You then falsely accused them of saying baptism was wrong. I said you should read what is written as they never said baptism was wrong. Now you seem to be getting upset at that and claiming there is no context. This was all made in response to another poster and was not a stand alone post.

In regards to the don't work you shouldn't eat you are once again wrong as teaching like Paul did was considered work and as Paul himself stated he was entitled to demand money from them for his teaching. It was only because he CHOSE not to that he worked. Yet you were using that to justify a false claim that every person in that position should work to support themselves despite that not being the tradition. Yet you claim tradition is important and should be followed. Even in OT times priestly tribe were paid for their services. Tradition is very clear that people who do those roles are right to expect payment. That some don't is admirable but should not be understood as biblical rule. This is the one that started from a stand alone post (#101).

What you have done is mistakenly taken one comment in response to a certain post and thought it was in response to a different post. This is seen that when you follow the quotes back it all depends on which quote in the same post you follow as to where you arrive at.

thecolorsblend said:

Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

One thing I've noticed is the traditional ones are still depended upon by Christians who reject tradition.

For example, even on this forum you can find Protestants who read the Catechism and accept at least parts of it in shaping their own beliefs. Heck, you can probably find a fair number of people admitting that much just here on CF!

Click to expand...

You're going to have to be more specific with that one. The fact that the Catechism reaffirms a number of historic beliefs and practices that are common to Christians of most denominations in no way shows that "Protestants" are basing their beliefs on a reading of the RC Catechism!

Or here's another one. It's common for Protestants to attend Mass at Catholic parishes on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day because their own congregation doesn't have service that day (because the pastor wants to spend time with his own family). I attended Mass on Christmas Eve this year. The place was even fuller than normal. You might want to blame that on Christmas Catholics but I was standing in the back and heard a bunch of people whisper something like "Wow, never knew the Catholics did that" when they saw the incense or what have you. A good number of them were Protestants who understand that they should be worshiping either on Christmas Eve or on Christmas Day but they can't do it in their own venue. So they just use ours.

Click to expand...

Don't flatter yourself so. They are only attesting to the fact that they felt like attending church at a time when their own churches were not holding services. Normally, that would mean EITHER Christmas Eve, Midnight, or Christmas morning--as those people preferred. It's not the case that their churches don't hold services at any of those times. And even at that, they could just as easily have attended another Protestant church, so you are assuming far too much with this "example." I myself often attend services at some church other than my own. In so doing, I'm not at all saying that "this is the real church."

MoreCoffee said:

Does it matter that criticism of the traditional churches exists if it is wrong?

Click to expand...

Here is the core of the OP and its error.

Those who believe, they, as well as what they do, is so impeccably correct and their is no truth or true church but theirs.

The result seems to be, they arrogantly think they are above criticism.

Admin Hat...

Be advised:

This thread has just undergone a de-trolling.



Mark
CF Admin

Optimax said:

Here is the core of the OP and its error.

Those who believe, they, as well as what they do, is so impeccably correct and their is no truth or true church but theirs.

The result seems to be, they arrogantly think they are above criticism.

Click to expand...

does the idea of perfection upset you?