Why Criticism of Traditional Churches is Wrong

[Wgw]

First let me say you are perhaps the most intelligent fluent writer of English that I have encountered in years. As an older person I remember the warnings my pastor gave in 1955, of the dangers of the World Council of Churches, and the National Council of Churches. I have very seldom heard this mentioned from then to now. I am very leery of anything associated with the WCC, or the NCC. Recently I bought an English Standard Version, Bible. The Copyright page says;

"The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. All Rights reserved.

What do you think about the ESV in relationship with either or both the NCC or the WCC. I an deeply concerned as many Baptist Churches seem so eagerly accepting of the ESV over the NASB. I thank you for any thoughts your are willing to share. Merry Christmas. Peace He is the Lamb without spot or blemish.

I have never understood why the ESV is so popular; of the recent modern Bibles, I have found it to be one of the worst. I myself prefer the Authorized Version, the Douay-Rheims, the Sir Lancelot Brenton Septuagint, the Murdock Peshitta, and certain other older translations.

 

[Meowzltov]

I wasn't saying there was anyone like that, I was just trying to establish a baseline. If you won't call it a pagan religion even if all of their other beliefs are pagan, then you and the the critics of Catholicism have different understandings of the term.

I guess I just don't see anyone that is Creedal that is even remotely close to that. The worst offenders like Voodoo and Santeria, which REALLY DO mix paganism with Christianity, have lost the gospel message completely. They have become completely non-Christian religions. Does voodoo even claim to be Christian? I don't think so.

 

[Wordkeeper]

I guess I just don't see anyone that is Creedal that is even remotely close to that. The worst offenders like Voodoo and Santeria, which REALLY DO mix paganism with Christianity, have lost the gospel message completely. They have become completely non-Christian religions. Does voodoo even claim to be Christian? I don't think so.

The basis for deciding if a group is acceptable or not is not becasue they are pagan or not.

Interestingly it is based on whether they are gathering or scattering.

Here a pagan is considered acceptable because he is exhibiting the certification of God in his work of bringing people out of the futility of living in the world into living with God, by driving out demons in Christ's name:

Mark 9:38John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.” 39But Jesus said, “Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. 40“For he who is not against us is for us. 41“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.



Why do I call the person a pagan? Because there are only two types of Jews. Those who have bowed their knee to Baal and the remnant, those who followed Christ.


Obviously the latter was not a follower of Christ. That only leaves a person who had bowed his knee to Baal.

 

[Meowzltov]

Why do I call the person a pagan? Because there are only two types of Jews. Those who have bowed their knee to Baal and the remnant, those who followed Christ.

99% of Jews do neither one of those two things.

 

[Wordkeeper]

99% of Jews do neither one of those two things.

ALL men are either serving God or Baal:

Luke 16:37No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[Meowzltov]

ALL men are either serving God or Baal:

Luke 16:37No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mammon is not Baal. Mammon is money, sometimes spoken of as the demon of covetousness. Baal is a fertility deity.

 

[Meowzltov]

Mammon is not Baal. Mammon is money, sometimes spoken of as the demon of covetousness. Baal is a fertility deity.

New International Version: "You cannot serve both God and money."

 

[Fireinfolding]

Mammon is not Baal. Mammon is money, sometimes spoken of as the demon of covetousness. Baal is a fertility deity.

The love of money is the root of all evil 1 Ti 6:10 (you would love the one or the other not both) as God knows their hearts

Luke 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

That is idolatry

Col 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:

 

[Meowzltov]

The love of money is the root of all evil 1 Ti 6:10 (you would love the one or the other not both) as God knows their hearts

Right on.

 

[TheDag]

I am on record as posting in the Orthodox forum on the need to not aggressively go after Protestants. That being said, I will aggressively criticize non-Trinitarianism, Gnosticism and other forms of non-Nicene Christianity of the sort one finds being promoted in Controversial Theology.

That is great to hear. I have found that when you do that people assume you disagree with them. Probably because most have fallen for the lie that you have to fully agree with a person no matter what to get on with them.

 

[TheDag]

The Charismatic movement FUNCTIONS RIGHT in moving people into an environment where they are exposed to God's word. How else can anyone “drink from the Rock”?

Really? I have been to some charismatic churches and not once in the half dozen times I've been have I heardscripturally correct teaching. Yet you say it functions right? It may function right but it does not automatically make it do so. I attend a vineyard church at the moment so I am certainly not attending a traditional church. The truth is God works through both and to condemn one or the other is wrong.

You should tell me how enshrining “tradition” does the same.

While not quite in the category of tradition I would say that traditional churches have a far better guarantee of scripture being taught. See if the sermon is unscriptural then at least from the liturgy and bible readings you still get taught scripture. In a charismatic church you don't especially with so many songs these days being more feel good songs that may have a loose connection to one verse in the bible.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Right on.

There are a few necessary assumptions to consider before you reach an understanding of the text.

1. The Bible is not a collection of disparate texts.

2. The author is God and his intent is constant.

3. The intent is spread over the different passages.


To understand the Bible we must be alert.

The message of the passage we just read is that we must choose between God and self.

The choice is not between God, mammon and Baal.

How do we reach this understanding?

The clue is in this text:

Deuteronomy 11:NET BibleFor the land where you are headed is not like the land of Egypt from which you came, a land where you planted seed and which you irrigated by hand like a vegetable garden.

Don't forget that the land God is giving Israel is the same land he pushed them out of when he sent a special dream to Joseph.

Why did God do this?

The life that Jacob and his family led was like the life of any other nomadic group. They constantly searched for the grazing for their flock which meant following the rain.

Contrast this with Egypt where people used the river to grow food.

This is then is the situation:

Egypt depend on themselves (own hands) for food.

Israel depended on God for food.

This results in different outlooks on life, world views:

Egypt prays to different gods for wealth, fertility, victory in warfare, etc. In other words, life is an existence that must be passed through with as little pain as possible, and the way to do this is to serve the different needs, do everything possible, including create gods, to build up a stock that would last for this life and also the afterlife, in the event there was an after life. I mentioned the creation of gods because that is the reality: they make a god, they decide on appropriate rites and they perform the rites for that god in order to achieve a result. The god serves them, not the other way around. If at all anything is being served, being indulged, it is their own needs. Covetousness, selfishness, is idolatry, serving the flesh.


The result of being in a situation where provision for life is in the hands of God is different. Whereas in Egypt fields were dug and watered by hand, here the land bears fruit only at the will of God. Now the availability of grain and grazing for men and animals is limited. The only way men could change the situation would be to adopt a nomadic lifestyle, like Jacob and his children, Joseph and his brothers. However, unlike the birds that fly south or the wildebeests that follow the rain and settle into a migration cycle, Israel cannot do the same without risking war, since the land has filled up with other tribes since the time of Jacob. God pushed Israel out of a dependence on self, by cyclic migration, to dependence on Him alone.

So really the choice is between depending on God or depending on your job:

Luke 12:22And He said to His disciples, “For this reason I say to you, do not worry about your life, as to what you will eat; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. 23“For life is more than food, and the body more than clothing. 24“Consider the ravens, for they neither sow nor reap; they have no storeroom nor barn, and yet God feeds them; how much more valuable you are than the birds! 25“And which of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life’s span? 26“If then you cannot do even a very little thing, why do you worry about other matters? 27“Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin; but I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory clothed himself like one of these. 28“But if God so clothes the grass in the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, how much more will He clothe you? You men of little faith! 29“And do not seek what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not keep worrying. 30“For all these things the nations of the world eagerly seek; but your Father knows that you need these things. 31“But seek His kingdom, and these things will be added to you. 32“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father has chosen gladly to give you the kingdom.

 

[Wordkeeper]

Really? I have been to some charismatic churches and not once in the half dozen times I've been have I heardscripturally correct teaching. Yet you say it functions right? It may function right but it does not automatically make it do so. I attend a vineyard church at the moment so I am certainly not attending a traditional church. The truth is God works through both and to condemn one or the other is wrong.



While not quite in the category of tradition I would say that traditional churches have a far better guarantee of scripture being taught. See if the sermon is unscriptural then at least from the liturgy and bible readings you still get taught scripture. In a charismatic church you don't especially with so many songs these days being more feel good songs that may have a loose connection to one verse in the bible.

Moses was a realist, he asked God for help in moving the people out of Egypt. God gave him signs and wonders. Jesus only spoke the words and did the works God gave him. The text says that a whole Samaritan town followed God into the wilderness to eat from the feast laid out there because Jesus told a woman every thing she had done.

You 've got to get the crowd to the feast before they can eat and drink.

That the charismatics do.

Hear tell the Greek orthodox don't even like to evangelize...


Also, please tell me how Israel " drank from the Rock"?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

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.

So, by this presumed logic, Egyptian sun worship is truth because it is independently validated by the Mayans sun worship.... great point!

New RC/EO creed.... two wrongs makes it right.

 

[Wgw]

So, by this presumed logic, Egyptian sun worship is truth because it is independently validated by the Mayans sun worship.... great point!

New RC/EO creed.... two wrongs makes it right.

No, rather, the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrians, who are Christians, by their similiarity to the RCs and traditional Protestants, provide an independent verification of the fact that RC and traditional Protestant worship is not based on some entirely pagan RC perversion of Christianity.

What is more, without more detail, your quip that the RC and Orthodox are "two wrongs" is simply a judgmental, uncharitable private opinion.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What is more, without more detail, your quip that the RC and Orthodox are "two wrongs" is simply a judgmental, uncharitable private opinion.

You're right, how uncharitable of me... here ya go...

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Do the RC/OC adhere to the traditions of the early church elders like the Pharisees did? You have admitted as much...

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Peter 1:18
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

 

[TheDag]

You're right, how uncharitable of me... here ya go...

Matthew 15:9
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:5
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
Do the RC/OC adhere to the traditions of the early church elders like the Pharisees did? You have admitted as much...

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

1 Peter 1:18
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

The same can be said of your church so whats your point? (if you actually have one which I highly doubt)

By the way just because you don't understand what is said does not mean your understanding is what was claimed. The poster did not admit to what you claimed re Mark 7:5 passage. I don't agree with their view on tradition but I also will not make false claims about them.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The same can be said of your church so whats your point? (if you actually have one which I highly doubt)

By the way just because you don't understand what is said does not mean your understanding is what was claimed. The poster did not admit to what you claimed re Mark 7:5 passage. I don't agree with their view on tradition but I also will not make false claims about them.

So what 'traditions' do you think the scriptures were referring to? I guess it would be to convenient to think that it might be the man made traditions of the worlds biggest religious organisation... why would we be warned about that, eh?

 

[Wgw]

The same can be said of your church so whats your point? (if you actually have one which I highly doubt)

By the way just because you don't understand what is said does not mean your understanding is what was claimed. The poster did not admit to what you claimed re Mark 7:5 passage. I don't agree with their view on tradition but I also will not make false claims about them.

Indeed so; what is more he also ignores 2 Thessalonians 2:15, which alas seems to be standard practice for persons from his denomination. What vexes me is that they attack us on Sola Scriptura grounds, while concurrently glorifying Ellen G. White as an inspired prophet and holding her works as inerrant, when they are demonstrably riddled with factual inaccuracy. This sort of thing might look to a casual observer rather like a bit of a smokescreen; I am not one to take such an uncharitable and inherently judgmental interpretation of it, however, I would point out to Adventists that chaps in glass houses rather ought not to throw stones.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The same can be said of your church so whats your point? (if you actually have one which I highly doubt)

What traditions would those be? Please list them so I can respond on whether I adhere or not... thanx.

Interesting as well that I give ample scriptural evidence for everything I am saying and am doubted on having as point yet you and others can just cite your own wisdom and claim you do. Doesn't the Bible have something to say on that?

Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,