Why is there so much hate in fundamentalism toward Catholics and Orthodox

[OrthodoxForever]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

 

[Job8]

There is a huge difference between exposing false doctrine and hating those who have been deluded by it. Jesus said "As many as I love, I REBUKE and chasten".

In a nutshell salvation is either by grace through faith plus nothing, or Christianity is a religion of good works and observing the Sacraments. Take your pick, but pick up the Bible first.

Sadly, the doctrine of justification by faith is virtually absent from the history and theology of the Orthodox Church. Rather, Orthodoxy emphasizes theosis (literally, “divinization”), the gradual process by which Christians become more and more like Christ.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html

 

[OrthodoxForever]

There is a huge difference between exposing false doctrine and hating those who have been deluded by it. Jesus said "As many as I love, I REBUKE and chasten".

In a nutshell salvation is either by grace through faith plus nothing, or Christianity is a religion of good works and observing the Sacraments. Take your pick, but pick up the Bible first.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html

Salvation isn't a get-out-of-hell-free card. Works don't save us, but there's more to Grace than "I believe, so I don't even have read the Bible or try to be a good person cuz Jesus" no...just no...

 

[Job8]

Salvation isn't a get-out-of-hell-free card. Works don't save us, but there's more to Grace than "I believe, so I don't even have read the Bible or try to be a good person cuz Jesus" no...just no...

Grace means justification followed by sanctification followed by glorification. So there is indeed much more to grace, but salvation -- THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE - is by grace through faith, and not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:4-7):

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[OrthodoxForever]

Grace means justification followed by sanctification followed by glorification. So there is indeed much more to grace, but salvation -- THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE - is by grace through faith, and not by works of righteousness which we have done (Titus 3:4-7):

But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

"To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord, as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For he who lacks these things is shortsighted, even to blindness, and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins.
Therefore, brethren, be even more diligent to make your call and election sure, for if you do these things you will never stumble; for so an entrance will be supplied to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." - 2 Peter 1:1-11

My problem with Protestantism and especially fundamentalism on the whole is that they tend to forget what St. Paul councils above. They get through justification, and stop there. Assuming that Theosis or Sanctification, to use the English term, is instant and automatic as well. That therefore anything they think or do is right and anything else inherently wrong. When if you look at scripture that is clearly not the case. They also tend to view Theosis as unimportant. That it matters not what we do or whether we try to live like believers ought to after we cross the starting line of the Christian life (justification) but there are at least 2 places in scripture, where our responsibility to walk the walk is made perfectly clear. the passage from 2nd Peter I quoted already and:

"Let no one despise your youth, but be an example to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in spirit, in faith, in purity. Till I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Do not neglect the gift that is in you, which was given to you by prophecy with the laying on of the hands of the eldership. Meditate on these things; give yourself entirely to them, that your progress may be evident to all. Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you." - 1 Timothy 4:12-16

 

[Light of the East]

There is a huge difference between exposing false doctrine and hating those who have been deluded by it. Jesus said "As many as I love, I REBUKE and chasten".

In a nutshell salvation is either by grace through faith plus nothing, or Christianity is a religion of good works and observing the Sacraments. Take your pick, but pick up the Bible first.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Eastern-Orthodox-church.html

Having been a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years before moving back in time to the Apostolic faith, I understand where you are coming from. However -

A.) Like most Fundamentalists, you don't know what the Apostles taught. Your assumption, as mine was, is that the Apostles practiced a form of Fundamentalism. You have this strange idea, as I did, that right off the bat the Apostles denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only baptized people who could make a "profession of faith." Historical writings show this to not be true.

B.) You have listened to teachers who have twisted both history and the interpretation of Scripture to fit their preconceived ideas of what Christianity is and how it developed. Again, history is not on your side. Jack Chick is not a reliable Bible teacher. Neither is Lorraine Boettner (Roman Catholicism) nor Alexander Hislop (Mystery Babylon). The research and "facts" these men presented in their books was found to be distorted and dishonest.

C.) You use the term "works salvation," but you have no idea what St. Paul was talking about, especially in Galatians, where he takes on those of the Judaizing Party who were causing massive problems for the new Christians by insisting that they must be circumcised or they could not possibly be saved. You equate the Sacraments of the Church with "works salvation," yet you don't understand at all that the Sacraments of the Church are the means by which Christ unites Himself to us.

D.) You are a semi-Gnostic. That is, you are scared silly of anything physical in our worship, thinking that only that which is spiritual can be a blessing. Thus, you deny baptism, even though Acts 2:38 states that baptism washes away sin. You deny anything that has to do with our physical senses, as if incense, icons, bowing, prostrations, etc. are somehow not important to our worship. Yet God gave us physical bodies with which to worship Him, and will raise those bodies on the Last Day, changed in some form into glorious resurrection bodies. I know this because like you, I thought that all the "extras" in Catholic worship were unnecessary and "man-made additions."

E.) Exposing false doctrine....well, that should belong to the Catholic and Orthodox Church because only in them do you find the teachings of the Apostles. What you believe did not come around until the beginning of the 20th century with the Fundamentalist Movement. For 1500 years, there was nothing else other than Catholicism and Orthodoxy (sadly separated) and that which they taught. Are you really saying that Christ, who promised that He would protect His Church from error and the gates of hell, would wait 1500 years for the "real truth" to be found by Luther and Calvin and then finally brought to perfection by Dr. Bob Jones? I don't think so.

The sad part is that you are so terrified of losing your soul that you won't open your mind to the idea that perhaps the 100 year old religion you are following could be wrong and could have absolutely nothing to do with that which Jesus taught the the Apostles.

 

[Job8]

Having been a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years before moving back in time to the Apostolic faith

The genuine Apostolic Faith did not call Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). Indeed, not one of the epistles names Mary, and when Paul refers to her, he calls her "a woman" (Gal 4:4). And Christ always addressed Mary respectfully as "Woman". So if you really think you have returned to the Apostolic Faith, you already have a major problem. God cannot have a mother, and even though Mary was the mother of Christ, she considered herself one of His disciples, no more.

Furthermore, the genuine Apostolic Faith regarded the Tanakh as Scripture -- the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44,45). But both Orthodox and Catholics have non-canonical books in their Bibles. So there again, you would have a serious problem with the apostles, who would ask you to get rid of those apocryphal books.

 

[DeaconDean]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

Listen friend, speaking as a friend and brother in Christ, most, not all mind you, but most of the Orthodox and OBOB members who have visited this area, come here on mission.

Back when I was on staff and this area had a "Debate a Fundamentalist" and "Ask a Fundamentalist" areas, you should have seen the attacks on our beliefs.

To be honest, I've seen it go both ways.

Nobody has "clean hands".

And to be honest also, I have a few Catholic and Orthodox friends here. When they come here, they are respectful, and I treat them as they treat me. There is one who has been especially thoughtful and for that, I thank God and him.

He knows who he is.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Having been a Bob Jones Fundamentalist for 13 years before moving back in time to the Apostolic faith, I understand where you are coming from. However -

A.) Like most Fundamentalists, you don't know what the Apostles taught. Your assumption, as mine was, is that the Apostles practiced a form of Fundamentalism. You have this strange idea, as I did, that right off the bat the Apostles denied the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and only baptized people who could make a "profession of faith." Historical writings show this to not be true.

B.) You have listened to teachers who have twisted both history and the interpretation of Scripture to fit their preconceived ideas of what Christianity is and how it developed. Again, history is not on your side. Jack Chick is not a reliable Bible teacher. Neither is Lorraine Boettner (Roman Catholicism) nor Alexander Hislop (Mystery Babylon). The research and "facts" these men presented in their books was found to be distorted and dishonest.

C.) You use the term "works salvation," but you have no idea what St. Paul was talking about, especially in Galatians, where he takes on those of the Judaizing Party who were causing massive problems for the new Christians by insisting that they must be circumcised or they could not possibly be saved. You equate the Sacraments of the Church with "works salvation," yet you don't understand at all that the Sacraments of the Church are the means by which Christ unites Himself to us.

D.) You are a semi-Gnostic. That is, you are scared silly of anything physical in our worship, thinking that only that which is spiritual can be a blessing. Thus, you deny baptism, even though Acts 2:38 states that baptism washes away sin. You deny anything that has to do with our physical senses, as if incense, icons, bowing, prostrations, etc. are somehow not important to our worship. Yet God gave us physical bodies with which to worship Him, and will raise those bodies on the Last Day, changed in some form into glorious resurrection bodies. I know this because like you, I thought that all the "extras" in Catholic worship were unnecessary and "man-made additions."

E.) Exposing false doctrine....well, that should belong to the Catholic and Orthodox Church because only in them do you find the teachings of the Apostles. What you believe did not come around until the beginning of the 20th century with the Fundamentalist Movement. For 1500 years, there was nothing else other than Catholicism and Orthodoxy (sadly separated) and that which they taught. Are you really saying that Christ, who promised that He would protect His Church from error and the gates of hell, would wait 1500 years for the "real truth" to be found by Luther and Calvin and then finally brought to perfection by Dr. Bob Jones? I don't think so.

The sad part is that you are so terrified of losing your soul that you won't open your mind to the idea that perhaps the 100 year old religion you are following could be wrong and could have absolutely nothing to do with that which Jesus taught the the Apostles.

Have you studied the Greek?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[miamited]

especially considering that most I've talked to have very little knowledge of what we actually believe...

Hi OF,

I have to agree with job8. It isn't a matter of hate. This is pretty much the same cry that we hear when we speak out against homosexuality and often pretty much anyone caught in sin. "Why do you hate me?" The Scriptures tell us that those who choose to follow after the Lord should hate sin. Then those of us who speak out against such practices are accused of hating the person merely because we said something against what they practice, or in this case, what they teach. Then the Scriptures tell us that it is actually a sign of love when we do this. We are told that if we pull someone out of their sinful practice that we are doing both them and ourselves a good thing. So, let's be clear that such practices as this shouldn't be seen as hate, but merely making an attempt to correct error.

Now, whether you or the person being addressed agree that what we are saying is the truth or not is a different matter. Also, yes, I agree that there are some people who do get in one's face and are particularly militant about their position or understanding that would naturally be seen as hate. I can only speak for myself, but I try to display a gentle and kind spirit when addressing others regarding sin and correction. Yes, I'm human and sometimes do allow my emotions to get the better of me, but that's the exception and not the rule.

So, as regards this issue of speaking out against some of the practices of other denominations, it is simply a matter of speaking out against error and nobody, at least not myself, hates anybody. Yes, as I understand the Scriptures, there are some practices among the denominations of Orthodox and especially Catholic believers that seem to be based on traditions established long after the Scriptures and outside of what the Scriptures actually teach. Many of these practices seem to be based on some person's understanding of the Scriptures, that under careful study, is founded on error.

Peter wrote that there are some who find the Scriptures hard to understand and that from their misunderstanding they follow and teach error. Many of the practices of the two denominations in question here likely stem from what they call the 'early church fathers'. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not these early church fathers were actually born again believers indwelled with the Holy Spirit of truth. But people assume that they must know what they're talking about because they held some high position in the church in their day.

However, for me, I'm not satisfied with that as proof that someone knows and teaches the truth. I think back on the days of Jesus' visitation to us and consider that the scribes and pharisees and teachers of the law may well be just like these 'early church fathers'. They are people who have been given high positions among the people of God, but don't have a clue about the things of God, but, because of their position, their teachings are assumed to be the truth.

I don't agree, based on reading and studying the Scriptures, and speak out against such teachings and practices. I don't hate them and believe that if I am correct in my understanding, that I am actually showing love to them in trying to turn them away from such practices. Of course, I fully understand that the person on the other end of the conversation won't generally accept this understanding. But still, it isn't about hate.

BTW, one doesn't have to know 'everything' that someone believes to correct a specific error.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Light of the East]

Have you studied the Greek?

God Bless

Till all are one.

I don't have to read Greek to read the writings of the Early Fathers and see that what the first Christians believed is not what I was taught when I was a Fundamentalist. And since you bring this up, why would those who actually spoke and read Greek as their native language in the first century have teachings that completely contradict what Fundamentalism says. What you appear to be inferring is that if I read the Greek, I would be some form of Protestant. If that is so, why did it take 1900 years for Fundamentalism to show up?

 

[Light of the East]

The genuine Apostolic Faith did not call Mary Theotokos (Mother of God). Indeed, not one of the epistles names Mary, and when Paul refers to her, he calls her "a woman" (Gal 4:4). And Christ always addressed Mary respectfully as "Woman". So if you really think you have returned to the Apostolic Faith, you already have a major problem. God cannot have a mother, and even though Mary was the mother of Christ, she considered herself one of His disciples, no more.

Furthermore, the genuine Apostolic Faith regarded the Tanakh as Scripture -- the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44,45). But both Orthodox and Catholics have non-canonical books in their Bibles. So there again, you would have a serious problem with the apostles, who would ask you to get rid of those apocryphal books.

First of all, Theotokos does not mean "Mother of God." It means "God-bearer." I would think that unless you are a Oneness Pentecostal, that title wouldn't have that much baggage for you

As for Paul stating that Mary was "a woman," that is an important distinction which he is making, since our salvation depends upon Christ Jesus being both God and Man in one Person. I'm not sure what your objection is here.

The title "Mother of God" in the Latin Church does not show up for several centuries, and it does so in order to combat the Arian heresy which denied the Trinity and made out Christ to be a mere created being. That was the intent, not something nefarious. However, it appears that you are at least a closet Arian in that you deny that Mary was the mother of the Man who was also God, thus making Her the Mother of God in that sense (I happen to prefer Theotokos, but that is because of my Eastern roots).

It is, in fact, the Church which established which of the hundreds of writings extant in the fourth century to be canonical and worthy of our obedience.

I note that you didn't address my other objections. Would you like to have a crack at them?

 

[Light of the East]

Peter wrote that there are some who find the Scriptures hard to understand and that from their misunderstanding they follow and teach error. Many of the practices of the two denominations in question here likely stem from what they call the 'early church fathers'. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not these early church fathers were actually born again believers indwelled with the Holy Spirit of truth. But people assume that they must know what they're talking about because they held some high position in the church in their day.

You do realize that this is a rather high-handed insult to men who willing were martyred rather than compromise the truth with either Jewish or Roman authorities, do you not? I find myself amazed (although I shouldn't be because I was in the same condition a few years ago myself) at those who somehow feel that the very first Christians were sort of dunderheaded morons who stumbled their way through the Christian faith and then, after three centuries, decided to turn it over to paganism in the time of Constantine. There seems to be an unspoken sense about so many people, shown in the consistent debates and arguments here, that "I" know the Scriptures and "I" know God better than anyone else, therefore, "I" am correct and all others are wrong.

That's the nice thing about being in the Church. The promise of truth was given to the Church and not to individuals, therefore, if I follow the Church, I am on safe ground and standing on the shoulders of giants.

As for the OP, I think that while we recognize that there are many people in Protestantism who are either ambivalent or at least polite towards Orthodox and Christian peoples, I think that for the most part, the rantings and ravings of Jack Chick more closely represent the attitude of Fundamentalists towards us. Heck, when I was in Fundamentalism many years ago, I remember hearing rather nasty and vituperative quarrels between Fundamentalists over some minor point of behavior or doctrine. The Fundamentalists I knew were pretty confrontational.

 

[miamited]

Hi LOTE,

You replied:

You do realize that this is a rather high-handed insult to men who willing were martyred rather than compromise the truth with either Jewish or Roman authorities, do you not? I find myself amazed (although I shouldn't be because I was in the same condition a few years ago myself) at those who somehow feel that the very first Christians were sort of dunderheaded morons who stumbled their way through the Christian faith and then, after three centuries, decided to turn it over to paganism in the time of Constantine.

I think you should be a bit more specific regarding who you're actually referring to as being martyred. Yes, I fully realize that many of the early believers were martyred, or executed for their faith. However, they were not all put to death for their faith. And I have never considered any of them to be 'sort of dunderheaded morons who stumbled their way through the Christinat faith'. I just know that, according to Jesus, not all who say to me "Lord! Lord! Will be saved." I believe that truth to have applied just as much 2,000 years ago and since, as it does today. Paul and Peter both spoke of followers among them who didn't understand the truth. I take that counsel to heart.

So, when I hear someone say, or read that a particular practice that I don't find supported by Scripture is practiced because this is how so and so, a great church father, explained things, I'm a bit wary to believe it. Let me just give you my own personal example that has given me this understanding.

My mother and father were married for 25 years and had 4 children. My father was always a man who couldn't keep his penis in his pants and had, over his lifetime, a number of affairs. He was an OK father, but a lousy husband. When he was in his later 40's he 'fell in love' with his secretary and began an affair with her. He sought a divorce from my mother and one was granted. Unfortunately the good chaste woman that he had his affair with was a 'good catholic girl'. She told him that she wouldn't marry him unless it were 'in the church'. So, my father applied for an annulment of his 25 year marriage. Well, it was granted and my father married his secretary who happened to be my age. So, my father was married to a woman who could have been his daughter because the catholic church deemed that his marriage of 25 years wasn't a proper marriage. No, no, no, no. My mother and father were married in 'the church', although it wasn't 'the church' as catholics understand 'the church'.

Now, I'm sorry if I offend, but the God I know; the one that I have come to love and understand through His word, never gave 'the church' the authority to undermine marriage in that way. It just isn't possible.

That's the nice thing about being in the Church. The promise of truth was given to the Church and not to individuals, therefore, if I follow the Church, I am on safe ground and standing on the shoulders of giants.

So, let's take that as an example: where do you find that 'truth' in the Scriptures? That the promise of truth was given to the 'church' and of course, what is your understanding of the definition of the 'church' as used in the Scriptures?

Yes, yes, I've had many 'good catholics' explain it to me, but there just isn't any way that their explanations are true. However, because they think to imagine that they have 'the church' behind what they believe to be the truth regarding these things, they believe that they are doing right. Sorry! It just isn't possible. So, if they're being told lies by 'the church' about the churches authority over marriage, then how many other lies are they being told?

Secondly, I have read the histories of many, many of the early popes. There just isn't any way that such men are God's emissaries upon the earth. It has to be a lie and all the teaching that they are only so ordained in their official capacities or as they stand in the place of God in the church, is a load full of stinking, rotting fish entrails.

Now, you can believe as you choose to believe, but I assure you that I am thoroughly convinced and convicted that there just isn't any way that the Catholic church is the one true church or that the pope is God's emissary upon the earth. Let me perfectly clear also, since it is the subject of this thread, that I don't hate anyone involved in that quagmire. I honestly feel sorry for them that they won't find the truth until they stand in judgment and unfortunately, as I understand the Scriptures, many of that lot may well find themselves standing in that line of people crying out, "But Lord, we did great miracles in your name and in your name cast out demons.' I pity such people, but all I can do is the same that God asked of Jeremiah. If you sound the trumpet and warn them and they die, their sin will be on their own heads. But, if you fail to sound the trumpet and warn them, then they're sin will be upon your head. So, I'm sounding the trumpet and I'm calling out the warning. You must do what you believe is right. We all, each and everyone of us, believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. That applies to myself as much as anyone else.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted[/QUOTE]

 

[Light of the East]

I think you should be a bit more specific regarding who you're actually referring to as being martyred.

Well, pretty much becoming a Christian for the first three centuries was almost signing your death warrant as an enemy of the state, and most folks knew that.

Yes, I fully realize that many of the early believers were martyred, or executed for their faith. However, they were not all put to death for their faith. And I have never considered any of them to be 'sort of dunderheaded morons who stumbled their way through the Christian faith'.

I accept what you are saying, however, there have been any number of people with whom I have talked/debated who seem to have a less than stellar opinion of the Early Fathers of the Church. Remember, these were men who were fighting Arianism, heresy, and who were dedicated to the preservation of the faith as handed down from the Apostles. We owe them a lot.

I just know that, according to Jesus, not all who say to me "Lord! Lord! Will be saved." I believe that truth to have applied just as much 2,000 years ago and since, as it does today. Paul and Peter both spoke of followers among them who didn't understand the truth. I take that counsel to heart.

True, but the problem is that there is a promise of the Holy Spirit leading the Church and protecting its leaders from error and heresy. That promise was not given to Joe Sixpack in the pews.

So, when I hear someone say, or read that a particular practice that I don't find supported by Scripture is practiced because this is how so and so, a great church father, explained things, I'm a bit wary to believe it. Let me just give you my own personal example that has given me this understanding.

"Supported by Scripture" is a very wide road. I hope you realize this. You could get 20 different denominational representatives in a room with a couple of large pizzas and a keg of beer and within 15 minutes they would be arguing against each other, each one declaring that the practices of the other one is not "supported by Scripture." What you are talking about is interpretation. So the real question is this: who has the authority to interpret Scripture properly and to whom was the promise made that the Holy Spirit would protect from error? The answer is the Church.

My mother and father were married for 25 years and had 4 children. My father was always a man who couldn't keep his penis in his pants and had, over his lifetime, a number of affairs. He was an OK father, but a lousy husband. When he was in his later 40's he 'fell in love' with his secretary and began an affair with her. He sought a divorce from my mother and one was granted. Unfortunately the good chaste woman that he had his affair with was a 'good catholic girl'. She told him that she wouldn't marry him unless it were 'in the church'. So, my father applied for an annulment of his 25 year marriage. Well, it was granted and my father married his secretary who happened to be my age. So, my father was married to a woman who could have been his daughter because the catholic church deemed that his marriage of 25 years wasn't a proper marriage. No, no, no, no. My mother and father were married in 'the church', although it wasn't 'the church' as catholics understand 'the church'.

I mean no offense to you, but your father was rather typical of the kind of Catholics I used to meet as a Protestant who kept me looking at the Church and saying "No way these people have anything I am interested in in the Catholic faith." What a terrible witness. The behavior of so many Catholics I met left me entirely unimpressed with the Church.

Now, I'm sorry if I offend, but the God I know; the one that I have come to love and understand through His word, never gave 'the church' the authority to undermine marriage in that way. It just isn't possible.

I am not offended and I understand. There are many good and honest Catholic people who are, quite frankly, distressed at the recent ease with which annulments were handed out over the last 50 or so years.

Yes, yes, I've had many 'good Catholics' explain it to me, but there just isn't any way that their explanations are true. However, because they think to imagine that they have 'the church' behind what they believe to be the truth regarding these things, they believe that they are doing right. Sorry! It just isn't possible. So, if they're being told lies by 'the church' about the churches authority over marriage, then how many other lies are they being told?

You could make the same argument for the scandal at the turn of this century. What a time for me to enter the Church, right when it was found out that there was a major infection of evil in a corner of the Church. But to answer your question - "...how many other lies are they being told..." I would have to say again that the promise of the Holy Spirit is that He will protect the Church against teaching false doctrine and moral error, but not against bishops and priests misusing the truth or misrepresenting it.

Secondly, I have read the histories of many, many of the early popes. There just isn't any way that such men are God's emissaries upon the earth. It has to be a lie and all the teaching that they are only so ordained in their official capacities or as they stand in the place of God in the church, is a load full of stinking, rotting fish entrails.

Now, you can believe as you choose to believe, but I assure you that I am thoroughly convinced and convicted that there just isn't any way that the Catholic church is the one true church or that the pope is God's emissary upon the earth. Let me perfectly clear also, since it is the subject of this thread, that I don't hate anyone involved in that quagmire. I honestly feel sorry for them that they won't find the truth until they stand in judgment and unfortunately, as I understand the Scriptures, many of that lot may well find themselves standing in that line of people crying out, "But Lord, we did great miracles in your name and in your name cast out demons.' I pity such people, but all I can do is the same that God asked of Jeremiah. If you sound the trumpet and warn them and they die, their sin will be on their own heads. But, if you fail to sound the trumpet and warn them, then they're sin will be upon your head. So, I'm sounding the trumpet and I'm calling out the warning. You must do what you believe is right. We all, each and everyone of us, believe what we have convinced ourselves is the truth. That applies to myself as much as anyone else.

Well, here's the thing....an awful lot of us studied the Scriptures for quite some time and found that there was an entirely different way to look at the Scriptures than what we had been taught. For me, the key that unlocked the door was understanding God's Covenant, and the interesting part of this is that it was a book by a Protestant Calvinist writer that really laid the foundation for me. After I studied covenant for a number of years, I realized that only the Catholic Church followed the 5 working principles of covenant -Transcendence, Hierarchy, Ethics, Oaths and Sanctions, and Succession. Every other Protestant theory broke at least one of these principles.

Understanding the Covenant of God also helped me understand the difficult teachings of the Church - such as why we refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven and our Mother.

And, of course, when I read in the writings of the Early Fathers that there was a unanimous consent to the teaching of the Eucharist being the very Body and Blood of Christ after the consecration of the elements... well, there was no way I wanted anything less than that kind of very personal relationship with Him through this Sacrament which He both ordained and spoke of.

 

[miamited]

Hi LOTE

You wrote:

Well, pretty much becoming a Christian for the first three centuries was almost signing your death warrant as an enemy of the state, and most folks knew that.

That depended on where you lived and still does.

You wrote:

I accept what you are saying, however, there have been any number of people with whom I have talked/debated who seem to have a less than stellar opinion of the Early Fathers of the Church. Remember, these were men who were fighting Arianism, heresy, and who were dedicated to the preservation of the faith as handed down from the Apostles. We owe them a lot.

Let me be clear. I'm not doubting another's faith. I'm not able to do that because I don't have any idea of a person's heart. Only God sees the heart and knows the motives of a man. However, I am neither going to accept someone's 'understanding' of what some teaching of the Scriptures means when I read the same Scripture and it doesn't say that to me. What Jesus promised born again believers is the indwelling Holy Spirit and if I have that and you have that and you tell me that this is what some teaching of the Scripture means, then that same Spirit should then convict me that the explanation is the truth. I share with a lot of people who have questions about some meaning or intention of the Scriptures. Often after discussing they might say, "Oh, I see. That makes sense." However, in the case of many, many practices and traditions of the two organizations that we are speaking of on this thread, when those who practice such things try to explain to me why they do these things and point me to the place in the Scriptures where such a practice or tradition comes from, I read it several times and don't get the same conviction that it's been properly discerned. Often times my spirit is standing inside me saying, "Wait! Stop! That's not what that says at all!"

Unlike you, I don't find that 'the church' was given any authority in the Scriptures. The church is not an organization built of men. It is the body of born again believers living upon the earth at any given time. It contains some who choose to worship in baptist services and methodist services and catholic services, etc. It has no power or authority but is merely the identification of the people who believe God upon the earth. That is 'the church'. When God looks upon all the people of the earth, the church is nothing more than all who are alive all over the earth who believe and love Him.

But, catholics and orthodox followers are taught that 'the church' has some special authority to rightly divide God's word. That's not what Paul said. Paul told Timothy that he was to study to show himself approved and to rightly divide the Scriptures. Nowhere are we ever told to look to some organization called 'the church' for discernment or understanding. The Holy Spirit indwells individual people leading them individually to the truth by his presence and conviction. If two or more people have that indwelling Holy Spirit, then they will be in agreement on the truth because they have the same source of discernment to know the truth. The Holy Spirit does not convict one man that such and such is true and then turn around and convict another man that the same issue has another truth. It just isn't possible.

You wrote:

I mean no offense to you, but your father was rather typical of the kind of Catholics I used to meet as a Protestant who kept me looking at the Church and saying "No way these people have anything I am interested in in the Catholic faith." What a terrible witness. The behavior of so many Catholics I met left me entirely unimpressed with the Church.

Let's not get ourselves confused concerning the issue. I understand that my father was a cad and the 'sweet young good catholic girl' was an adulterer just as much as he was. My issue is that somehow 'the church' you speak of doesn't understand that. They think to imagine, and hold out before the people of whom they control their minds and hearts, that they have the authority to say whether a marriage was a 'proper' marriage before God. They then dissolve the marriage or proclaim some pretense that it never existed before God and give their blessings to the adulterers to go ahead in their adultery and that they are OK with God and have spoken for Him on the issue. That!!!! is a crock of stinking fish entrails. And it is supported and encouraged by 'the church' that holds itself up as the place where God dwells.

I'm sorry, and again I don't mean to offend, but as far as I can tell, the catholic organization is nothing more than a hierarchy of men that have found a sweet way to control the hearts and minds of people in the name of God, yet there is none of Him in it. They are a hierarchical organization not a whole lot different than the teachers and scribes of Israel in Jesus day. They make laws and rules that are in direct conflict with the desires and commands of God. They chase all over the earth to find a convert and then turn them into a dog of hell worse than themselves. While I paraphrased that, let me point to the Scriptures so we can all see that Jesus really did say these things.

Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. Now they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?” He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.” He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death. But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”—’ (that is, a gift to God), then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother, making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”

Now yes, I understand that the specific issues that Jesus mentioned in this message aren't the same issues, but the practice that he is teaching against is the same. Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. Jesus himself spoke strongly against this practice and this singular issue of marriage highlights exactly that practice. Men have decided that they need to give us a way out of marriage without sinning against God. So they did! But I'm assured that it doesn't fly with God.

You wrote:

Well, here's the thing....an awful lot of us studied the Scriptures for quite some time and found that there was an entirely different way to look at the Scriptures than what we had been taught.

LOTE, I don't know what you were taught or what you believed, but when someone starts off a sentence saying that they've found an entirely different way to look at the Scriptures, my cow dung meter comes up. Such a claim precedes the claim that Jesus was married; it is the mantra of the Jesus Seminar - a group that has taken on the responsibility of deciding what things are said by Jesus in the Scriptures that he actually said and what he likely didn't say. So, I don't know exactly what you mean to say when you make the claim that you have 'found an entirely different way to look at the Scripture', but I'd caution you to be very careful in that.

And of course you're next statement kind of proves my point. You wrote:

and the interesting part of this is that it was a book by a Protestant Calvinist writer that really laid the foundation for me. After I studied covenant for a number of years, I realized that only the Catholic Church followed the 5 working principles of covenant -Transcendence, Hierarchy, Ethics, Oaths and Sanctions, and Succession. Every other Protestant theory broke at least one of these principles.

How do you know that this protestant calvinist writer knows the truth? Personally, I'm not sure that I agree that the Scriptures teach the calvinistic understanding of salvation so I'd be suspect, not assured, that someone who believed that knew the truth. Why do you? Where did he find this idea that there are '5 working principles to covenant? A covenant is a promise. That's all! It isn't some mystical term by which we need to understand some 5 working principles. It's just a promise. When God makes a covenant, He makes a promise. Makes an oath. Transcendence, hierarchy, ethics, oaths and sanctions, and succession? What kind of warped thinking makes such things up?

Listen, you believe what you believe. I'm just a man blowing a trumpet. Now you may believe that I'm one of those who says that my warped mind has convicted me that what I believe is true and what you believe is not, and you'd be correct in that. But, I can open up the Scriptures and show pretty clearly where our Lord warned us of false teachers and false doctrines. I can open up the Scriptures and show pretty clearly where many of the new covenant writers warned us of false teachers and false doctrines. I can, as I've already done above, show you Scripture that explains that men are prone to take the words of the Scriptures and do exactly what we find that the organizations in question seem, at least to me, to be clearly doing.

Each one believes what they have convinced themselves is the truth. Obviously, you and I have convinced ourselves of a different truth.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Light of the East]

Let me be clear. I'm not doubting another's faith. I'm not able to do that because I don't have any idea of a person's heart. Only God sees the heart and knows the motives of a man. However, I am neither going to accept someone's 'understanding' of what some teaching of the Scriptures means when I read the same Scripture and it doesn't say that to me. What Jesus promised born again believers is the indwelling Holy Spirit and if I have that and you have that and you tell me that this is what some teaching of the Scripture means, then that same Spirit should then convict me that the explanation is the truth. I share with a lot of people who have questions about some meaning or intention of the Scriptures. Often after discussing they might say, "Oh, I see. That makes sense." However, in the case of many, many practices and traditions of the two organizations that we are speaking of on this thread, when those who practice such things try to explain to me why they do these things and point me to the place in the Scriptures where such a practice or tradition comes from, I read it several times and don't get the same conviction that it's been properly discerned. Often times my spirit is standing inside me saying, "Wait! Stop! That's not what that says at all!"

Ted -

I would very much like to continue this conversation with you, as it goes to the heart of some very important issues such as authority and what constitutes the Church, but only if you wish to do so. I am not interested in being one of those guys who comes around and makes an absolute rude nuisance out of himself. You know, someone you would like to slap silly if you could reach through your monitor.

Your call. If you wish to continue to discuss this we can. If not, I've said my piece and will retire from further conversation. I just wanted to comment on this as a former Fundamentalist myself.

 

[Albion]

For me, the key that unlocked the door was understanding God's Covenant, and the interesting part of this is that it was a book by a Protestant Calvinist writer that really laid the foundation for me. After I studied covenant for a number of years, I realized that only the Catholic Church followed the 5 working principles of covenant -Transcendence, Hierarchy, Ethics, Oaths and Sanctions, and Succession. Every other Protestant theory broke at least one of these principles.

I've got to agree with Miami Ted on this point. Not only is it very doubtful that "every other Protestant 'theory'" fails to match up on this scale, but it's an artificial standard promoted by that writer only. If reading it caused you to convert to Roman Catholicism, that's not a lot different from the experience of people who pick up a tract in a doctor's office or subway car and agree with the religious perspective of whoever happened to write it.

 

[miamited]

Hi LOTE,

I've heard, I think, about all the arguments used to support such a belief that 'the church' holds some God given authority to make rules, decisions, laws, practices, and such. However, the real issue that comes out in these many discussions is that we hold a different understanding of what 'the church' is.

You see 'the church' as some hierarchy of organisation headed by a man that is held in particularly high regard because of the hierarchy of the organization. I, on the other hand, see 'the church' as nothing more than the body of people living on the earth at any given moment whose only high authority is Jesus, God, the Spirit and the Scriptures. They are not definable to us by membership in some particular group or man-made organization. They can only be discerned by their love for God and the things of God. They are a body of people that span the entire globe with have no outward and visible association to one another other than this thread of love for the one true and living God and their desire to love and obey and believe him. That is the church.

God bless you,
In Christ, Ted

 

[Albion]

Hi LOTE,

I've heard, I think, about all the arguments used to support such a belief that 'the church' holds some God given authority to make rules, decisions, laws, practices, and such. However, the real issue that comes out in these many discussions is that we hold a different understanding of what 'the church' is.

Truer words were never written on CF.