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

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Well, you just haven't met the haters yet!!!

Go over to the SDA channel and browse. You will find plenty of animus there.

Which works both ways.

In my experience most Christians are not posting on discussion forums, most are just getting on with their lives and not hating anyone. The ones on the forums (including me) usually have some axe to grind and will necessarily get polemical about it. It does not mean that the majority of protestants hate catholics... or vice versa. It is generally a vocal minority.

On the other hand thoughtful people may disagree with aspects of another denomination and find that the very disagreement marks them out as hateful, which is what Light of the East seems to have been doing to me: perceiving hatred where none was intended.

 

[quidam65]

Historically Protestants of all denominations would speak out against RCC. Traditionally they interpreted Revelation 17-18 as speaking of RCC. The reason why fundamentalists appear to be "hateful" is because of how they appear in contrast to other groups.

Mainline Protestant churches appear to be heading toward abandoning the Protestant Reformation. Evangelical churches, though still preaching that there are major differences between themselves and RCC, are willing to work with RCC on areas of common interest (such as abortion and religious liberty issues).

OTOH fundamentalists will NOT work with anyone else outside their group for any reason (and even then they will oppose other fundamentalists who they don't think are "fundamentalist enough". They haven't budged off the traditional interpretation of Revelation 17-18. Also they don't care what RCC thinks; they believe their interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY right one. (The only other group that thinks this way would be the Churches of Christ. But they're much nicer to deal with.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Historically Protestants of all denominations would speak out against RCC. Traditionally they interpreted Revelation 17-18 as speaking of RCC. The reason why fundamentalists appear to be "hateful" is because of how they appear in contrast to other groups.

Mainline Protestant churches appear to be heading toward abandoning the Protestant Reformation. Evangelical churches, though still preaching that there are major differences between themselves and RCC, are willing to work with RCC on areas of common interest (such as abortion and religious liberty issues).

OTOH fundamentalists will NOT work with anyone else outside their group for any reason (and even then they will oppose other fundamentalists who they don't think are "fundamentalist enough". They haven't budged off the traditional interpretation of Revelation 17-18. Also they don't care what RCC thinks; they believe their interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY right one. (The only other group that thinks this way would be the Churches of Christ. But they're much nicer to deal with.)

The various members of the Churches of Christ whom I have known, and there have been many, are just as Bible-thumping, if not more so, than the folks I have known in the various churches that are generally identified as Fundamentalist. The Churches of Christ preach fervently salvation through immersion in water in their brand of church. All other baptism, in their view, is worse than worthless.

 

[quidam65]

The various members of the Churches of Christ whom I have known, and there have been many, are just as Bible-thumping, if not more so, than the folks I have known in the various churches that are generally identified as Fundamentalist. The Churches of Christ preach fervently salvation through immersion in water in their brand of church. All other baptism, in their view, is worse than worthless.

You are correct on this. There is a small minority that accepts baptisms from other churches (provided it was done after belief) but the vast majority teaches as you have quoted.

 

[Radagast]

nm

 

[Truth Lover]

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.

Yes, faith is a free gift. No one can earn it. That heresy, Pelagianism, was condemned in the 400's.
That said, Catholics, and what the apostles taught, is that the initial step of receiving the gift of faith is followed by a process of sanctification. Salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event. Both that initial step and growth in holiness are necessary. Go to Biblegateway and search on "will be saved" in the New Testament. Notice the future tense of the verb. We are saved when we repent. but salvation can be lost. It is what condition your soul is in when you reach the pearly gates that decides if you will be saved.
If you think that growth in holiness is unnecessary for salvation and you don't have to do anything to follow Jesus, go through your Bible and cross out every verb that tells you to do something. You won't have much left, I bet. Why does Jesus, Paul, et al, tell us numerous times to turn away from sin and love your neighbor? We are commanded to do what Jesus taught us. It is not a suggestion.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yes, faith is a free gift. No one can earn it. That heresy, Pelagianism, was condemned in the 400's.
That said, Catholics, and what the apostles taught, is that the initial step of receiving the gift of faith is followed by a process of sanctification. Salvation is a process, not an instantaneous event. Both that initial step and growth in holiness are necessary. Go to Biblegateway and search on "will be saved" in the New Testament. Notice the future tense of the verb. We are saved when we repent. but salvation can be lost. It is what condition your soul is in when you reach the pearly gates that decides if you will be saved.
If you think that growth in holiness is unnecessary for salvation and you don't have to do anything to follow Jesus, go through your Bible and cross out every verb that tells you to do something. You won't have much left, I bet. Why does Jesus, Paul, et al, tell us numerous times to turn away from sin and love your neighbor? We are commanded to do what Jesus taught us. It is not a suggestion.

Herein lies a major misunderstanding between Catholicism and Protestantism. You put your finger on it when you wrote:
"the gift of faith is followed by a process of sanctification."

Then you proceeded to conflate sanctification with salvation. Protestants maintain that salvation (or justification) does, indeed commence a lifelong journey of sanctification, but salvation and sanctification are two entirely different animals. Abraham was justified by God by his one-time determination of faith and then spent the rest of his life walking with God (sanctification). Was he perfect enough at the end of his life to merit salvation? No, not at all. He was better than he was prior to his justification, but he was as justified before God at the end of his life as he had been at the beginning of his faith journey. God did not justify Abraham after Abraham had sufficiently proved himself good enough to merit God's justification, but simply when Abraham believed God and God counted it to him as righteousness.

 

[Truth Lover]

Herein lies a major misunderstanding between Catholicism and Protestantism. You put your finger on it when you wrote:
"the gift of faith is followed by a process of sanctification."

Then you proceeded to conflate sanctification with salvation. Protestants maintain that salvation (or justification) does, indeed commence a lifelong journey of sanctification, but salvation and sanctification are two entirely different animals. Abraham was justified by God by his one-time determination of faith and then spent the rest of his life walking with God (sanctification). Was he perfect enough at the end of his life to merit salvation? No, not at all. He was better than he was prior to his justification, but he was as justified before God at the end of his life as he had been at the beginning of his faith journey. God did not justify Abraham after Abraham had sufficiently proved himself good enough to merit God's justification, but simply when Abraham believed God and God counted it to him as righteousness.

You seem to be denying what I said. I said no one earns heaven. Period. End of sentence.
You also seems to be saying that, with the help of God's grace, repenting from sin is optional. However, the NT is very clear that continuing to choose to sin is deadly to the life in Christ. “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:30)

Sanctification is the process of continuing conversion from the "old self" toward being a new person in Christ.
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification….” (1 Thes. 4:3)
“Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1: 2-4).

Repentance requires that we cooperate with the graces God gives us. We do not make ourselves sinless by ourselves, but we, through our free will, do what is necessary to avoid sin and continue to repent whenever we fall back into sin. The Gospel, eg the Sermon on the Mount, tells us about the blessings that come from practicing virtue. God makes me holy. As his child, we show our love for him by sincere repentance and love for our neighbor.
This topic is too big for this forum and it is off topic to discuss it here. If you like you can read this topic which has been beaten to death elsewhere.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You seem to be denying what I said. I said no one earns heaven. Period. End of sentence.
You also seems to be saying that, with the help of God's grace, repenting from sin is optional. However, the NT is very clear that continuing to choose to sin is deadly to the life in Christ. “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:30)

Sanctification is the process of continuing conversion from the "old self" toward being a new person in Christ.
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification….” (1 Thes. 4:3)
“Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1: 2-4).

Repentance requires that we cooperate with the graces God gives us. We do not make ourselves sinless by ourselves, but we, through our free will, do what is necessary to avoid sin and continue to repent whenever we fall back into sin. The Gospel, eg the Sermon on the Mount, tells us about the blessings that come from practicing virtue. God makes me holy. As his child, we show our love for him by sincere repentance and love for our neighbor.
This topic is too big for this forum and it is off topic to discuss it here. If you like you can read this topic which has been beaten to death elsewhere.

Now we are shifting from sanctification to repentance.

However, before I go there with you, are we in agreement that salvation and sanctification are two different animals and not identical? I know of the gospel of salvation, but have never encountered a gospel of sanctification, have you?

Concerning repentance, the Greek word in the New Testament for repentance is μετάνοια (metanoia). It is composed of two root words - meta (to change) and noia (mind). Literally, it means to change one's mind. In the New Testament repentance is most often associated with the person and work of Jesus Christ and non-Christians are told to repent (change their minds) about Him. When repentance is mentioned in association with sin(s) it is that forgiveness of sins is the fruit of repentance.

Why is that? Why not preach that a person must repent of their sins in order to be saved? That seems reasonable. The opposite might be that one can remain in their sins and be saved, doesn't it?

The fact is that if one does truly change their mind (be converted) concerning Jesus Christ and His work, then the fruit will be a changed life and the individual will no longer desire to sin.

This brings up the very sticky point of the sacrament of baptism being given to individuals who have absolutely no repentance at all (e.g. babies) and who continue in a life of sin following their baptism. Will they be saved?

 

[Truth Lover]

Now we are shifting from sanctification to repentance. However, before I go there with you, are we in agreement that salvation and sanctification are two different animals and not identical?

That is like saying the bottom step is not part of the staircase. Repentance is the first step in accepting the gift of faith and growth in holiness.
Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
Of course faith (ie saying Jesus is Lord)must be followed by continuing to turn away from sin as the Father wants us to do. Purging our lives of sinfulness is necessary. Any good act we do while in a state of serious, unrepented sin is worthless in pleasing the Father.

I know of the gospel of salvation, but have never encountered a gospel of sanctification, have you?

Yes I have. It is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Chapters 5-7. An acronym I like for the wrod Bible is "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth." The whole Bible is about our relationship with God. Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

Concerning repentance, the Greek word in the New Testament for repentance is µet????a (metanoia). It is composed of two root words - meta (to change) and noia (mind). Literally, it means to change one's mind. In the New Testament repentance is most often associated with the person and work of Jesus Christ and non-Christians are told to repent (change their minds) about Him. When repentance is mentioned in association with sin(s) it is that forgiveness of sins is the fruit of repentance.

Why is that? Why not preach that a person must repent of their sins in order to be saved? That seems reasonable. The opposite might be that one can remain in their sins and be saved, doesn't it?

The fact is that if one does truly change their mind (be converted) concerning Jesus Christ and His work, then the fruit will be a changed life and the individual will no longer desire to sin.

No arguement there. I agree. But one must not think that repentance is the totality of sanctification. It should be followed by growth in virtue as well.

This brings up the very sticky point of the sacrament of baptism being given to individuals who have absolutely no repentance at all (e.g. babies) and who continue in a life of sin following their baptism. Will they be saved?

No. Baptism of infants is the bottom of the staircase for those of us who live past the age of reason and are capable of knowing right from wrong. That is considered to be about age 7. Baptism must be followed by accepting the gift of faith and growth in holiness through repentance.

 

[Light of the East]

This brings up the very sticky point of the sacrament of baptism being given to individuals who have absolutely no repentance at all (e.g. babies) and who continue in a life of sin following their baptism. Will they be saved?

Because you do not understand what baptism is. Did God tell the Israelites to wait until a child grew up and could make his "decision for Jehovah" and repent of his sins? Or did God tell the Israelites to circumcise their baby males into the Covenant of God.

Baptism is the replacement for circumcision as the means by which we are entered into the Covenant of God and become part of God's Kingdom. The idea of "making a decision for Jesus" is nowhere found in either the Sacred Scriptures or the teachings of the Apostles.

That a child grows up and leaves the faith has nothing to do with his/her covenant membership. What it has to do with is receiving the curse of covenant-breaking after death, which is the chastisement of God on that soul for its wickedness.

Repentance was not a prerequisite for infant males to enter the covenant in the OT. It is not in the NT either.

 

[ubicaritas]

Lutheran church historian Martin Marty says there's basically two kinds of Christians. Good Christians, and mean Christians. Good Christians focus on the message of love, and mean Christians focus on being authoritatively right, no matter who gets hurt by the consequences of their beliefs.

 

[bbbbbbb]

That is like saying the bottom step is not part of the staircase. Repentance is the first step in accepting the gift of faith and growth in holiness.
Acts 2:37-38 "Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, “Brothers, what should we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Matt 7:21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven."
Of course faith (ie saying Jesus is Lord)must be followed by continuing to turn away from sin as the Father wants us to do. Purging our lives of sinfulness is necessary. Any good act we do while in a state of serious, unrepented sin is worthless in pleasing the Father.


Yes I have. It is commonly called the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Chapters 5-7. An acronym I like for the wrod Bible is "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth." The whole Bible is about our relationship with God. Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
1 Peter 1:13-16 Therefore prepare your minds for action; discipline yourselves; set all your hope on the grace that Jesus Christ will bring you when he is revealed. Like obedient children, do not be conformed to the desires that you formerly had in ignorance. Instead, as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; for it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”



No arguement there. I agree. But one must not think that repentance is the totality of sanctification. It should be followed by growth in virtue as well.


No. Baptism of infants is the bottom of the staircase for those of us who live past the age of reason and are capable of knowing right from wrong. That is considered to be about age 7. Baptism must be followed by accepting the gift of faith and growth in holiness through repentance.

You have accurately portrayed the Catholic (as well as many other denominations') version of salvation. In essence it is progressive in nature. At some point in life you are placed on a religious treadmill. It might start entirely contrary to any idea that you have about Christianity, as in the case with infants or it might start as a voluntary decision. However, once that first step is taken, the treadmill begins, not unlike repeating the Rosary innumerable times. The treadmill only stops at death and then resumes in a different form as the obedient Catholic endures the torture of Purgatory for all of their temporal sins. When the Catholic has suffered sufficiently to pay for all of their temporal sins, then they are admitted to heaven.

There is no genuine hope in religion of this nature. There may be a wishful longing, but there is no sure and certain hope or genuine faith. This flies in the face of Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Jesus Christ, in such a religion, plays a minor role. His death was insufficient to atone for all of a believer's sins such that a believer is forced to atone for his own sins, either in life as well as after death.

I thank God daily that His grace extended to me, a hopeless and wretched sinner. I entirely agree with St. Paul.

I Timothy 1:15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

I Corinthians 9:15 Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

 

[bbbbbbb]

Lutheran church historian Martin Marty says there's basically two kinds of Christians. Good Christians, and mean Christians. Good Christians focus on the message of love, and mean Christians focus on being authoritatively right, no matter who gets hurt by the consequences of their beliefs.

Likewise, there are only two kinds of sinners - lost sinners and saved sinners.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Because you do not understand what baptism is. Did God tell the Israelites to wait until a child grew up and could make his "decision for Jehovah" and repent of his sins? Or did God tell the Israelites to circumcise their baby males into the Covenant of God.

Baptism is the replacement for circumcision as the means by which we are entered into the Covenant of God and become part of God's Kingdom. The idea of "making a decision for Jesus" is nowhere found in either the Sacred Scriptures or the teachings of the Apostles.

That a child grows up and leaves the faith has nothing to do with his/her covenant membership. What it has to do with is receiving the curse of covenant-breaking after death, which is the chastisement of God on that soul for its wickedness.

Repentance was not a prerequisite for infant males to enter the covenant in the OT. It is not in the NT either.

You are on a very slippery slope here.

First, no where in the Bible is baptism equated with circumcision except in a metaphorical sense. One can just as easily (in fact, more easily) make the case that the one being baptized is being drowned (hopefully, not literally) because the scriptures unequivocally equate baptism with death (Romans 6:3).

Second, circumcision was limited to males only in the Old Testament (yes, there is also female circumcision) so that, using your analogy, baptism ought to be strictly limited to males only.

Third, circumcision of the Jewish males is a religious means of physically identifying a male as being Jewish and has nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation. I doubt that you believe that baptism has nothing at all to do with a baby's salvation. Thus, the analogy fails again.

 

[Light of the East]

Lutheran church historian Martin Marty says there's basically two kinds of Christians. Good Christians, and mean Christians. Good Christians focus on the message of love, and mean Christians focus on being authoritatively right, no matter who gets hurt by the consequences of their beliefs.

I would agree with that, with a codicil. Many "mean Christians" don't intend to be mean. I say this as someone who has "been there - done that." Having been a "mean Christian," allow me a little leeway to explain how this happens to a person.

Take a boy, give him a cold and uncaring father, a man who couldn't praise his son if there was a gun to his head. The boy grows up trying desperately to get that attention and praise that he craves. All people want a sense of being cared for and respected. The boy doesn't get it, and because of this, grows up to be a perfectionist.

Perfectionists are people who are trying to fill that empty spot in their heart with the love and respect they were denied as a child. They keep trying to be perfect, hoping that they will be "loved."

Now add to this conversion to the Christian faith and a new Father. What happens if the boy hears that the Father is simply Judge, that He is angry with sinners all the time, that you must not ever fail or you will get some form of a "spanking" from Him? Boy, that is really a recipe for disaster! Add to that the fundamentalist (of all denominations) pastors who teach the newly converted boy that God hates heresy and sends all who are not doctrinally right (meaning of their particular congregation) directly to hell. Imagine the terror of the boy as he hears of things like Jonathan Edward's sermon wherein God "hold you over the fires of hell like some loathsome spider."

It doesn't take long, under that kind of preaching, for the boy to transfer his perfectionist attempts to please his earthly father to a terror-filled attempt to please His heavenly Father. Being mean become second-nature because you dare not allow people to have different opinions, you dare not leave their souls to God's care, you dare not listen to heresy without standing against it, because your Father will be very upset with you and you are endangering your soul.

There is an old saying about "If a child is raised with criticism, he learns to criticize. If a child is raised with angry, he learns to be angry, if a child is raised with love, he learns to love" Most of the "mean Christians" are people who have been raised in a bad situation.

I know.....I'm a recovering mean Christian.

 

[ubicaritas]

I would agree with that, with a codicil. Many "mean Christians" don't intend to be mean. I say this as someone who has "been there - done that." Having been a "mean Christian," allow me a little leeway to explain how this happens to a person.

Take a boy, give him a cold and uncaring father, a man who couldn't praise his son if there was a gun to his head. The boy grows up trying desperately to get that attention and praise that he craves. All people want a sense of being cared for and respected. The boy doesn't get it, and because of this, grows up to be a perfectionist.

Perfectionists are people who are trying to fill that empty spot in their heart with the love and respect they were denied as a child. They keep trying to be perfect, hoping that they will be "loved."

Now add to this conversion to the Christian faith and a new Father. What happens if the boy hears that the Father is simply Judge, that He is angry with sinners all the time, that you must not ever fail or you will get some form of a "spanking" from Him? Boy, that is really a recipe for disaster! Add to that the fundamentalist (of all denominations) pastors who teach the newly converted boy that God hates heresy and sends all who are not doctrinally right (meaning of their particular congregation) directly to hell. Imagine the terror of the boy as he hears of things like Jonathan Edward's sermon wherein God "hold you over the fires of hell like some loathsome spider."

It doesn't take long, under that kind of preaching, for the boy to transfer his perfectionist attempts to please his earthly father to a terror-filled attempt to please His heavenly Father. Being mean become second-nature because you dare not allow people to have different opinions, you dare not leave their souls to God's care, you dare not listen to heresy without standing against it, because your Father will be very upset with you and you are endangering your soul.

There is an old saying about "If a child is raised with criticism, he learns to criticize. If a child is raised with angry, he learns to be angry, if a child is raised with love, he learns to love" Most of the "mean Christians" are people who have been raised in a bad situation.

I know.....I'm a recovering mean Christian.

I think the apostle Paul is a good example that people can change, but it requires something like a Damascus Road type experience.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="bbbbbbb

You have accurately portrayed the Catholic (as well as many other denominations') version of salvation. In essence it is progressive in nature.

Yes, it is exactly that. It is us growing into becoming like Christ, for as St. Athanasius said, "God became man so that man might become god." It is a change of our very being. St. Paul spoke of the "new man created in Christ" and the need to be "fed" with the "milk of the Word." The image of a baby in Christ being fed with the pure milk of the Word is an image of growth.

The reason you do not believe in this is because the Western idea of Christianity is deeply rooted in the juridical understanding of the first century Roman Empire. In the Roman Empire, the LAW was everything. Understanding the law, how it applied to one's life, the nuances of it. That bled over into the Christian faith in the West, unlike in the Eastern Church, where the Greek Church was more concerned with the "ousia" (the person) and the ontological state of the soul.

Protestantism took this Roman law idea and applied the false idea of "imputed righteousness" (not at all supported by the Greek in Romans 3 & 4) and made up this idea (pretty much Luther's idea) that once you make a "decision for Jesus," the Judge takes the book of your life and stamps "NOT GUILTY" on your pages with indelible ink. Thus, the idea of growing into Christlikeness has no place in Protestantism. You are forgiven juridically, all is fine, and you are "as sure of getting to heaven as if you were there now." (Typical statement by Protestant pastors I heard)

At some point in life you are placed on a religious treadmill.

Wrong analogy. Paul compared it to being a long-distance runner. Other places in Scripture make it clear that we are in a process which goes on from our conversion.

It might start entirely contrary to any idea that you have about Christianity, as in the case with infants or it might start as a voluntary decision. However, once that first step is taken, the treadmill begins, not unlike repeating the Rosary innumerable times. The treadmill only stops at death and then resumes in a different form as the obedient Catholic endures the torture of Purgatory for all of their temporal sins. When the Catholic has suffered sufficiently to pay for all of their temporal sins, then they are admitted to heaven.

This is where we in the East differ from the Roman Catholic understanding. The idea of "pay for temporal sins" is based again on a juridical understanding and payment made to a system of justice. This has no place in the East! Now in the East, we do not have the Rosary. Our prayer is the "Jesus Prayer." It is part of the disciplines which help us to conquer the passions of the flesh and the tendency of the flesh to sin. We are called by the Scriptures to discipline ourselves. The disciplines of fasting, prayers, almsgiving, etc., are all designed to work these changes in our souls, to make us more like Christ.

There is no genuine hope in religion of this nature.

Of course there is hope. You are on the outside looking in, so you don't understand either Roman Catholicism or Holy Orthodoxy. As long as we are obedient to the Scriptures, obedient to our spiritual directors or pastors, we have a good hope of God's mercy. What we do not do is presume on God's mercy. The more we grow, the more we become in tune with our spiritual state. We begin to see sins that 10 or 20 years ago were unknown to us. It is an ever-deepening process.

There may be a wishful longing, but there is no sure and certain hope or genuine faith. This flies in the face of Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

As long as we are obedient, we have that hope and assurance.

Jesus Christ, in such a religion, plays a minor role. His death was insufficient to atone for all of a believer's sins such that a believer is forced to atone for his own sins, either in life as well as after death.

Again, this is Roman Catholic heterodoxy, and in this, we are kind of in agreement. I cringe when I hear certain things being said on my wife's Roman Catholic radio programs that are saying the same thing. I have tried to show you that in the Eastern Church, we do not do atonement because that was once done and forever finished. But what we do follow is that once we have been entered into the Covenant Kingdom, the Church, we begin the journey into deeper spirituality, using the disciplines that the Church has used from the beginning.

Part of this is that we will be purged of all that is not like Christ when we die. This is not the same as "paying for our temporal sins" (Purgatory). Orthodox believes that when we die, we go into the presence of Christ. His presence is the presence of TRUTH. No games to be played with Him. That presence is His passionate, fiery love which shall embrace us, and as a fire, it will burn away all the dross (all that is not like us - our sinful residue). The same fire that tempers steel (our souls) destroys wood (the sins we bring with us). We are cleansed and made complete and pure in Him. The Roman Catholic Church has mistakenly called this process Purgatory and said it is a "payment for sins" when it is not. It is cleansing, the same we see in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

 

[Light of the East]

I think the apostle Paul is a good example that people can change, but it requires something like a Damascus Road type experience.

Yes, and I had that experience, but the change took a long time to make, and even after the experience, unfortunately, the pastors under whom I sat were constantly rebuilding the bad image I struggled under.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="bbbbbbb,You are on a very slippery slope here.

No, actually, this is Covenant Theology 101.

First, no where in the Bible is baptism equated with circumcision except in a metaphorical sense.

Col 2:11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

This is not a metaphor. Paul is showing that circumcision has become baptism. How do we know this? Because verse 11 and 12 are not separate verses. They are linked together in describing the action of "cutting covenant" and being entered into the Covenant Community (the Church). Circumcision was the covenant-cutting ceremony of the Old Covenant. Since the Old Covenant is no longer, there must be a new ritual to replace it. Baptism is that ritual.

One can just as easily (in fact, more easily) make the case that the one being baptized is being drowned (hopefully, not literally) because the scriptures unequivocally equate baptism with death (Romans 6:3).

Second, circumcision was limited to males only in the Old Testament (yes, there is also female circumcision) so that, using your analogy, baptism ought to be strictly limited to males only.

Why was circumcision limited to males only? Because there is something in the OT called an "enacted prophecy." An enacted prophecy takes place when certain religious actions point to something that will come to pass by the promise of God. Circumcision was limited to males because it pointed to Christ (the coming Messiah) :

1. The Messiah will be male.
2. He will be cut off from His people as the foreskin is cut off.
3. He will shed His blood.

It is no longer limited to males because Christ has come. We are no longer expecting a male Messiah because the Messiah has come, He was cut off by death, and He shed His Blood.

Third, circumcision of the Jewish males is a religious means of physically identifying a male as being Jewish and has nothing whatsoever to do with their salvation.

Nope. Circumcision was the covenant cutting ritual by which a man was entered into the congregation of God - the Church. (Genesis 17:10). Salvation was being part of Israel and keeping the ordinances which were given to Israel for the forgiveness of sins (all the animal sacrifices, etc.) Circumcision did not mean a man was Jewish. It identified him as being part of the Covenant of God and a member of the Covenant People.

So important was this to a man's salvation that the worst thing that could be said of him was that he was "cut off" from the community:

Gen 17:14
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

You break the covenant, you have no part in the covenant promises, which have to do with salvation.

I doubt that you believe that baptism has nothing at all to do with a baby's salvation.

Baptized=member of Church=saved from sin (Acts 2:38)

Thus, the analogy fails again.

2,000 years of Christianity, beginning with the Apostles, says differently. Sorry, but your Protestant ideas of salvation were invented in the 16th century. We don't follow such ideas. We believe as the Apostles believed. Christianity is the continuation of Judaism in fulfillment in Christ.