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

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Thank you for the Eastern Orthodox explanation of soteriology. I do not have the time at the moment to engage with you on it, but hope to receive a reply from TruthLover defending the Catholic version of soteriology. Perhaps TruthLover might be interested in broadening the scope of the discussion to address your points, as well.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Thank you for your reply. I find nothing new in it, nor, I think, should I find anything new. The theology has grasped at a straw and run innumerable miles with it. The hermeneutics is inconsistent, at best, especially in comparison with those used to dismiss other passages which use other illustrations as metaphors of baptism.

 

[Light of the East]

Thank you for your reply. I find nothing new in it, nor, I think, should I find anything new. The theology has grasped at a straw and run innumerable miles with it. The hermeneutics is inconsistent, at best, especially in comparison with those used to dismiss other passages which use other illustrations as metaphors of baptism.

Let me ask you this then. We live in the New Covenant, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that our lives in this covenant follow covenant rules.

We see that in the Old Covenant, there was a ceremony in which the two parties entered together and made covenant with each other. As God and man make covenant in the OT, we see that circumcision is the ceremony which binds man to God.

My question is this: what is the ceremony of covenant making in the NT?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Let me ask you this then. We live in the New Covenant, therefore, it is reasonable to believe that our lives in this covenant follow covenant rules.

We see that in the Old Covenant, there was a ceremony in which the two parties entered together and made covenant with each other. As God and man make covenant in the OT, we see that circumcision is the ceremony which binds man to God.

My question is this: what is the ceremony of covenant making in the NT?

I live in the United States of America. As such, I live within the covenant laws and regulations established by various levels of government. In the United States if one is born in the country, then there is a birth certificate, with Social Security number issued. If not, there is a naturalization process for new citizens.

This is not true for all countries. Each country has its own covenant laws and regulations. Some completely forbid any form of immigration and naturalization. Some have no recognition of when a person becomes a citizen.

The fact that God established His covenant with ethnic Israel assuredly has various laws and regulations, none of which apply to non-covenant peoples, even as none of the laws of Swaziland apply to me.

If you are keen to follow the Old Covenant and bend and modify it to suit your vision of what the New Covenant ought to be, where do you find your authority to do so? Is the New Covenant actually new or is it, in reality, a reformed Old Covenant?

 

[BraveJoan14]

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

I've always thought that a true belief in and love of Christ does bring about good works and following his commandments. Yes, our salvation is gained through faith. But, one does not truly have faith if he disobeys God's commandments and the doctrine of the Church. We are then out of communion with Him and therefore, not really being faithful. That is why we NEED the sacrament of Confession to have grace. The need for faith and works stems from our free will. If we can be saved by belief in salvation alone, but live a life of sinfulness, this shouldn't guarantee salvation. That would be unjust. Of course we will never be perfect or wholly Christlike, but living our lives to strive for sainthood is evidence of our faith in God. And we must have a pure, contrite heart to one day be with Him in heaven.

 

[Light of the East]

I live in the United States of America. As such, I live within the covenant laws and regulations established by various levels of government. In the United States if one is born in the country, then there is a birth certificate, with Social Security number issued. If not, there is a naturalization process for new citizens.

This is not true for all countries. Each country has its own covenant laws and regulations. Some completely forbid any form of immigration and naturalization. Some have no recognition of when a person becomes a citizen.

The fact that God established His covenant with ethnic Israel assuredly has various laws and regulations, none of which apply to non-covenant peoples, even as none of the laws of Swaziland apply to me.

If you are keen to follow the Old Covenant and bend and modify it to suit your vision of what the New Covenant ought to be, where do you find your authority to do so? Is the New Covenant actually new or is it, in reality, a reformed Old Covenant?

Way to totally not answer my question. Typical dodge when one is cornered.

I'll ask again and see if you can give a straight and clear answer - what is the covenant - cutting (or covenant making) ceremony of the New Covenant?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Way to totally not answer my question. Typical dodge when one is cornered.

I'll ask again and see if you can give a straight and clear answer - what is the covenant - cutting (or covenant making) ceremony of the New Covenant?

I don't know, do you? I happen to understand that the New Covenant is, indeed, new and not some form of reformed Old Covenant. I am free to eat pork, are you?

 

[Light of the East]

I don't know, do you? I happen to understand that the New Covenant is, indeed, new and not some form of reformed Old Covenant. I am free to eat pork, are you?

Thank you.

I do know. It is baptism.

Every covenant made has a public ceremony of "covenant-cutting" in which vows are made between the parties and there are witnesses. Take marriage. Two people vowing themselves to one another. There are witnesses to the ceremony, which is public. (Or at least, it should be public).

Baptism is the ceremony because it unites us to Christ (Romans 6:3). During the covenant making ceremony, there are vows made. (You will see this in Orthodox and Catholic churches. It is not done at Evangelical baptisms). The one being baptized promises to be faithful to Christ and eschew the temptations of the devil.

Proper baptism also symbolizes the reality of what is taking place. By proper baptism, I mean immersion in water, not "sprinkling or pouring." Immersion symbolizes our entering into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We die in Him, are buried (go under the water) and rise as new creatures in Christ.

It is not a "reformed Old Covenant." It is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and King David in the Old Covenant. Christ is the finality, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Thus, in fulfillment, some of the Old Covenant rituals are changed to meet that fulfillment. The Passover becomes the Eucharist which Christ says "This is my Body....this is my Blood." Circumcision becomes baptism (Col. 11-13). The high priesthood is completed in Christ as He becomes the last and permanent Great High Priest (Hebrews 7-10). The Apostles take the place of the Levites as priests of the New Covenant with authority to forgive sins (John 20:23)

As for your commentary on the dietary laws....they did not have anything to do with the Old Covenant. In Israel, there were three kinds of Laws: moral, civil, and religious. The dietary laws were part of the religious laws that belonged specifically to Israel as part of their theology. They disappeared with the New Covenant, as Peter found out before he was sent to the house of Cornelius. (Acts 10: 1-15)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thank you.

I do know. It is baptism.

Every covenant made has a public ceremony of "covenant-cutting" in which vows are made between the parties and there are witnesses. Take marriage. Two people vowing themselves to one another. There are witnesses to the ceremony, which is public. (Or at least, it should be public).

Baptism is the ceremony because it unites us to Christ (Romans 6:3). During the covenant making ceremony, there are vows made. (You will see this in Orthodox and Catholic churches. It is not done at Evangelical baptisms). The one being baptized promises to be faithful to Christ and eschew the temptations of the devil.

Proper baptism also symbolizes the reality of what is taking place. By proper baptism, I mean immersion in water, not "sprinkling or pouring." Immersion symbolizes our entering into the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We die in Him, are buried (go under the water) and rise as new creatures in Christ.

It is not a "reformed Old Covenant." It is the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and King David in the Old Covenant. Christ is the finality, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant. Thus, in fulfillment, some of the Old Covenant rituals are changed to meet that fulfillment. The Passover becomes the Eucharist which Christ says "This is my Body....this is my Blood." Circumcision becomes baptism (Col. 11-13). The high priesthood is completed in Christ as He becomes the last and permanent Great High Priest (Hebrews 7-10). The Apostles take the place of the Levites as priests of the New Covenant with authority to forgive sins (John 20:23)

As for your commentary on the dietary laws....they did not have anything to do with the Old Covenant. In Israel, there were three kinds of Laws: moral, civil, and religious. The dietary laws were part of the religious laws that belonged specifically to Israel as part of their theology. They disappeared with the New Covenant, as Peter found out before he was sent to the house of Cornelius. (Acts 10: 1-15)

That is odd. In my Bible Roman 6:3,4 reads, "3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death"

Does your Bible read, "3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His circumcision? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into circumcision"?

I confess that I have never attended a baptism in any Orthodox church. However, at the Catholic baptisms I have attended I never heard the baby "being baptized promise to be faithful to Christ and eschew the temptations of the devil." Orthodox babies must be exceedingly precocious.

 

[Light of the East]

That is odd. In my Bible Roman 6:3,4 reads, "3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death"

Does your Bible read, "3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His circumcision? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into circumcision"?

I confess that I have never attended a baptism in any Orthodox church. However, at the Catholic baptisms I have attended I never heard the baby "being baptized promise to be faithful to Christ and eschew the temptations of the devil." Orthodox babies must be exceedingly precocious.

You said you don't know what the covenant-making ritual is in the New Covenant. Do you have any suggestions that come to mind of what it could be other than baptism?

Baptism fits for several reasons:

In the Old Covenant, the cutting off of the flesh was understood as a self-maledictory oath in which the one being circumcised was saying "If I fail to be faithful to the covenant vows I have made, may my blood be shed and I be cut off from the covenant congregation." This is why Moses was almost killed by God. He failed to honor the covenant by not circumcising his son, and the covenant curse fell upon him.

Circumcision was also an "enacted prophecy" whereby it symbolized that the coming Messiah would be a male, would shed His Blood, and would be cut off from among the people of God.

Now, in the same way, when one is baptized and goes under the water (which is the only proper baptism with covenant symbology) it is also the taking of a self-maledictory oath in which the one being baptized is stating, "If I fail to be faithful to the covenant I have made today with Christ, may I be drowned in the curse of God for covenant-breakers."

And FYI - in the Orthodox Church, we baptize our babies by immersion, the only proper way!! To see such a baptism, you can go here:

As for the baby "making promises," the vows are made by the father or the priest on behalf of the baby. This is known as the covenant principle of "hierarchy." In hierarchy, the one who is covenant head acts in behalf of all those who are under his headship. This is why in Adam, the covenant head over mankind, all were separated from God and entered into a world of death. This is why when Dathan and Abihu opposed God's authority in Moses, the whole family died as a result of the curse. This is why when a man was circumcised, it was good for his female family members.

And most importantly, this is why Israel is under the curse of God. When the high priest, who was the covenant head, sentenced Christ to die, he brought the covenant curse upon all of Israel because through him, all of Israel was acting. But in the same manner, now the Jesus is the covenant Head of the New Covenant and acts on behalf of the "Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) which is the Church, the congregation of God's people. His death is in behalf of all mankind as the Last Adam, (1 Corin. 15:45) just as Adam's acting brought death upon all mankind.

If you really want to understand covenant, I suggest two books for you to read. The first is Ray Sutton's (a Protestant writer) book THAT YOU MAN PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. You can read it free online at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm.

Go to the left side, books by author, click on that, find his name at the bottom of the list, and then you can open the free PDF file.

The second book is Seamus Patrick O'Hara's book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH. O'Hara is a former PCA Calvinist and wrote this book to correct some of the Calvinist errors in Sutton's thinking. Sutton's five principles of covenant are biblical and solid, but he makes the mistake of treating the covenant of God as a contract rather than a relationship.

Hope that helps.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You said you don't know what the covenant-making ritual is in the New Covenant. Do you have any suggestions that come to mind of what it could be other than baptism?

Baptism fits for several reasons:

In the Old Covenant, the cutting off of the flesh was understood as a self-maledictory oath in which the one being circumcised was saying "If I fail to be faithful to the covenant vows I have made, may my blood be shed and I be cut off from the covenant congregation." This is why Moses was almost killed by God. He failed to honor the covenant by not circumcising his son, and the covenant curse fell upon him.

Circumcision was also an "enacted prophecy" whereby it symbolized that the coming Messiah would be a male, would shed His Blood, and would be cut off from among the people of God.

Now, in the same way, when one is baptized and goes under the water (which is the only proper baptism with covenant symbology) it is also the taking of a self-maledictory oath in which the one being baptized is stating, "If I fail to be faithful to the covenant I have made today with Christ, may I be drowned in the curse of God for covenant-breakers."

And FYI - in the Orthodox Church, we baptize our babies by immersion, the only proper way!! To see such a baptism, you can go here:

As for the baby "making promises," the vows are made by the father or the priest on behalf of the baby. This is known as the covenant principle of "hierarchy." In hierarchy, the one who is covenant head acts in behalf of all those who are under his headship. This is why in Adam, the covenant head over mankind, all were separated from God and entered into a world of death. This is why when Dathan and Abihu opposed God's authority in Moses, the whole family died as a result of the curse. This is why when a man was circumcised, it was good for his female family members.

And most importantly, this is why Israel is under the curse of God. When the high priest, who was the covenant head, sentenced Christ to die, he brought the covenant curse upon all of Israel because through him, all of Israel was acting. But in the same manner, now the Jesus is the covenant Head of the New Covenant and acts on behalf of the "Israel of God (Gal. 6:16) which is the Church, the congregation of God's people. His death is in behalf of all mankind as the Last Adam, (1 Corin. 15:45) just as Adam's acting brought death upon all mankind.

If you really want to understand covenant, I suggest two books for you to read. The first is Ray Sutton's (a Protestant writer) book THAT YOU MAN PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. You can read it free online at https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/sidefrm2.htm.

Go to the left side, books by author, click on that, find his name at the bottom of the list, and then you can open the free PDF file.

The second book is Seamus Patrick O'Hara's book THE DANCE OF ISAIAH. O'Hara is a former PCA Calvinist and wrote this book to correct some of the Calvinist errors in Sutton's thinking. Sutton's five principles of covenant are biblical and solid, but he makes the mistake of treating the covenant of God as a contract rather than a relationship.

Hope that helps.

The New Covenant was instituted with the death of Jesus Christ, who commanded his disciples to baptize in His name and to remember Him in the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup. Thus, there are two rites in the New Covenant. Nothing is said or commanded concerning marriage, death, confirmation, or any other rites that various churches have instituted as sacraments.

Baptism does not initiate a believer into the covenant any more than circumcision initiated a Jewish male into the Old Covenant. Both Jewish males and females were born into the covenant. Males received the sign of circumcision as witness to the fact that they were part of God's covenant people. Females received no such sign but were equally part of God's covenant people. Thus, circumcision was not an initiatory rite by which an individual became a Jew. If it was, then women were entirely excluded from the covenant.

Many think that baptism miraculously confers the spiritual birth into the New Covenant simply by the act itself. Therefore, they baptize unwitting individuals, believing that somehow God is obliged to regenerate those individuals because they performed the deed. That would be like saying that all males who have been circumcised (including the large majority of American males) are part and parcel of God's Covenant people, the Jews. That, of course, is nonsense. I am no more a Jew because I am circumcised than I would be if the doctor had not circumcised me. I am still a Gentile and will ever be a Gentile simply because I was not born into a Jewish family.

Unless a person is born from above no work will do him the slightest benefit in regard to being in the New Covenant. Baptism is a deed (work) which recognizes that a person has been born again and is in God's covenant people. God, the Holy Spirit, has caused him to be born again through faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, or other authorities, are entirely unable to do what God alone does. They cannot confer saving faith on him.

Baptized infants are wet infants - nothing more and nothing less. Most of them grow up to be either indifferent to Christianity or, in many cases, outright sinners. However, many have placed their confidence for eternal life in heaven not in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but in someone who told them that because they were given a bath in a church as a baby they will enter heaven.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="bbbbbbb, The New Covenant was instituted with the death of Jesus Christ, who commanded his disciples to baptize in His name and to remember Him in the breaking of bread and drinking of the cup. Thus, there are two rites in the New Covenant. Nothing is said or commanded concerning marriage, death, confirmation, or any other rites that various churches have instituted as sacraments.

It is the Church which has been given the gift of the Holy Spirit and the charism to teach the truth of God. You believe in the Trinity because the Church, at the Council of Nicea, declared this as truth

Jesus said that those who would not listen to the Church are to be treated as a heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). The Scriptures furthermore identify the Church as the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). Thus, when the Church speaks, especially through a council, it is incumbent upon us to listen and obey.

Therefore, since the Church has identified seven Sacraments, this is the truth.

Baptism does not initiate a believer into the covenant any more than circumcision initiated a Jewish male into the Old Covenant. Both Jewish males and females were born into the covenant.

Absolutely unscriptural, sir!

Gen 17:13
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

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.

As you can see, no circumcision = no covenant with God, no membership in the congregation of God.

Males received the sign of circumcision as witness to the fact that they were part of God's covenant people.

Wrong again, as shown by the above verses. No circumcision = no covenant.

Females received no such sign but were equally part of God's covenant people. Thus, circumcision was not an initiatory rite by which an individual became a Jew. If it was, then women were entirely excluded from the covenant.

As I told you, the principle of "hierarchy" means that the covenant head acts on behalf of those under his authority. I even gave you examples. Apparently all that, including the above verses, means diddly-squat to you because YOU know better.

Many think that baptism miraculously confers the spiritual birth into the New Covenant simply by the act itself. Therefore, they baptize unwitting individuals, believing that somehow God is obliged to regenerate those individuals because they performed the deed.

That is exactly right. What God would make a promise and not keep it? The promise is that if we obey Him and do what He commands us to do, we will receive His blessing.

That would be like saying that all males who have been circumcised (including the large majority of American males) are part and parcel of God's Covenant people, the Jews. That, of course, is nonsense.

No, what is nonsense is that you don't even recognize that the Old Covenant is over, so circumcision is a meaningless ritual now. This was the fight that St. Paul had in Galatians with those who insisted that circumcision was a necessity for the Gentiles if they were to be "truly Christ-followers." Paul said harsh things about them for their failure to realize that the Old Covenant was over.

I am no more a Jew because I am circumcised than I would be if the doctor had not circumcised me. I am still a Gentile and will ever be a Gentile simply because I was not born into a Jewish family.

Unless a person is born from above no work will do him the slightest benefit in regard to being in the New Covenant. Baptism is a deed (work) which recognizes that a person has been born again and is in God's covenant people. God, the Holy Spirit, has caused him to be born again through faith in Jesus Christ. His parents, or other authorities, are entirely unable to do what God alone does. They cannot confer saving faith on him.

This is Evangelical hogwash, totally divorced from what the Apostles taught. Where do you get the idea that your Evangelical ideas trump that which the first believers taught and passed down to the next generation? You need to read some of the quotes of the Early Fathers rather than modern day Evangelical writings. I would rather believe the Early Fathers who wrote in the first three centuries than trust my soul to someone who has come along 500 years later and thinks he is smarter than 15 centuries of Christian teachers.

Baptized infants are wet infants - nothing more and nothing less. Most of them grow up to be either indifferent to Christianity or, in many cases, outright sinners. However, many have placed their confidence for eternal life in heaven not in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but in someone who told them that because they were given a bath in a church as a baby they will enter heaven.

And this quote shows that you have absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what the Apostolic faith (i.e. Catholic and Orthodox) teach. We would never teach anyone that baptism alone is sufficient for their eternal life. Baptism is merely a starting point on a long journey into holiness and God's life.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you. You are so wrapped up in your Evangelical distortions of the Christian faith that you can't see the forest for the trees. I know because 20 years ago I believed the same tommyrot myself. And the sad part (to me, at least) is that you probably will close your mind in a sense of self-sufficiency and not even attempt to read the books I suggested to see if perhaps you might really be in error.

I think further discussion is useless as you appear to have made up your mind rather than being an open minded seeker.

 

[DeaconDean]

nm

 

[Light of the East]

nm

Yeah, I don't want to turn this into something nasty either. I'm just stating that bbbbbbb is not open to looking at what is being offered to him at this time, just as I was some 20 years ago. I understand. And as you see by my last post, I don't really want to continue this conversation just to harp on him.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Yeah, I don't want to turn this into something nasty either. I'm just stating that bbbbbbb is not open to looking at what is being offered to him at this time, just as I was some 20 years ago. I understand. And as you see by my last post, I don't really want to continue this conversation just to harp on him.

I think you are equally closed to considering other positions, as well, so I agree that there is no further need for discussion. I do understand your position, however, having been raised with it.

 

[Light of the East]

I think you are equally closed to considering other positions, as well, so I agree that there is no further need for discussion. I do understand your position, however, having been raised with it.

I am 70 years old and was in various forms of Protestantism for 25 years. I think I have considered other options because I have lived them and believed them. What did happen was that I was not taught anything about the apostolic (Orthodox and RC) faiths, so I didn't know them. It is hard to make a decision on something when you haven't been a part of it.

It is equally hard to understand what you do believe if you are, like a great majority of X-Catholics, raised in a faith but not really taught it. I have met so many X-Catholics on line who, when I talk to them, make statements that tell me that they really were never taught the Catholic faith.

Anyhow.....good to discuss with you and God bless you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I am 70 years old and was in various forms of Protestantism for 25 years. I think I have considered other options because I have lived them and believed them. What did happen was that I was not taught anything about the apostolic (Orthodox and RC) faiths, so I didn't know them. It is hard to make a decision on something when you haven't been a part of it.

It is equally hard to understand what you do believe if you are, like a great majority of X-Catholics, raised in a faith but not really taught it. I have met so many X-Catholics on line who, when I talk to them, make statements that tell me that they really were never taught the Catholic faith.

Anyhow.....good to discuss with you and God bless you.

One of the most condescending statements that I frequently read here at CF is when people such as yourself try to accuse former Catholics as not actually have been really and truly Catholics. There seem to be far more former Catholics here than former Protestants who have become Catholics, yet I have never observed former Protestants of never really having been Protestants.

The fact of the matter for most former Catholics who convert to Protestantism, their decision is not made quickly or easily. Most face extreme pressure from family members and friends to remain in "the faith", not to mention the public relations campaign of the Catholic Church to "come home".

So, in the future, please do not presume that former Catholics were somehow ignorant and/or easily influenced. Each individual is different and I would no sooner condescend and belittle you by insisting that if you really had understood Protestantism, you would never have wandered so far from the faith.

 

[Truth Lover]

Way to totally not answer my question. Typical dodge when one is cornered.

I'll ask again and see if you can give a straight and clear answer - what is the covenant - cutting (or covenant making) ceremony of the New Covenant?

Baptism is the ceremony where we enter into a covenant with God.

 

[DeaconDean]

Baptism is the ceremony where we enter into a covenant with God.

Now that, is not entirely true. (From the Catholic perspective)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="bbbbbbb

One of the most condescending statements that I frequently read here at CF is when people such as yourself try to accuse former Catholics as not actually have been really and truly Catholics. There seem to be far more former Catholics here than former Protestants who have become Catholics, yet I have never observed former Protestants of never really having been Protestants.

What did you not understand about what I wrote?? I told you that almost all X-Catholics whom I have talked with or seen posting in forums such as this have continually made statements that show that they were not catechized properly, either by their parish or their parents, and they didn't understand the depths of the faith at all. I am giving you FACTS, sir, not condescension. I have seen statement that are so far from truth and so ignorant that I go away scratching my head wondering from where they learned such a thing because it was not in the Catholic Church.

The fact of the matter for most former Catholics who convert to Protestantism, their decision is not made quickly or easily. Most face extreme pressure from family members and friends to remain in "the faith", not to mention the public relations campaign of the Catholic Church to "come home".

The same is true of Protestants, especially the more Fundamentalist ones, who convert to Catholicism. Things like those lying and nasty Jack Chick tracts, ignorant pulpit-pounders who threaten people with hell-fire if they leave Fundamentalism, (if you want to know what I am talking about, drive through West Virginia on a Sunday morning with your AM radio on scan), and a complete blackout in Evangelicalism of any Church history at all (Christian history in Evangelicalism is "Jesus rose from the dead - Martin Luther restores Christianity), make it nerve-wracking to consider conversion to the Catholic faith. Add to that family members who threaten the person with "God will strike you down" or "You will go to hell if you become Catholic." and you have a real recipe for a hard journey to the ancient faith.

So, in the future, please do not presume that former Catholics were somehow ignorant and/or easily influenced. Each individual is different and I would no sooner condescend and belittle you by insisting that if you really had understood Protestantism, you would never have wandered so far from the faith.

Say what you will, the PROOF I have seen in 20 years of being a Catholic convert and dealing with forums like this is that most Catholics today are gravely ignorant of what the Catholic faith is and teaches, and this has been so for around 200 years.

I don't know what brand of Evangelical came to your front door and convinced you that his church is teaching the truth, but whatever it is, it started sometime after the Protestant Reformation, which is to say, 1500 years after Apostles went out with the truth that Christ had taught them and evangelized the world. The Christian faith exists today because these men went out and baptized babies and adults, taught that the Eucharist is Christ, preached Christ resurrected and conquering death, defended His nature and deity against heresy, and took the numerous books existent which claimed divine inspiration and from them developed the Bible you use today. You read and believe a Catholic book which was compiled by Catholic bishops and trust it for your salvation, yet you will not trust the Church which Christ established upon St. Peter, but rather some organization which came along 1500+ years later and claimed to have "found the truth."

And the funny part about that is that there are thousands of other Evangelical bodies who also claim to have the truth, yet do not agree with your assembly or each other. Bob Jones Fundamentalists reject Lutheranism. Baptists reject Episcopalians. SDA's think we are all wrong. It's a matter of interpretation, which leads to this question: did the Apostles "get it right" or not? If they did, and they transmitted faithfully that which they which they were taught, then what they taught is correct and is the truth. If not, then you have a Wild West theology where anything goes and where do you find the truth? Who is right? Which of the hundreds of denominations out there has the truth? Have you really considered this? Every non-Orthodox, non-Catholic denomination claims they have the truth and are being led by the Holy Spirit. I watch this all the time right here in the debates/arguments by two non-Catholic people going at it. There is no single source of truth other than what people think the Bible says.