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

[giftofGod2]

@DawnStar ,

An excellent point, and not so unbiblical as you might think...Isaiah 1:22.

I would also like to point out Proverbs 20:1, which points out that wine and strong drink is a means of deception, and of course Ephesians 5:18, which points out that being drunk with wine and being filled with the Holy Spirit are two opposite things.

 

[DawnStar]

You can drink without getting drunk just like you can eat without being a glutton.

 

[giftofGod2]

@DawnStar ,

Right, but have you considered, that most alcoholic beverages taste horrible?

The reason why most people drink then is to get that buzz. It is certainly not for the taste!

And if you even get a buzz, I would equate that to drunkenness.

Of course, if I drink wine mixt with water (as in Isaiah 1:22), I probably won't even get a buzz. So yes there are those who drink wine for religious reasons (i.e.communion) who don't necessarily get a buzz.

Some people can have a glass of wine with dinner and it doesn't affect them spiritually. In 1 Corinthians we find the words, All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Paul later adds, All things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

So test yourself. If you are prone to drinking, see if you can go without it for six months. If you can't, you are of the type that cannot have a glass of wine with dinner and be unaffected spiritually. It is something that has power over you.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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

Hate, like fear, is taught.

Only those REDEEMED, born again, purchased by the BLOOD of Y'SHUA the LAMB of YHWH,
are even able to not hate and not practice hate.

It doesn't matter what 'label' they wear.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Can you point me to the Scripture?

So far as all the threads and posts and arguments go,
"pointing" to the Scripture
has been 'practiced' for 2000 years ,
like the scribes and pharisees before that did
to whom Y'SHUA says "HERE I AM" right in front of you....

i.e. point to Y'SHUA MESSIAH, for life and peace and truth and salvation.

 

[seeking633]

Hi. I just came back after a short break after making the mistake of not being clear on what I am criticizing, and not being nice about it. My mistake.

The impression I get from the title of this post is that Catholics and Orthodox believe that Fundamentalists direct hate towards them. I'd like to think this is not true.

Now maybe someone is going to call me a "Fundamentalist", and I accept that. And I also know that it's a derisive term brought out to accuse someone of being ignorant, unread, over-sensitive, and reactionary. But I've been there too.

However, my adherence to the simple tenets of Christianity and an uncomplicated reading of scripture is based on my fear and hopefully love of God and His Son. And to fear Him is to want to know what is and is not His will, and what He loves, and what He hates. This is the beginning of wisdom, as I read it properly.

What does God hate? Well for one, the oppression of the widow and orphan. And I know a lot of Catholics who help the widow and orphan. God also hates the straining of the gnat to swallow the camel. And there have been a number of "fundamentalist" preachers who have done this.

So what is the problem? Well hypocrisy is a big issue among believers. And it's probably one of the bigger accusations leveled by atheists. And we're all hypocrites in some way and at some time in our lives. But we repent of this, don't we? We grow in Christ, slowly becoming a renewed person.

But can any organization repent? Is it more that if it persists, it survives as a denial of it's sins and a testament to it's own unrepentance?

As a Christian, I would ask any brother or sister why they would use their righteousness in Christ, with faith alive in their own good works, to justify the hypocrisy of an organization to which they belong?

That is my best explanation on why Fundamentalists appear to be directing hate towards Catholics and Orthodox. They aren't really. They're more than likely directing disgust and righteous indignation towards the institutions which hide behind them.

 

[Light of the East]

That is my best explanation on why Fundamentalists appear to be directing hate towards Catholics and Orthodox. They aren't really. They're more than likely directing disgust and righteous indignation towards the institutions which hide behind them.

Haven't read any Chick tracts lately, have ya? Look, I used to be a Fundamentalist. They hate Catholics. Maybe some of them escape that mindset, but for the most part, it's endemic and preached. Catholics are idol worshipers and of the devil and have a front row seat in hell forever.

 

[seeking633]

Haven't read any Chick tracts lately, have ya? Look, I used to be a Fundamentalist. They hate Catholics. Maybe some of them escape that mindset, but for the most part, it's endemic and preached. Catholics are idol worshipers and of the devil and have a front row seat in hell forever.

Yeah, I'm this sorry this happens. As for hell, I'm an Annihilationist. That doesn't sit well with many of them either.

 

[Light of the East]

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.

I've been away from the conversation for quite a time and just found it by doing some following of commentary made to my comments.

I didn't convert to the Roman brand of the Catholic faith. I am Orthodox in Communion with Rome (aka Byzantine Catholic). I am Orthodox in all that I believe and practice, and do not do Roman spirituality nor do I do Roman theology. In other words, as with the fully Orthodox I do not accept indulgences, the teaching of "merit," penal substitution theory for salvation, the teaching of eternal and conscious torment in hell, or any of the other Roman theological peculiarities which were brought up after they split from the Orthodox Church in 1054 AD.

And if given a chance, I am ready to leave the Byzantines and join the OCA. I already go to Vespers at a local OCA parish.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Look, I used to be a Fundamentalist. They hate Catholics. Maybe some of them escape that mindset, but for the most part, it's endemic and preached. Catholics are idol worshipers and of the devil and have a front row seat in hell forever.

Do they really, actually, hate the people, or just the pagan heathen practices ? (which destroy souls)
Like idolatry, as you mentioned.... (idolatry bring YHWH'S curse, not blessing)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

When you come to believe theologies explicitly defined are benchmarks for what is considered Christian and others do not agree, it causes resentment in those most dedicated to those ideas. In the case of Fundamentalism, the five solas of the reformation.

Protestant resentment of ancient Christianity is usually based on their affirmation of the 16th century reformation. There are two interpretations to this, either those who have not embraced the five solas are impartial (flawed theologically) Christians or they are not Christians at all. The latter is probably responsible for the hatred you perceive.

People have unique motivations for how they express themselves, some just don't want anything that even resembles anything that looks too catholic and will condemn just about everyone outside of their particular theological circle.

In my experience, those who detested the ancient Christianity the most were the most ignorant of it, perhaps relying on a few brief summaries or sources to get their impression of the entire movement. It would be like looking at Calvin alone to understand the protestant side of the reformation.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Just read the Bible, in english is fine, today. Ask YHWH to grand His understanding of it.

Then , if He does, the errors of false traditions and pagan practices become blatantly obvious and heinous (totally unacceptable to anyone/ everyone honoring YHWH'S WORD, set apart by Him, for His Purpose (Eternal Life in Jesus) ) .......

 

[DeaconDean]

In my experience, those who detested the ancient Christianity the most were the most ignorant of it, perhaps relying on a few brief summaries or sources to get their impression of the entire movement. It would be like looking at Calvin alone to understand the protestant side of the reformation.

Do you realize that it was the "catholics" who actually gave birth, rather, started the path towards the Reformation in their actions towards the Donatists around AD 311?

So your statement "those who detested the ancient Christianity the most were the most ignorant of it" doesn't make any sense.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[ChristIsSovereign]

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

Because a lot of Independent/Fundamentalist Baptists have not the love of Christ despite them wielding the sword of Truth. (Bible.) I condemn Catholicism as Marian heresy but do I condemn Catholics? No, I feel sad for them, as Christ would.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you realize that it was the "catholics" who actually gave birth, rather, started the path towards the Reformation in their actions towards the Donatists around AD 311?

So your statement "those who detested the ancient Christianity the most were the most ignorant of it" doesn't make any sense.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Like I said in my initial post, that's just my experience with fundamentalists. They generally have no love of the ancient Church because it resembles Catholicism way to much to be considered authentically Christian. This naturally lends itself to a lack of wanting to know the ancient church and hence ignorance about it. The best protestant scholars on the ancient Church are those who see their roots in the ancient Church and aren't willing to paint the entire canvas of Church history as black before their particular reformer came alone. Why bother to learn the particular differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy when you can call the latter Roman Catholicism without the Pope? If you don't believe me, fine, but it does make sense.

Now in suggesting Catholic aggression against the Donatists (which I don't think would be out of the ordinary given the period) I would ask, do you think the Donatists were more Christian than the Orthodox? Was Augustine wrong and the Donatists right? I think advocating the roots of the reformation beginning with the Donatists cannot be justified.

 

[DeaconDean]

Like I said in my initial post, that's just my experience with fundamentalists. They generally have no love of the ancient Church because it resembles Catholicism way to much to be considered authentically Christian. This naturally lends itself to a lack of wanting to know the ancient church and hence ignorance about it. The best protestant scholars on the ancient Church are those who see their roots in the ancient Church and aren't willing to paint the entire canvas of Church history as black before their particular reformer came alone. Why bother to learn the particular differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy when you can call the latter Roman Catholicism without the Pope? If you don't believe me, fine, but it does make sense.

Listen, I see a lot of good in the history of Catholics.

For instance, when explorers went out, the Catholic church went with them. You gotta like that.

While I do disagree on their (Catholic) dogma's.

And besides, I took several classes on "The History of Christianity" as well as a few on Catholicism.

While I am not painting EO and RCC with a "broad paintbrush", I speak mainly from my experience here as not only a Fundamentalist, but as a Moderator for the Fundy area from the past.

And it has been my experience that some, not all mind you, but some EO's and RCC's, come here with a specific purpose in mind.

And all that does is foster more animosity.

Now in suggesting Catholic aggression against the Donatists (which I don't think would be out of the ordinary given the period) I would ask, do you think the Donatists were more Christian than the Orthodox? Was Augustine wrong and the Donatists right? I think advocating the roots of the reformation beginning with the Donatists cannot be justified.

Here is where we will part ways.

I do see it as what was the issue with the Donatists way back when?

They viewed any baptism that performed by Catholic priests who had in their opinion, defied themselves as "invalid" and requested that they be allowed to "re-baptize" themselves.

Leap forward to the Reformation. As hated as he is, even John Calvin hated the Anabaptists.

The very meaning of the word "Anabaptist" carries with it the meaning of "re-baptizers".

"The name Anabaptists, etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism"

Source

Even as late as the Reformation, John Calvin called the Anabaptists the "neo-donatists".

Neo- meaning new. Or: the new Donatists.

"In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1.200 years before the Reformation."

Link

In his work titled "Against The Anabaptists," Calvin said:

"Last of all like as a drunkard after he hath well belched doth disgorge the vile broth which charged his stomach, even so these wicked men, after they have detracted this holy estate which the Lord hath so much honored, finally with full throat they do spew out exceeding deformed blasphemies."

Link

While you may not see it, I do see a direct link between the Donatists and the Anabaptists.

As far as Augustine is concerned, he also shared in in the roots of the Reformation.

The "P" in T.U.L.I.P. which gave rise to the Reformed doctrines on perseverance and predestination, can be traced back to him.

Like I said, the groundwork, the roots for the Reformation were laid long ago. It just took 1200 years for it to happen.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Listen, I see a lot of good in the history of Catholics.

For instance, when explorers went out, the Catholic church went with them. You gotta like that.

While I do disagree on their (Catholic) dogma's.

And besides, I took several classes on "The History of Christianity" as well as a few on Catholicism.

While I am not painting EO and RCC with a "broad paintbrush", I speak mainly from my experience here as not only a Fundamentalist, but as a Moderator for the Fundy area from the past.

And it has been my experience that some, not all mind you, but some EO's and RCC's, come here with a specific purpose in mind.

And all that does is foster more animosity.



Here is where we will part ways.

I do see it as what was the issue with the Donatists way back when?

They viewed any baptism that performed by Catholic priests who had in their opinion, defied themselves as "invalid" and requested that they be allowed to "re-baptize" themselves.

Leap forward to the Reformation. As hated as he is, even John Calvin hated the Anabaptists.

The very meaning of the word "Anabaptist" carries with it the meaning of "re-baptizers".

"The name Anabaptists, etymologically applicable, and sometimes applied to Christian denominations that practise re-baptism"

Source

Even as late as the Reformation, John Calvin called the Anabaptists the "neo-donatists".

Neo- meaning new. Or: the new Donatists.

"In the time of the Reformation 1,200 years later, the Anabaptists would have nothing to do with a state church. This was one of the main reasons for their separation from Calvin, Luther and the other Reformers. The Reformers often referred to the Anabaptists as Donatists or Neo-Donatists because the Donatists had opposed this marriage of church and state 1.200 years before the Reformation."

Link

In his work titled "Against The Anabaptists," Calvin said:

"Last of all like as a drunkard after he hath well belched doth disgorge the vile broth which charged his stomach, even so these wicked men, after they have detracted this holy estate which the Lord hath so much honored, finally with full throat they do spew out exceeding deformed blasphemies."

Link

While you may not see it, I do see a direct link between the Donatists and the Anabaptists.

As far as Augustine is concerned, he also shared in in the roots of the Reformation.

The "P" in T.U.L.I.P. which gave rise to the Reformed doctrines on perseverance and predestination, can be traced back to him.

Like I said, the groundwork, the roots for the Reformation were laid long ago. It just took 1200 years for it to happen.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I think it's good you don't totally tar and feather the history of the Church like some fundamentalists do. Nor do I think all fundamentalists or Protestants do this, though it is more prominent amongst the former.

Now with what you are saying about the Anabaptist are you claiming affinity with them and the radical reformation over the magisterial reformation? Your connection between the Donatists and the Anabaptists, as if they were a single harmonious community persisting till the reformation is tenuous at best. Calvin calling his opponents Neo-Donatist is not evidence of a historical connection but rather a theological/rhetorical opinion, much in the way he called certain people who remained Catholic a certain derogatory name which for the life of me I cannot recall. Perhaps you know it and can remind me.

I might see a similar theological theme, but I cannot see a historical continuity. Now I am curious as to whether or not the Anabaptists believed one's baptism was affected by the baptiser. Would be rather strange for the Anabaptist to hold one's baptism would be useless if the person baptising was a great sinner. I believe they would have denied baptism did anything sanctifying and that puts them at odds with the Donatists who held that baptism had real sanctifying effects for the individual (at least to my knowledge). Augustine's position is far more reasonable, that God is not dependant on the sinner baptising to sanctify those being brought into the Church, since it is God who grants the grace and not the baptiser.

 

[DeaconDean]

I think it's good you don't totally tar and feather the history of the Church like some fundamentalists do. Nor do I think all fundamentalists or Protestants do this, though it is more prominent amongst the former.

Now with what you are saying about the Anabaptist are you claiming affinity with them and the radical reformation over the magisterial reformation? Your connection between the Donatists and the Anabaptists, as if they were a single harmonious community persisting till the reformation is tenuous at best. Calvin calling his opponents Neo-Donatist is not evidence of a historical connection but rather a theological/rhetorical opinion, much in the way he called certain people who remained Catholic a certain derogatory name which for the life of me I cannot recall. Perhaps you know it and can remind me.

I might see a similar theological theme, but I cannot see a historical continuity. Now I am curious as to whether or not the Anabaptists believed one's baptism was affected by the baptiser. Would be rather strange for the Anabaptist to hold one's baptism would be useless if the person baptising was a great sinner. I believe they would have denied baptism did anything sanctifying and that puts them at odds with the Donatists who held that baptism had real sanctifying effects for the individual (at least to my knowledge). Augustine's position is far more reasonable, that God is not dependant on the sinner baptising to sanctify those being brought into the Church, since it is God who grants the grace and not the baptiser.

Here again, I said no such thing as "a single harmonious community".

Rather, the Donatists were persecuted because they wanted to "re-baptize" because they believed the baptism by priests who defiled themselves invalid.

Anabaptists who accept "ex-Catholics" or even "ex-Orthodox" into their congregation 99.9% of the time, require, rather ask, their converts to be "re-baptized".

You may not see the "link", but I do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Here again, I said no such thing as "a single harmonious community".

Rather, the Donatists were persecuted because they wanted to "re-baptize" because they believed the baptism by priests who defiled themselves invalid.

Anabaptists who accept "ex-Catholics" or even "ex-Orthodox" into their congregation 99.9% of the time, require, rather ask, their converts to be "re-baptized".

You may not see the "link", but I do.

God Bless

Till all are one.

If the link is not historical then what is it? Similarity is not grounds for suggesting a definitive link that matters (which is why I consider historical links more important than superficial similarities). The Donatists were radicals who believed the baptiser mattered when baptising. The Anabaptists presumably believe the only thing that mattered was the individual who was being baptised confessed God. So while both might have re-baptised, they did so for different reasons and so I think the link you are suggesting is superficial. Presumably both would, if given the opportunity to meet, completely anathematise each other.

It's superficial in that the only thing that unites them is that they didn't accept the Orthodoxy of the day.

So how is it you make the definitive correlation between the Donatists and Anabaptists actually matter? How can it be said that the reformation began with the Donatists? There's no historical link (as you seem to concede) and there were different motivations behind the theology of both groups. surely resistance to the historical church is not grounds to be considered part of the reformation, or else all sorts of groups should be included as part of the reformation (Bogomils, Socinians, etc).

 

[frettr00]

Nothing makes me angrier than anti-Catholic bigotry. I deal with it on another forum I frequent less and less these days. This forum is tame by comparison.