Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, May 18, 2009.
Near the end of the last thread PilgrimsPastor made this statement
My thoughts: you are hoping to get another fight going.
My observation is that you start threads that are likely to get people fighting -- not just disagreeing and disputing, but fighting. Then, after it gets going, you post relatively little compared to what one would expect of a thread starter.
My suspicion is that you like to set people against each other, and enjoy seeing the hostilities.
You saw how this type of thread went last time, and you want to get more of the same going. Those are my thoughts.
This entire post begs the question: If faith alone saves, which it does, and I do have faith, though I may think that my works matter, is my faith invalidated by my belief that my works must accompany my faith?[/quote]
One cannot generalize too much. The thief on the cross died and went to paradise w/o works. That still happens today (not necessarily on a cross). I led a person to the Lord moments before she died. How many good works did she do in that intervening time? Good works have nothing to do with salvation. She was saved by faith alone.
That is true according to my own testimony. I was saved coming out of a RCC background. I never left the RCC until two years later. Thus I was a saved RCC for two years. The reason--as a new Christian I was Biblically illiterate. That Catholic Church does not teach the Bible. I had to grow to the place where I was able to sit down and compare what I had learned as a Catholic to what I now knew the Bible taught. Since there were so many glaring contradictions I was forced to make a choice. The choice was either follow the Bible or follow the RCC. One cannot do both, and be obedient to God.
Hence if the question is more accurately put: Can a knowledgeable person (knowledgeable both in Catholicism and in the Bible) be saved and RCC at the same time:
1. Only if they are grossly disobedient and not adhering to the doctrine of the RCC or the Orthodox.
2. No, if they are claiming to believe both Biblical salvation and Orthodox or RCC doctrine at the same time, and are knowledgeable in both (such as their apologists are).
No, every religion of the world apart from Biblical Christian, believes that works are a part of their salvation. Biblical Christianity is the only religion that is unique in claiming that salvation is by faith and faith alone.
This is a false statement.
I'm sorry. Its not actually my intent. Its actually to solve questions I have personally. I was raised Catholic. I left the Church at 15. Because of that I've been at odds with my family ever since. My Father disinherted me and my mother would not speak with me for over 20 years. My siblings were blessed and honored (and had their colleges paid for; not I) and I was excluded from every family get together and most special events (save my sister's wedding). Well, I got into an argument with my Father about something and so I was challenged to find out for myself. I learned alot yet I came accross a statement by a Catholic who said something to the effect that "If protestants actually knew what the catholic church taught they would not hate it so." I never thought that just being catholic sent you to hell so I wanted to test it on this page to see what people said. To the best of my ability I've tried to represent the catholic position which lead me to other questions. And having an interest in history I kind of want some sort of round table where thoughts are being passed around with aspects to this discussion. Now I've notice there is anomosity. Yet on every theological point on this page there is anomosity. Calvinsim, Armenianism, Pre Mid Post Trib, ammillenialism, Preterism, KJ vs. Modern versions. And this thread area is for all "other denominations" so include COC or Pentecostalism, Anglicans, Orthodox. I've even seen people (figuratively) come to blows on a war that was faught just under 150 years ago. I really don't want to fight.
How did you become saved? Why did you stay in the RCC for so long? What other sources did you use to help understand scriptures? And what in the end told you that RCC was not biblical Christianity? During that time were you involved in other Christian fellowship?
What is RCC, OC, and Copts?
(BTW, thinkingstuff, I like your new avatar)
Roman Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and the lesser known Coptic Church. There are those that may disagree with this version of history but all the Christian Chruches for the most part were on the same perverbial page until the debate about the dual nature of Christ and the Coptic Church Seperated from the main body of Christianity centered primarily in North Africa and Down to Ethiopia. Just after the turn of the 1st Millenia a battle between the eastern Churches and the Western Churches about the filiqoue and other issues culminated with Patriarch Cerularius closing down latin chruches in Constantinople and Bruno or Pope Leo IX sending legates to Constaninople who through down a papal bull excommunicating the the Patriarch during a service at the Hagia Sophia. But that was just one of many occurances. The final straw that broke the camels back was when Merchants hired Crusaders to take Constantinople (to cover their loses and to raid the city) by force who then destroyed the city pillaged and plundered and mocked the eastern christians. Thus making the Catholic and Orthodox churches. However, many of all three chruches doctines are similar.
Define "grossly disobedient" DHK, in regard to Orthodox [not Roman Catholic] theology in terms of salvation...what do I as an Orthodox Christian have to do continually in order to be saved?
I'm still under the impression that you DHK really don't have a clear understanding of Orthodox theology...
As an Orthodox Christian, could I miss my "Sunday obligation" and it be a mortal sin? What if don't take part of the Eucharist but once a year, am I saved?
I was saved on the campus of a university by means of an interdenominational organization working there. They shared the gospel with me and I got saved.
I stayed in the RCC because I was a Catholic. Nothing had changed that fact. I lived at home while attending university. I went to church with my family.
Yet at the same time I began to attend some Bible studies with others, learn how to have devotion, and learn the very basics of practical Christian living.
When I got saved the PC hadn't been invented yet. I had no other sources, not even a concordance. Shortly after I was saved, I graduated, and took a career that left me alone most of the year, apart from man, both saved and unsaved. I was alone with my Bible, and that is all. I knew what the Catholic Church taught after having been it for twenty years, but I had little knowledge of the Bible, past salvation and a few other basic doctrines. Interdenominationalism does not put much emphasis on the local church or baptism. I had not officially left the RCC, nor had I been baptized by any other church.
I was left to my own personal Bible Study and reading of Scripture. There was no fellowship with anyone around. I came to my conclusions simply through a study of Scripture and Scripture alone. One might call that the principle of sola scriptura, though I didn't know it.
The RCC doctrines matched up against the Bible were clearly wrong.
You have been here long enough to know what it means to be saved.
At the same time you disagree vehemently what it means to be saved.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone.
Salvation is to be born again. Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The new birth has nothing to do with baptism.
Salvation is like marriage. Like marriage it happens once in a life time.
Like birth it happens once in a lifetime.
It is not an ongoing process. It is not a life of works.
You condemn your own religion by asking "What if I don't take part of the Eucharist but once a year? Am I saved.?"
You admit a religion of works that cannot save. You cannot be a part of the Orthodox Church and be saved at the same time, especially you, when you have so much light about salvation and the of the Orthodox Church.
One preaches a message of salvation by works;
the other salvation by grace through faith. The two are at polar opposites.
The problem is that the Catholics and Orthodox proclain a non-saving false gospel. (i'm not as familiar with the Coptics, so I'm not speaking of them)
So, those in those 2 groups who might be born of the Spirit...and actually going to heaven when they die...will probably be "fringe" Catholics or Orthodox who are in the group physically, but probably not completely "with the program" so to speak, because the Holy Spirit is witnessing to them concerning the grave problems that exist. They discern the friction and we more than likely flee the cult at some point in time.
I agree. I have always said there are legalists in the evangelical camp as well. But if they accepted the true gospel, wich is MUCH more likely than in the Catholic or Orthodox (with their FALSE gospel) they will be saved, but grieving the Spirit with their legalism.
Didn't we just do this, why again?
Repeat spelling class!
Ah Ed you are too right. I'm a horrible speller and I don't use spell check. I should edit stuff but I don't. I just usually type off the cuff.
If the RC and the OC are representative of historical Christianity. Then isn't it they who carried forward the Gospels until the reformation? Also are you suggesting that only the fringe Catholic or Orthodox are really spirit born? So then real christianity was made up of only fringe Catholics (back in Clements and Justins day they called themselves Catholic) and so only the fringe (a couple of hundred or so) held on to the faith until they had their chance just before the Reformation? So christianity was in stasis for approximately 1200 years? Is this what you are proposing?
Try a keyboard, instead.
In other words you don't have anything to add to the conversation do you Professor Ed the farmer?
That is pretty interesting. So basically on your own you read scriptures and came to conclusions. Were you at a remote satalite station? Just curious. That can get lonely. Also while you participated in your bible study did you use concordences and commentaries?
Without giving too much personal information, which is what I am trying to do here, yes I was at a remote "station." As a new Christian, I had no other book but a Bible. I told you that--no concordance, no commentary, no scofield notes, nothing--but a Bible (it wasn't even KJV). And yes, it was lonely. You sound like you don't believe me. Why are you so skeptical?
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
The bolded part is just you. I'm not skeptical at all. I've been in a similar situation myself but that's another story for another time. I'm not important enough (or rich enough) to worry to much about what I've done in my life being "discovered" by others. But I understand there are people who are. I believe there is power in the word. It's just that I was wondering if there were any other influences. I remember when I first started reading the bible I had difficulty understanding it. I prayed and the lord helped me and ever since then I've grown in my faith and relationship. The reason I wondered about influences is because of your insistance on the secret history of baptist for which no significant academic agrees with. Even looking at Zondervan press release of Christian History shows that there were no secret pre-baptist sects. Everyone who looks at scripture looks at it through goggles of their own experience. So I was just curious.