Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

Geez Thinkingstuff - I think it WAS Zeitgeist!

 

Just like Woodrow you cannot produce any major reasons why his conclusions are wrong! You theorize, philosophize and slander but what about pure objective scholarship that evaluates the evidences that provide solid reasons why Rome has a "college of cardinals" when the Scripture says nothing about it and the many many other Babylonian originated practices and terms used by Rome that you cannot find in the scriptures but can find in the Babylonian religion. What about the pure Biblcial evidence that the division of languages at the tower of Babel would logically and reasonably produce the same pagan religious practices into various parts of the earth under different names due to different langauges and there would naturally be individual differences in development in each nation with time. This is just common sense.

There are only two available options for all religious practices. They either originate from the Scriptures or they originate from the world. Babylon is not only a clear and indisputable Biblical type of the world but it is because for the very reason that it is the one ancient culture that systemized secular and religious opposition to the kingdom of God which has been permeated among the nations of this world.

 

You know, when a person cannot respond intelligently they reduce themselves to redicule. Your interpretation of my response are as flawed as your interpretations of Hislop. When truth is not your objective, error becomes your necessary food. Sad!

 

I know, I am not going to win any fans saying these things but when you depart from the truth of the gospel you are "accursed" by the scriptures and any religious group ("church" "denomination") that preaches another gospel is a perverted type of Christianity and cannot be scripturally recognized as a "church of Christ."

Rome and all sacramental denominations are "accursed" by the Scriptures and although there are no doubt many true Christians within such (in spite of what they preach as the gospel) the denominations/institutions cannot be considered "churches of Christ" in any Biblical sense.

I expect the ridicule as the response but what I say above is gospel truth and it is easy to prove IF you have an objective mind (and quickened by the Spirit).

Abraham, a pre-Mosaic saint is chosen by Paul to be the example, the role model, the "father" of all who are "of faith" and who believe the gospel (Rom. 4:11-12; Gal. 3:6-8). This is impossible unless Abraham was justified by faith and believed in the same gospel (Acts 10:43; 26:22-23; Heb. 4:2; Gal. 3:8; I Cor. 15:3-4 "according to the scriptures"; Rom. 10:16; etc.).

There are but TWO ways (Mt. 7:13-14) and TWO contrasting and there has only been ONE right way before Pentecost (Jn. 14:6) and after Pentecost (Acts 4:12). There are only two contrasting ways to be justified BEFORE GOD and they are contrasted in PRINCIPLE ("law" - Rom. 2:27) the term that characterizes one principle is "works" and the other is "faith." The "law" or principle of faith is in opposition to "works" even when "works" are interpreted to be "faithfulness" (Rom. 4:9-16). The "law" or principle of justication by faith is restricted to the object of faith (Rom. 3:24-26 "in Christ" "IN him") in contrast to the subject and verb of faith "by faith Moses obeyed" etc.). It is the contrast between Christ's works FOR us versus our works for Christ. It is defined by the preposition "in" with Christ and His work, His blood, His life, His provision being the ONLY object of justifying faith.

There is a place for our works and it as the consequence of faith in the object of Jesus Christ wherein we are justified "before God" by grace alone through faith alone received by imputation alone. We are first placed by a creative act of God (regeneration) "in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" which do follow all who are truly regenerated and justified. To reverse this order between justification before God by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is to teach/preach "another gospel" which is accursed and the majority of Christendom reverse this order and preach another gospel - that is the gospel truth whether you ridicule me or reject what I said - it makes no difference - the truth of it still stands and will continue to stand whether rejectors rant or rave.

 

I'm not here to bash you or riducule. So who is the church? A denomination/organization or the people in the organizations?

 

Justification is two-dimensional. You can approach it from the human side or the side of human observation or you can approach from the divine side or the side of divine observation. Paul approaches from the divine side ("before God" - Rom. 4:1) whereas James approaches it from the human side ("shew me....I will shew you..." - James 2). The human side is restricted to what humans can observe and therefore deals with the consequences of justification "before God" rather than the cause. Paul approaches it from the divine side that deals with the cause of justification in the court of divine justice.

However, profession of faith in the court of human observation is "dead" and worthless if it has no reality in the realm of human observation - works. This is why it is necessary to "shew me" and I "shew you" or nothing can be shown and therefore there is no evidential basis to believe you have anything to shew.

Here is a major pivotal point in estimating the theological fallacies in both Protestant and Catholic teachings. There are other major points but this one must be considered right at the top of the list of essentials for true apostolic Christianity.

Romans 3:24-5:19 presents a very logical and orderly defense and definition of justification by faith "before God" that cannot possibly be interpreted to include the works of men or the ordinances of God as the basis or means for justification before God.

 

We Protestants can't even agree on this one, you can leave the poor Catholics out of it for now, LOL.

Before I knew what a Catholic was, I heard this one hashed around about a hundred times even in our Baptist churches.

 

There is a difference between the kingdom of God and the church of God. There is a difference between the family of God and the church of God.

The kingdom of God on earth as well as the family of God on earth originated in the garden of Eden and had its primary visible representation in the nation of Israel. However, the church of God did not have any origin previous the personal ministry of Jesus Christ on earth. The "foundation" of the church consisted of New Testament apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20; 1 Cor. 12:28).

The difference between the kingdom and church is the difference between salvation and service. The difference between the family of God and the church is the difference between salvation and service.

The gospel of salvation has been preached and the same Savior and same way of salvation has been on earth since Eden (Gen. 3:15) and that gospel has been progressively revealed until its fulfillment with the life and death of Jesus on the cross. Hence, salvation and the church are not one and the same. The gospel and salvation predated the church.

However, the church is just the new "house of God" that replaced the former "house of God." It is the congregations of baptized believers that we find geographically located throughout the New Testament. The new "house of God" is built of living stones while the former house of God was bult of dead stones. The new house of God has an ordained ministry as did the old (1 Tim. 3:1-15). The new house of God has ordinances as did the old. The new house of God is the public instituted house of worship as was the old (Deut. 12 versus 1 Tim. 2-6).

It is neither "universal" or "invisible" but actual assemblies of the saints and "the church" simply refers to it as a divine institution. The church Jesus built is the church that members can bring their problems before (Mt. 18:17 "tell it to THE CHURCH") and it is the same kind of church that Jesus goes on the next 20 times he uses the word in Revelation and concludes Revelation with "the churches" (Rom. 22:16).

The New Testament Church is the institution WITHIN the professing kingdom of God on earth that administers the keys of the kingdom as the visible expression of kingdom authority on earth. It preaches the SAME gospel Jesus preached (Jn. 3:16; Mk. 16:15). It administers the SAME baptism Jesus submitted to and authorized until the end of the age (Mt. 28:19; Lk. 7:29-30). It is the plural "you" that assembled on the day of Pentecost upon which they were immsered in the shekinah glory as was every preceding house of God after completion. It preaches the same faith and order once delivered with only two kinds of ordained leadership, presbyters and deacons and only two gospel ordinances baptism and the Lord's Supper and it is congregational in order with the Bible as its final authority in all matters of faith and practice SEPARATED from the state and with full liberty of conscience.

 

The term "Baptist" is generic and every faith under the sun can be found under that title. It is adopted by any kind of faith that immerses.

The Bible is extremely clear on this topic and Romans 3:24-5:19 is a clear and logical defense of justification "before God" by grace ALONE through faith ALONE in Christ ALONE which is manifested before men by good works.

Those who deny this truth do so by pitting scripture against scripture; by pitting parables, examples, spiritualizations against precepts; by pitting ambiguous scriptures against clear and explicit scriptures; by ignoring the immediate and overal context of scriptures; by eisgetical methods instead of exegetical methods.

 

So...any denomination that believes in a sacrament is accursed?

 

What is the difference between a "sacrament" and an "ordinance"? Look at the Catholic catechism how they define a "sacrament." They define a sacrament as an external ordinance essential to be justified, to receive grace, to be a child of God, it is a means that conveys actual saving/justifying grace. So yes, any who adopt such external rites as "sacraments" for the purpose of conveying actual justifying saving grace are false churches.

 

You guys just waisted 8 pages....I repeat 8 PAGES on this nonsense instead of staying close to the OP & debating ...or even moving this thread forward....there should be a little Fight Bell Avatar & it should sound off.

 

This OP is a waste of time! It is based upon false assumptions. Philosophy and the church fathers are not the answer to the problem. Get away from the scriptures and you get away from the source of the real problem in Christendom. The problem is squarely a departure from the basic truths of scripture. Paul did not invent a new denomination, a new religion or a new system of philosophy or philosophical language. The problem is a departure frome basis essentials of the faith spelled out in child like language in the Scriptures.

Dealing with the doctrine of Biblical justification, the essence of the gospel, the differences between the kingdom, family and church of God is where the real problems are at.

We have got back to essentials and what really is the problem rather than entering into the non-authoritative land of philosophical speculation.

 

Wally, you have the option of not posting in it & your just as capable as anyone else to start your own with questions you consider pertinent. Why criticize a Brother. Remember that the best criticism of the bad is the practice of the better. :thumbs:

Jesus Saves

 

Since we use the canon that we recieved from the fathers in some form, I hope not to discount them completely or we are all in big trouble.

Child like language? Is that why we have so many interpretations today? Hardly as simple in real application as you make it out to be. I'm not saying you are wrong, just not accepting reality.

 

I accept the reality of confusion but I do not attribute that confusion to the Scripture or to God.

 

You are right! But the OP misses the boat. I have some slack time today and will be off again for some days.

 

I personally believe that the Canon was completed earlier than 150 A.D. among the churches and the old Sryiac and Old Latin translations provide proof. In some of these copies only four present New Testament epistles were in question which shows that the churches already had a good grip on the canon of scripture.

 

I thought the “free church movement” was about getting rid of pew fees and other financial aspects of church life in the 19th Century. However, it appears you equate the term with the schismatic movements of the early church. Yet the fundamental Christian doctrines, particularly those doctrines pertaining to the nature of Jesus Christ, sprang from the ecumenical councils of the early church. The “free church” crowd were usually excluded from these councils because it was they who were teaching false doctrines. Fortunately they all withered away and disappeared (the gates of hell did prevail against them). They preserved nothing. The only church that has had continuity over the centuries is the Catholic Church. Why? Because Jesus promised Peter (and us) that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

With all due respect, your admiration for the likes of Montanus (not Montanist) is seriously misplaced. Pentecostals much admire him because he spoke gibberish and claimed the gift of prophecy. Like them, he also advocated for women as pastors. He was an aesthetic and a legalist like many fundamentalists, but other than that I don’t think he would fit in very well. Your church would probably treat him very much like the Catholic Church treated him.