Define "church" Mr. J. The Church is defined by God and His Word. Like it or not, it is a very exclusive "club", and those who believe in purgatory and "indulgences", those who worship idols. etc. are excluded.
Galatians 1:8
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
2 Peter 2:1
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
Enough said.
Beast = Pope+Catholic Church?
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
Puritan, those verses do not support your views. They're fine and dandy for pointing out the dangers of false teachings and believing in them, but they do not support your stance. I agree with you on a lot of things, but I believe you must be too enraptured with your denomination to be wholly objective. You speak a lot of truth, but you throw in with it grave falsehoods that must be pointed out for what they are.
The RCC as an organization is not Christian. I say that, (don't get offended too early,) because the only truly Christian organization is the Body of Christ, comprised of all born-again Christians. Anywhere and everywhere born-again Christians make up this Body, Christ being the Head and the rest of us being individual members, but members of one-another. So the RCC is not Christian in that sense.
It is Christian, however, in the sense that there are members who are indeed Christians, and by and large it does strive to teach Christ's sacrifice, even if they by false teachings end up sometimes and/or often negating that sacrifice. As we've seen, there are plenty members who are true Christians, even if that's despite the RCC's official positions and some taught and practiced positions. This must be recognized, and generalizations, if made for convienience's sake or just to state official positions, must take this into account for truth's sake. We are after truth, so let's face it head-on and fully acknowledge what deserves to be acknowledged.
I would like to state how the Body of Christ is supposed to function if it's to be healthy. Each member is to be individually united in spirit and soul with Christ, our Head. If members are not united with the Head, that means the Body's not healthy! The members are also supposed to be united to each other in both spirit and soul. If the members of the Body are not in union with one another than the Body's not healthy! All members and the Head are to communicate with each other. All members and the Head are to be in harmony with each other. All members and the Head are to move together in union and agreement toward specific goals. That would be the main point of having the Body in the first place! The Body, just like our earthly ones, is an instrument constructed for express purposes of use. The Body must be used, and to be used it must be active and healthy.
Now, my biggest gripe is that the Body's not healthy right now. It's active to a certain degree, but it's really not healthy. I detest all that makes it unhealthy. (And yes, I detest more than the RCC!
) I detest mainly how we do not know how the Body is to move. We are not connected and communicating with the Head, and we do not know how to communicate with each other. The first part of that is pretty obvious as to what I mean. Our relationships with God leave much desired. What I'd like to share with people is how, [geez, I'm kind of getting off-topic. I'll try to recover myself as I go along with this thought,] we are to stay connected and to communicate with the Head, and how we are to communicate with each other, and that so we can utilize this Body we have and get work done. We're only on earth as a pilgrimage for a short while and I want to make the most of it, and that can be done most effectively with the Body working together and not as an individual member.
For now I'll only touch on, (and return back to the topic with,) how the members of the Body are to communicate with eachother. We are each, as born-again believers, given a role in the Body. We each have our own position, role to take on, and specific job to do. Just as the eye is to see, the foot is to support, the hand is to handle, the ear is to hear. Our individual jobs are given to us by God of His wise choosing, and the power and ability for our jobs are also provided by Him.
It is the Body of Christ we are a part of, and Christ is God, and we are in God in Christ, and so we have access to all of His abilities and His power. He gives us these of Himself for our work as His Body. We are not to use our own feeble abilities and our incredibly weak "power." To do that is to make hay and stubble that will get burned up come Judgement Day. God gives us what we need to do the jobs He's assigned us to. We are not to be our own "head"s.
God has so arranged the members of His Body that they must work together sharing the spiritual gifts God gave them with each other. By this and this alone the Body will communicate member to member, (as the eye to the hand and the ear to the foot.) The teacher must teach, the one who can discern spirits must discern, the apostle must build churches, the one who can speak in tongues and the one who can interpret them should do so, the prophet must declare prophecies, the encourgager must encourage, and on and on with all the rest. You do these services to one another in the Body to encourage and build it up and to move the Body so it may do it's work. They are for building up the Body and for using it for it's purposes.
The way the majority of Christian churches, (or groups of Christians gathered together in His name, as that is what a church is,) actually function is very, very different from how they are supposed to as part of the Body. By and large the only one using their assumed spiritual gift is the preacher, and even if he does have an active spiritual gift it may not be teaching, to be an apostle, or even to be a shepherd! This is how the churches today, including the RCC churches as I mentioned before, perverse the New Testament pattern for churches. It has become that instead of a many membered Body all working together, it is for the most part a two membered Body: the Head and the preacher. There are Sunday School teachers, youth leaders and small group teachers, but where are the other members and where are the gifts? We are babying the "laity" and not trying to get them to mature to take their place in the Body. We feed milk year after year and never are they ready for meat! What needs to change? We need to begin to function as the Body should, with each member doing his or her job to build the Body and to move it.
I, possibly out of lack of other ideas for now, take the example of the early Quaker meetings for an example of what that should look like when we gather together as the Body to build it up and move it. They had a meeting room in each house and they'd move to a new one each Sunday, (or First Day or whatever they called it.) They'd sit there as a group and wait for the Spirit to lead someone to say something for the benefit of the group, presumably to use their spiritual gift. Now, that's the only way I've read of it being tried, but I don't particularly like it too much. I more imagine the group of Chritians gathered together reading the Bible, studying it, talking about the work God's calling them to do, someone teaching at some point, someone encouraging people, someone taking a stand of faith on something, and the like. Each member performing their duties for their spiritual gift.
None of this preacher and laity thing. That's not Biblical. Not even was it done so disctinctly like that in the Old Testament! Not exactly sure how their Sabbaths were handled way back when, but even in the synagogues I know that it wasn't, (and isn't?) such a preist and laity experience as we have in our churches.
And yes, I believe our modern churches, which have their origin in the RCC through Lutheranism, are, as purtian lad put it, "Constantine's church." He is the one who took poor bishops out working for God and put them in opulent church buildings and set them up comfortably and in political power. Many fell for it, at first seeing it as glory to God, but then getting selfish and losing sight of their true vocation as a Christian and servant of God. That's the birth of the RCC and the beginning of the perversion of the New Testament church.
Now where was I? Oh, yes, I believe that's all I wanted to say! Guess maybe after writing this long post I should go back and finish reading those long articles bizzt so kindly made me feel obligated to read!
Not sure I'll get through all them before I give up again! 
But thank you all who beared through this long post saturated with views I'm sure many of you have never heard before; I hope it benefits your walk with God somehow.
The RCC as an organization is not Christian. I say that, (don't get offended too early,) because the only truly Christian organization is the Body of Christ, comprised of all born-again Christians. Anywhere and everywhere born-again Christians make up this Body, Christ being the Head and the rest of us being individual members, but members of one-another. So the RCC is not Christian in that sense.
It is Christian, however, in the sense that there are members who are indeed Christians, and by and large it does strive to teach Christ's sacrifice, even if they by false teachings end up sometimes and/or often negating that sacrifice. As we've seen, there are plenty members who are true Christians, even if that's despite the RCC's official positions and some taught and practiced positions. This must be recognized, and generalizations, if made for convienience's sake or just to state official positions, must take this into account for truth's sake. We are after truth, so let's face it head-on and fully acknowledge what deserves to be acknowledged.
I would like to state how the Body of Christ is supposed to function if it's to be healthy. Each member is to be individually united in spirit and soul with Christ, our Head. If members are not united with the Head, that means the Body's not healthy! The members are also supposed to be united to each other in both spirit and soul. If the members of the Body are not in union with one another than the Body's not healthy! All members and the Head are to communicate with each other. All members and the Head are to be in harmony with each other. All members and the Head are to move together in union and agreement toward specific goals. That would be the main point of having the Body in the first place! The Body, just like our earthly ones, is an instrument constructed for express purposes of use. The Body must be used, and to be used it must be active and healthy.
Now, my biggest gripe is that the Body's not healthy right now. It's active to a certain degree, but it's really not healthy. I detest all that makes it unhealthy. (And yes, I detest more than the RCC!
) I detest mainly how we do not know how the Body is to move. We are not connected and communicating with the Head, and we do not know how to communicate with each other. The first part of that is pretty obvious as to what I mean. Our relationships with God leave much desired. What I'd like to share with people is how, [geez, I'm kind of getting off-topic. I'll try to recover myself as I go along with this thought,] we are to stay connected and to communicate with the Head, and how we are to communicate with each other, and that so we can utilize this Body we have and get work done. We're only on earth as a pilgrimage for a short while and I want to make the most of it, and that can be done most effectively with the Body working together and not as an individual member. For now I'll only touch on, (and return back to the topic with,) how the members of the Body are to communicate with eachother. We are each, as born-again believers, given a role in the Body. We each have our own position, role to take on, and specific job to do. Just as the eye is to see, the foot is to support, the hand is to handle, the ear is to hear. Our individual jobs are given to us by God of His wise choosing, and the power and ability for our jobs are also provided by Him.
It is the Body of Christ we are a part of, and Christ is God, and we are in God in Christ, and so we have access to all of His abilities and His power. He gives us these of Himself for our work as His Body. We are not to use our own feeble abilities and our incredibly weak "power." To do that is to make hay and stubble that will get burned up come Judgement Day. God gives us what we need to do the jobs He's assigned us to. We are not to be our own "head"s.
God has so arranged the members of His Body that they must work together sharing the spiritual gifts God gave them with each other. By this and this alone the Body will communicate member to member, (as the eye to the hand and the ear to the foot.) The teacher must teach, the one who can discern spirits must discern, the apostle must build churches, the one who can speak in tongues and the one who can interpret them should do so, the prophet must declare prophecies, the encourgager must encourage, and on and on with all the rest. You do these services to one another in the Body to encourage and build it up and to move the Body so it may do it's work. They are for building up the Body and for using it for it's purposes.
The way the majority of Christian churches, (or groups of Christians gathered together in His name, as that is what a church is,) actually function is very, very different from how they are supposed to as part of the Body. By and large the only one using their assumed spiritual gift is the preacher, and even if he does have an active spiritual gift it may not be teaching, to be an apostle, or even to be a shepherd! This is how the churches today, including the RCC churches as I mentioned before, perverse the New Testament pattern for churches. It has become that instead of a many membered Body all working together, it is for the most part a two membered Body: the Head and the preacher. There are Sunday School teachers, youth leaders and small group teachers, but where are the other members and where are the gifts? We are babying the "laity" and not trying to get them to mature to take their place in the Body. We feed milk year after year and never are they ready for meat! What needs to change? We need to begin to function as the Body should, with each member doing his or her job to build the Body and to move it.
I, possibly out of lack of other ideas for now, take the example of the early Quaker meetings for an example of what that should look like when we gather together as the Body to build it up and move it. They had a meeting room in each house and they'd move to a new one each Sunday, (or First Day or whatever they called it.) They'd sit there as a group and wait for the Spirit to lead someone to say something for the benefit of the group, presumably to use their spiritual gift. Now, that's the only way I've read of it being tried, but I don't particularly like it too much. I more imagine the group of Chritians gathered together reading the Bible, studying it, talking about the work God's calling them to do, someone teaching at some point, someone encouraging people, someone taking a stand of faith on something, and the like. Each member performing their duties for their spiritual gift.
None of this preacher and laity thing. That's not Biblical. Not even was it done so disctinctly like that in the Old Testament! Not exactly sure how their Sabbaths were handled way back when, but even in the synagogues I know that it wasn't, (and isn't?) such a preist and laity experience as we have in our churches.
And yes, I believe our modern churches, which have their origin in the RCC through Lutheranism, are, as purtian lad put it, "Constantine's church." He is the one who took poor bishops out working for God and put them in opulent church buildings and set them up comfortably and in political power. Many fell for it, at first seeing it as glory to God, but then getting selfish and losing sight of their true vocation as a Christian and servant of God. That's the birth of the RCC and the beginning of the perversion of the New Testament church.
Now where was I? Oh, yes, I believe that's all I wanted to say! Guess maybe after writing this long post I should go back and finish reading those long articles bizzt so kindly made me feel obligated to read!
Not sure I'll get through all them before I give up again! But thank you all who beared through this long post saturated with views I'm sure many of you have never heard before; I hope it benefits your walk with God somehow.-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
kateliz,
I have conceded the fact that there are some "born again" Catholics, (although rare and certainly not very orthodox Catholics). That said, the teachings of purgatory and indulgences alone are enough to disqualify it from being a Christian church. This is not just a mere disagreement over Biblical Doctrines, but teachings that are totally unscriptural and anti-christian. Those who teach such heresies are plainly teaching another gospel.
Why was the Reformation necessary? It began with a challenge from Martin Luther over the teaching of indulgences. Until the Catholic Church repents of this doctrine and stops teaching it, they are not a Christian church.
I have conceded the fact that there are some "born again" Catholics, (although rare and certainly not very orthodox Catholics). That said, the teachings of purgatory and indulgences alone are enough to disqualify it from being a Christian church. This is not just a mere disagreement over Biblical Doctrines, but teachings that are totally unscriptural and anti-christian. Those who teach such heresies are plainly teaching another gospel.
Why was the Reformation necessary? It began with a challenge from Martin Luther over the teaching of indulgences. Until the Catholic Church repents of this doctrine and stops teaching it, they are not a Christian church.
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
True.puritan lad wrote:the teachings of purgatory and indulgences alone are enough to disqualify it from being a Christian church. This is not just a mere disagreement over Biblical Doctrines, but teachings that are totally unscriptural and anti-christian. Those who teach such heresies are plainly teaching another gospel.
-
j316
- Established Member
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 12:33 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Panama City Florida
I have seen these verses quoted before in defense of your position, but I believe you are being too restrictive. If Christianity is as exclusive as you want to make it then we are left with a works based religion. Of course that is precisely what your calvinist teachings lead to, but it is not what the entire bible says. Your position is too close to the pharisees who crucified your Lord.puritan lad wrote:Define "church" Mr. J. The Church is defined by God and His Word. Like it or not, it is a very exclusive "club", and those who believe in purgatory and "indulgences", those who worship idols. etc. are excluded.
Galatians 1:8
"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed."
2 Corinthians 6:14
"Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness?"
2 Peter 2:1
"But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction."
Enough said.
Heresy is a matter of definition, and all the major denominations are only too happy to define it. You won't find true religion truly expressed by any individual dogma, you need to search to find it.
Jesus was condemned by dogma, do you seriously think He supports it?
KL that was an excellent exposition of your thoughts, I pretty much agree with the way you laid it out.
-
August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
I have seen these verses quoted before in defense of your position, but I believe you are being too restrictive. If Christianity is as exclusive as you want to make it then we are left with a works based religion. Of course that is precisely what your calvinist teachings lead to, but it is not what the entire bible says. Your position is too close to the pharisees who crucified your Lord.
I would like to see an explanation of this in more detail. There is no way that Calvinism leads to a works based religion, the 5 Solas of Calvinism makes that very clear. There are several strong accusations in your post, like equating Calvinists with Pharisees. Either you don't know much about Calvinism, or you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
Ah yes, the modern Jesus. Totally inclusive and undogmatic. The modern Jesus doesn't worry about silly things like doctrine. He just wants everyone to forsake their doctrinal beliefs so that we can all get along, even if you want to pay indulgences to a priest to reduce your time in purgatory. The modern Jesus is just fine with that.
However, that Jesus is totally foreign to the Bible.
The Modern Church: “Don't preach doctrine. That will just divide people. We need to become unified.”
Jesus: “Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.” (John 7:16). “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (Matthew 10:34-37)
The church is restrictive, and anyone who believes in purgatory is excluded. If we truly love these people, we will preach the truth. We do no one any favors by attempting to widen the narrow gates, of which there will be few that find the straight path.
And Jesus was crucified by false teachers, precisely because of His dogma. The pharisees certainly didn't crucify Him because He just wanted to include everybody.
John 6:17-19
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings."
John 6:26
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."
However, that Jesus is totally foreign to the Bible.
The Modern Church: “Don't preach doctrine. That will just divide people. We need to become unified.”
Jesus: “Jesus answered them and said, “My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me.” (John 7:16). “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” (Matthew 10:34-37)
The church is restrictive, and anyone who believes in purgatory is excluded. If we truly love these people, we will preach the truth. We do no one any favors by attempting to widen the narrow gates, of which there will be few that find the straight path.
And Jesus was crucified by false teachers, precisely because of His dogma. The pharisees certainly didn't crucify Him because He just wanted to include everybody.
John 6:17-19
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings."
John 6:26
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
Puritan, your exclusiveness is fine for salvation, I wholly agree with you on that, and the narrow gate should be greatly emphasized. I often wonder if it's more narrow than evangelicals believe it is. I'm sure there are many who fully believe, as well as Christians who know them, that they are Christians, yet they would still try to merit salvation because they have a tiny, hidden belief that they deserve it more than others because they "aren't as sinful."
Kind of like the belief that people who sin "too much" or commit too "grave" of sins couldn't possibly turn to God. A fuller understanding of our sinful natures is what's needed to dispel that, or a fuller teaching on how every sin is as bad as the other. It doesn't matter how dirty it is; if it's dirty it's not clean, and God can only take 100% spotless. Anything less is as bad as all the range of dirty because being dirty in the first place is the only thing that matters.
However, I believe you are too exclusive in your desire to have everyone fit perfectly in with your own doctrines. Don't get me wrong at all, doctrine is truth and anything that's wrong doctrinally is a lie and opposses God. I'm quite firm on that. We should spare no effort in seeking out perfect doctrine. However, no one on earth but Jesus can possibly have perfect doctrine. Doctrine is not only set theology, but a comprehensive understanding in one's heart. (At least in my opinion.) To have perfect doctrine you need a perfect heart, and while on earth none can have that save our spotless Saviour. To expect that from people is expecting way too much. We all have flawed doctrine. That's just a fact. I have flawed doctrine; you have flawed doctrine.
I'm with you 100% on hating inclusiveness in the churches because truth is truth and anything but is a lie. Jesus did come with a sword, not an olive branch. Peace and the kind of unity that ecumenism desires is just not biblical. I detest it as you do.
Kind of like the belief that people who sin "too much" or commit too "grave" of sins couldn't possibly turn to God. A fuller understanding of our sinful natures is what's needed to dispel that, or a fuller teaching on how every sin is as bad as the other. It doesn't matter how dirty it is; if it's dirty it's not clean, and God can only take 100% spotless. Anything less is as bad as all the range of dirty because being dirty in the first place is the only thing that matters.
However, I believe you are too exclusive in your desire to have everyone fit perfectly in with your own doctrines. Don't get me wrong at all, doctrine is truth and anything that's wrong doctrinally is a lie and opposses God. I'm quite firm on that. We should spare no effort in seeking out perfect doctrine. However, no one on earth but Jesus can possibly have perfect doctrine. Doctrine is not only set theology, but a comprehensive understanding in one's heart. (At least in my opinion.) To have perfect doctrine you need a perfect heart, and while on earth none can have that save our spotless Saviour. To expect that from people is expecting way too much. We all have flawed doctrine. That's just a fact. I have flawed doctrine; you have flawed doctrine.
I'm with you 100% on hating inclusiveness in the churches because truth is truth and anything but is a lie. Jesus did come with a sword, not an olive branch. Peace and the kind of unity that ecumenism desires is just not biblical. I detest it as you do.
Very well stated. I'm glad you wrote that for everyone to read.puritan lad wrote:The church is restrictive, and anyone who believes in purgatory is excluded. If we truly love these people, we will preach the truth. We do no one any favors by attempting to widen the narrow gates, of which there will be few that find the straight path.
I fail to find the significance of adding these verses to the discussion. The Jews were divided because Jesus was saying that He was God in that. And for the second verse, everyone believes some sort of different theology as I stated earlier. Just because you have some flawed doctrines, (unless regarding salvation) you are still a sheep. If you used that verse to say that those who don't agree with you aren't Christians I'd be very concerned and upset.puritan lad wrote:John 6:17-19
“Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings."
John 6:26
"But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep."
I'd venture to say he doesn't know that much about Calvinism. One can be too preoccupied with their own denomination to clearly see others. Puritan, I suggest you research it a little. You may be surprised.[/quote]August wrote:Either you don't know much about Calvinism, or you are being deliberately disingenuous.
-
puritan lad
- Esteemed Senior Member
- Posts: 1491
- Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 6:44 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Undecided
- Location: Stuarts Draft, VA
- Contact:
kateliz,
I'm not suggesting that everyone has to agree with all of my doctrines in order to be a Christian. In fact, I've been known to change doctrines myself as they are tested with the Word of God. My goal is to learn as much about the God I serve. Christianity needs doctrine. Without it, it becomes weak and feeble, like the 20th Century version.
The point of my post is that Christianity is exclusive. We cannot just let anything go. The Catholic church, as defined by it's doctrines for the past 1,000 years, is not a Christian church, even though it may have begun that way. It has fallen into an apostasy that it has never repented of.
Even those doctrines that we see as "non-essential", are important and should be thoroughly discussed and debated. Those which are truly "unchristian", such as the ones I mentioned above need to be treated as such, and those who propogate these doctrines, refusing to repent, are to be "accursed". (I know that this sounds strange in modern times, but it is biblical.)
I'm not suggesting that everyone has to agree with all of my doctrines in order to be a Christian. In fact, I've been known to change doctrines myself as they are tested with the Word of God. My goal is to learn as much about the God I serve. Christianity needs doctrine. Without it, it becomes weak and feeble, like the 20th Century version.
The point of my post is that Christianity is exclusive. We cannot just let anything go. The Catholic church, as defined by it's doctrines for the past 1,000 years, is not a Christian church, even though it may have begun that way. It has fallen into an apostasy that it has never repented of.
Even those doctrines that we see as "non-essential", are important and should be thoroughly discussed and debated. Those which are truly "unchristian", such as the ones I mentioned above need to be treated as such, and those who propogate these doctrines, refusing to repent, are to be "accursed". (I know that this sounds strange in modern times, but it is biblical.)
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
I agree with you 100% seeing as how you do now recognize that there are Christians in the RCC despite itself.
And I'm glad to find another stickler for believing only what the Bible teaches. Traditions are deadly. And isn't it terrible that the RCC includes traditions as being something to rely upon for truth?! Ha! Just makes your stomach turn. Traditions are man-made. Truth is above that and does not shackle itself to man-made traditions. I could make a tradition out of anything in the name of God and say that because it's been a tradition so long it is truth. *Shudder*
And I'm glad to find another stickler for believing only what the Bible teaches. Traditions are deadly. And isn't it terrible that the RCC includes traditions as being something to rely upon for truth?! Ha! Just makes your stomach turn. Traditions are man-made. Truth is above that and does not shackle itself to man-made traditions. I could make a tradition out of anything in the name of God and say that because it's been a tradition so long it is truth. *Shudder*
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
I use to detest tradition too, until I realised that NT Scripture was left behind from the Apostolic tradition.kateliz wrote:Traditions are man-made. Truth is above that and does not shackle itself to man-made traditions. I could make a tradition out of anything in the name of God and say that because it's been a tradition so long it is truth. *Shudder*
Kurieuo
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Well Christ taught the Apostles, who during their lifetime passed on teachings regarding Christ. This what I meant by the Apostolic tradition. Although you are right, it is different to the human Christian tradition(s) that developed as time went on, which always need to be realigned with the Apostles teachings. Yet even Catholics accept this point. I suppose what I was getting at is that "all" tradition isn't necessarily a bad thing, and we infact are all influenced by some sort of tradition in our beliefs whether we like to think so or not. So the issue is perhaps whether certain parts of a tradition, especially things we may accept, are good or bad.
Kurieuo.
Kurieuo.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
-
kateliz
- Advanced Senior Member
- Posts: 811
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 2:07 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
- Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota, US
I'm currently fighting a battle against traditions I've always assumed where good. That's how I learned about the preachers/laity thing not being biblical and how God set the Body up to function! You grow up with so much ingrained in you, you really have to read the Bible with a critical eye towards all you've been taught is true.
What I've read in the Catechism has the Churches traditions right up there under the Bible. I'll try to remember to look that up later for all reading this. That's not being willing to constantly hold it in check.
What I've read in the Catechism has the Churches traditions right up there under the Bible. I'll try to remember to look that up later for all reading this. That's not being willing to constantly hold it in check.
-
PHIL121
- Recognized Member
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:28 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: Greensburg PA
OH geez...just glancing at the posts in this folder makes my stomach turn sour. 
While I have some definite problems with the Catholic Church's doctrine and dogma; (have you heard how the Pope is free from any legal action in the Catholic pedophile scandal? Diplomatic immunity, Head of State, the Vatican....why is the ACLU harping about THAT?) the Holy Spirit has pretty much convinced the Apostate Church of the End-times will include not only Catholics, but many members of Protestant denominations as well. I'm sure there will be Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc, all of whom fall prey to the Sin of Legalism.
And considering America has 50% of the world's lawyers, well.....it just doesn't look good.
While I have some definite problems with the Catholic Church's doctrine and dogma; (have you heard how the Pope is free from any legal action in the Catholic pedophile scandal? Diplomatic immunity, Head of State, the Vatican....why is the ACLU harping about THAT?) the Holy Spirit has pretty much convinced the Apostate Church of the End-times will include not only Catholics, but many members of Protestant denominations as well. I'm sure there will be Lutherans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc, all of whom fall prey to the Sin of Legalism.
And considering America has 50% of the world's lawyers, well.....it just doesn't look good.