Featured Blind leading the Blind

1689? Good grief, that is way down the line concerning the Christian experience. The Nicene Creed goes way back to 325 - what took you so long? Of course your guy John Smyth only came up with his take on things around 1608 or so - so I guess that explains things. You got a new religion so you needed a new confession of faith.

 

Perhaps your own allegation describes your own Roman Catholic views which you have not proven to be true to what the Scriptures state and teach.

 

That is a matter of opinion. We have an interpretation of the Scriptures that goes back to the early years of the newly forming Christian Church, while the new interpretation of the Scriptures does not come about until the 16th century. I'm going with the former, thank you very much.

 

You do not prove your own biased opinion to be true and scriptural. You are advocating your opinion. You have not demonstrated that the New Testament states your view and that New Testament churches actually held and taught all your Roman Catholic teachings.

 

From a former Catholic - Adonia it is obvious you are a believer.

OK so you believe the doublethink from your church that every mass is the extension of the one 2000 or so years ago.

Not true. Just sayin.

 

But hasn't the Lord already laid down the way, it being no mystery for he says he that believes shall be saved and he that doesn't shall be damned?

Let me ask you this Adonia, if one could be saved merely by being sincere then why the bother of preaching the gospel anyway? Haven't many paid a dear price in having the courage in doing so?

Why would God therefore lead them into having to experience unnecessarily hardship which takes place sometimes in preaching the gospel. I mean people were kicked out of synagogues, hunted down, their lives destroyed...why not just have had the message whatever you want to believe that'll be fine? Can't we both agree such wasn't fine?

 

Oh I don't know, maybe it's the example of love and sacrifice that needed to be brought out to the world? Jesus showed the way, his followers emulated and then continued to show the way, now all can follow the same path. I can run around all day saying "I'm saved, I'm saved", but if my life does not reflect the love and caring for all that Jesus was the prime example of, it is all for naught. Now I understand that some people think that all they have to do is "accept Jesus" and they will get into heaven, but I am of the opinion that it is not as simple as that.

Is the good Jew in hell with the likes of Hitler? Are some friends of mine who have never set foot in a Church for worship in the last 50 years, but will take a dying stranger into their home in hell with the likes of Hitler? No, I cannot fathom such a God who would countenance such a thing.

Luke 13: 24-30

24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are:

26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets.

27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.

28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.

29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.

30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.​

 

My understanding is that is your answer.

 

Oh come on, let us take the well worn topic of Jesus' "Real Presence" in the Holy Eucharist. That truth has been taught from the beginning. The Apostles believed it, the Early Church Fathers of the newly emerging Christian Church believed it, our Eastern Orthodox brothers continued to believe it (even after the first great schism in Christianity). Even the heretic Martin Luther believed it, and that belief and teaching comes directly from the Scriptures.

In short all of Christendom believed it for centuries. It's only sometime after Luther, that a renegade from the original renegade, a man called Huldrych Zwingli, came out of nowhere with a differing viewpoint. And that like much of orthodox belief's comes directly from the Scriptures, not opinion but historical fact. Like I said before, the only thing you folks got going is a differing scriptural interpretation.

We shall all find out who got it right at some point when we are standing in front of Jesus Himself. Is it us of the Roman Catholic faith tradition? Maybe it is the Pentecostals? Perhaps The JW's got the real truth? Maybe it's the folks from out in Utah who got it all down pat? Hey, who knows, maybe it's the Baptists who were right on the money. But one thing is for certain, at the end of this journey on earth the veil will be lifted so all will see the absolute no holds barred truth.

 

You do not prove your allegations against others to be true nor your assumptions about your own view to be true and scriptural. You have not demonstrated that your Roman Catholic assumptions and interpretations are correct and sound.

Are you ignoring Roman Catholic reliance on tradition?
Do you advocate non-scriptural Roman Catholic tradition as supposedly being doctrines of God?

Do you accept the "orthodox" Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate-only view of Roman Catholics in the 1500's or is that view now non-orthodox?

 

No.

Since Jesus Himself gave the leaders of the Church the power to "bind and loose" things, of course. That fact is completely scriptural, as is the "Apostolic Succession" where one Bishop lays hands on another (ordination) and that Bishop does the same, all the way to this very day. Of course you reject such things, which is your free will right.

While I am familiar with the Latin-Vulgate Bible, the Church's decisions are not stagnant and new decisions can be made, so please elaborate specifically, but if what you mean is what I think you mean, todays Catholic Church looks at all believers in Christ as brothers in the Lord.

The Church no longer wages war and is against the death penalty - so surely you agree with those changes amongst others that have happened through the centuries?

 

Your speculation that cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons could have "the real truth" does not lead to the conclusion that your opinion advocating Roman Catholicism is very credible.

There is some similarity between Roman Catholicism and Mormonism in that both of them diminish the greater authority of the Scriptures with lesser, inferior traditions/opinions of religion.

 

So they weren't "saved" before Jesus came along? My understanding of the OT Jewish process of salvation is that they could indeed be deemed acceptable (saved) to God by the precepts of the Old Law. Perhaps at some point the whole idea in God's mind was that OT Jewish way of salvation was much too difficult for everyone to follow, hence the perfect sacrifice once and for all, His only son, so that the rest of humanity could come to be made acceptable in the eyes of the Creator.

This whole thing of God and salvation has been bandied about forever in the minds of men. The whole Jesus narrative was indeed something very new, this idea of His sacrifice, a perfect love unto physical death, a love so perfect even to the point of loving one's enemies. A bar so high that it could be seen as incomprehensible, but man continues to try - thanks to the example of Christ and others who have followed him to the letter.

Which then brings us back to the starting point of this debate, those people that do not claim Christ yet their very lives are indeed Christlike. What happens to them? Is it the fires of hell or eternal life with God. Is it following the example or merely pronouncing the words the one considers himself a Christian and worshipping God in that manner?

 

Even though the Scriptures themselves speak of "tradition"? Before the Scriptures came about and were written that's all the early Christians were doing - was following the traditions that were being established.

Whether it was the new tradition of worshipping on Sunday, or the way in which worship was conducted, the tradition was established and then written down for future generations of Christians.

Were traditions ended after the first 300 years, or were there other traditions of the Christian Church that evolved? Isn't meeting on Wednesdays nothing but a tradition that was established in non-orthodox circles? Isn't the "altar call" just another tradition? Reciting the "Sinners Prayer" during conversion times perhaps? Couldn't those also be considered "lesser, inferior/opinions of religion" as you describe ours?

 

Mark 7:7-9
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups and many other such like things ye do.
And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God that ye may keep your own tradition.

 

How can someone who rejected/doesn't believe Jesus as the Messiah be saved (Jew or not)?

 

The doctrines and practices of the early Christians would have been far more akin to Baptists than Catholic!