Ancient faith gains believers!

Here was a very popular Scripture quote of the Waldensians that they would sometimes put on wills and documents that have survived:

Protestants however don’t have this book. It is fascinating to see historically how this group gave up some of the books in their bible to make the transition to joining the Protestants.

The Waldensians would have spirited debates with Catholic priests, but would not debate the Albigenses, because the Waldensians did not consider Albigenses to be Christians.

Waldensians started out as Catholics and eventually joined the Protestants.

 

Catholics would call this Sanctifying Grace, the life of Christ within us. Actually, some Protestants also believe in Sanctification.

 

As I see it both are just ways of describing being transformed into the image of Jesus, God Incarnate, as per eg Rom 12:1-2

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I agree.

1 Peter 1:
15. but like the Holy One who called you, be holy yourselves also in all your behavior;
16. because it is written, "YOU SHALL BE HOLY, FOR I AM HOLY."

 

Funny; the Church fathers are the ones always used to project the later Catholic practices back into the NT. Also funny; in the The theological bankruptcy of Sola Scriptura thread; Matt posted a link to piney.com (what are they, some radical Primitive Baptists or Campbellites or something?); which makes arguments against not only musical instruments, but also all music; even vocal! They argue that that, along with the complex liturgies and incense were types of the true "worship in spirit and truth"; which is just preaching, Bible reading and praying. (I guess things like "spiritual songs" is allegorized). God allowed the music of David to the "carnal Israelites" until Christ came. There is much quoting from Clemant of Alexandria, who taught stuff like this. While on the music and instruments; I seriously disagree; as they do not have enough solid proof that they are shadows or types like sacrifices and othe other stuff (they try to associate it with the pagans and warfare, and that David was just a king, "like the other nations had", which Israel demanded in rebellion.) But with the incense and complex liturgy; that did all seem like a shadow or type of Heaven; as we see it used in Rev.
The New Trestament Christians did not have cathedrals where they could do all of this stuff. They were mostly in homes; or even in hiding. I think if all of that was being practiced, you would see some mention of it. For one thing; like with the spiritual gifts in 1 Cor. people would definitely be doing things wrong, and be corrected for it! So things as significant as that could not escape at least some addressing.

And where does it say you have to stand? That's another manmade rule; even moreso than pews; (which is nothing more, then the shape of chairs!)

What really is the difference? Isn't this "ransom of death" based on original sin? And I guess I need to make sure of what I understand as original sin. To Evangelicals; it would be simply the sin nature we have inherited from Adam. In Catholicism; it is a bit different; isn't it? (For any religion to teach works-salvation; man's sin nature would have to be denied somehow). So I wonder how the EOC position is different from either.

I wouldn't call that deification. Deification would be actually becoming God; not simply like Him. We do not become God, unless the Mormons, or Armstrong's "God family" doctrine are right.

 

Eric
"the Church fathers are the ones always used to project the later Catholic practices back into the NT."
"
To be fair it could be argued that a couple of our own practices could have been projected into the Bible by the Reformers while those Churchfathers were simply clarifying obscure bits of the NT.

"What really is the difference? Isn't this "ransom of death" based on original sin?"
"
Eastern-Orthodoxy doesn't believe in original sin, at least not as defined by Augustine. which is the definition used by much of Western Christendom.
To horribly simplify the difference.
Westerners, Original Sin is forgiven by God because Jezus took our punishment for us.
Easterners, the sacrifice of Jezus makes it possible for us to grow more into the image of the Divine, which was our purpose from the beginning.

"where does it say you have to stand?"
"
According to Eastern-Orthodoxy early Christians stood during church services, so so do they.
What is certain is that they have been doing it that way for over 1500 years at the very least. This bit of tradition may very well stretch all the way back to the first century. That's not much of a reason in your ears (after all if such a detail is not spelled out in Scripture how important can it be?), but Eastern-Orthodox Christendom is very conservative, introducing seats at this point in time would start a fight as seriously as the KJVO controversy in their minds.
The Bible seems to suggest that the correct procedure is to take communion lying down ( just retread the account of the Last Supper).

 

john 6:63>>>...After years and years of being brainwashed about Catholicism, I am enjoying learning and getting a better perspective of this denomination. <<<

Hello john 6:63

That is an intriguing statement. In your view, who brainwashed you about Catholicism, and what is the biggest and most persistent untruth told about us Catholics?

your brother,

raymond

 

The Russian Orthodox church, was officially planted in 988 by the Greek Orthodox Churches with the baptism of Prince Vladimir and the nation following him in his choice. The Liturgy and order of service has been the same until today, being as the language was Russian and to hard for anyone to learn, outside influences were unable to shake it. Resultingly the Liturgical confession of Christ in the Russian Orthodox Church is as strong as in a Baptist service. As I see it, they were saved by a powerfull move of God in tenth century, although we dont relate to that style of service these days, traditionally many have been born again through that. I think we take that a little too lightly at times.

 

Well, to me, it looks like both, not one or the other. Jesus took our punishment, freing us from the curse of spiritual separation and enmity; which now allows us to grow more intot he image of God. Perhaps it's the one-or-the-other approach of both churches that leaves their gospels incomplete to begin with?

So still; there's absolutely no scriptural proof. Hence "projected back". (I know Protestants do it to. That whole "Waldansians-Anabaptists-________" [just fill in your group; Baptist, JW, Church of Christ, sabbatarian; etc] chain being the primary example.)

 

Er...I'm not sure I did?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The Tertullian link on p.20. The one you said "this is turgid stuff".

 

Oh.Right. I'm not sure who they are either. I just tend to do a Google search under a particular name and post a link or two that comes up with the salient information. Anyone else is of course free to do that - just put in 'Tertullian' into your search engine and see what comes up

Yours in Christ

Matt