Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, Orthodox don't believe in eternal security: Orthodox, like Catholics and Arminians, are synergist in their soteriology ie: they believe that the believer co-operates with God's saving grace to maintain his/her salvation and that therefore that salvation may be forfeit if the believer repudiates that grace, wereas Calvinists and Lutherans are monergist ie: they believe that God's grace alone saves and that the believer is powerless to assist in or resist that.

Almost Matt Almost. Calvinists believe that somewhere in the process that the individual submits & repents but once we have Gods saving grace, we cannot loose it. I can show you commentary by Spurgeon to support it if you want to see it however I know you trust my interpretation.:thumbs:

 

[Zenas]

I understand you are trying to be tactful and think you know me. You don't know me and you do not know what has shaped my theology. My theology was shaped before I ever went to Seminary. Seminary gave me tools but did not shape or determine my beliefs. What shaped and determined by beliefs is that I believe the Bible is God's Word and in connection with that belief I have spent untold number of hours immersing myself in intense studying of it and what I have gained from intense study has shaped my beliefs and NOTHING ELSE.

Indeed, those within my own denomination would readily tell you that I am a free thinker and am willing to isolate myself from the rest of the pack simply and only due to my own convictions based on intense study of God's Word. So your estimation is completely wrong.

That may well be but there are two things you have advocated on this thread that you did not learn by reading the Bible:

1. Your hatred of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant faiths.

2. That the Bible contains the entire deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints.

 

[drfuss]

No, Orthodox don't believe in eternal security: Orthodox, like Catholics and Arminians, are synergist in their soteriology ie: they believe that the believer co-operates with God's saving grace to maintain his/her salvation and that therefore that salvation may be forfeit if the believer repudiates that grace, wereas Calvinists and Lutherans are monergist ie: they believe that God's grace alone saves and that the believer is powerless to assist in or resist that.

According to a Lutheran Website, Lutherans believe that after trusting in Christ, a Christian can stop trusting Christ and forfeit his salvation. However, he can repent of his apostacy and again have salvation.

My studies have shown that Lutherans believe in unconditional election in becoming a Christian, but grace is resistible after one becomes a Christian. Martin Luther was an Augustine Monk and followed the teachings of Augustine on this issue.

Perhaps, there are some Lutherans on here that can comment on this.

 

[WestminsterMan]

If you think you can mock God's word, clearly expressed over and over again in Scripture, then that's just where you will be going. The Roman catholics and Orthodox commit this sin in ignorance. Protestants who do it are sinning against the light. If I were you, I'd get that picture off the wall and dump the crucifix in the bin. Seriously.

Steve

Please… Catholics know the passages of scripture very well that warn against idolatry. They preach against it. They have admonitions against it in their catechism. They have perfectly rational explanations as to why their practices are NOT idolatry. They are:

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

Are there some Catholics who are guilty of idolatry? Absolutely – but that doesn’t come from their doctrine. Are there some Baptists who are guilty of idolatry? Certainly – but that doesn’t come from their doctrine either. Idolatry runs the gambit. One can idolize money, sex, power, drugs, etc.

Seriously!

WM

 

[Dr. Walter]

Munster? And don't tell me no Free Church members were never involved in the lynching of blacks in the Deep South.

No-one gets off scot-free in the atrocities stakes.

Evidence please? No generalties please! Just evidence!

 

[Dr. Walter]

That may well be but there are two things you have advocated on this thread that you did not learn by reading the Bible:

1. Your hatred of the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant faiths.

The Bible is the very antithesis of Romanism and Reformed Romanism. One would have to be woefully blind and spiritually ignorant to the utmost degree to see any ground of reconciliation between God's Word and Romanism whatsoever. It is that obvious! They mutilate the gospel of Jesus Christ! They pervert the scriptures with their rash hands. One must be deaf, dumb, blind and spiritually dead to even defend Romanism by the Scriptures - that is how obvious the divide is between what Rome says and what God says.

2. That the Bible contains the entire deposit of faith that was once delivered to the saints.

It is hard to believe that anyone that could even suggest, much less say in any kind of objective candor what you say above. It shows supreme ignorance of God's Word - supreme ignorance! From cover to cover the Bible claims to be God's Word and God's Word is ALWAYS to be regarded as final and authoritive over traditions and opinions of men. The Bible claims to be the final authority (Isa. 8:20; 2 Tim. 3:15-16) and it claims to be FINISHED through the apostles of Jesus Christ (Isa. 8:16-20; John 14-17; Rev. 1:1-3; 22:18-19).

 

[Dr. Walter]

Please… Catholics know the passages of scripture very well that warn against idolatry. They preach against it. They have admonitions against it in their catechism. They have perfectly rational explanations as to why their practices are NOT idolatry. They are:

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

Are there some Catholics who are guilty of idolatry? Absolutely – but that doesn’t come from their doctrine. Are there some Baptists who are guilty of idolatry? Certainly – but that doesn’t come from their doctrine either. Idolatry runs the gambit. One can idolize money, sex, power, drugs, etc.

Seriously!

WM

Every heresy can provide a logical explanation why they defile the scriptures. What's new?

However, I have placed a post on this subject with three simple points and you or no one else has attempted to respond to? If you are able to respond please do. I will await your perfectly rational explanation.......

 

[Dr. Walter]

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

Actually, I have addressed the issue in The Roman Catholic Controversy and in my debate with Patrick Madrid on Long Island relative to the veneration of saints and angels. The topic illustrates, very clearly, the difference between deriving your theology from God's divine revelation in Scripture and deriving it from other sources. There simply is no biblical basis for saying it is acceptable to give service to created beings but only worship to God, for both concepts are part and parcel of the single meaning of "worship" in Scripture. "You shall worship and serve God alone" cannot be changed into "you shall worship God alone; but as long as you call your religious devotion 'service' you can 'serve' Mary and angels and saints, too." The Bible not only does not recognize such a distinction, it denies it, both lexicographically (both latria and dulia trace back to biblical usages and both terms refer to divine worship) as well as by direct assertion. Paul refers to the idolatry that marked the pagan past of the Galatians as "service" in Galatians 4:8 ("However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves ["served," root term being douleuo, leading to dulia in Latin] to those which by nature are no gods"). So if one begins with the Word as your ultimate authority, no amount of quibbling from later sources will change the reality of the definition of worship. And believe me, ask Uzzah if God is serious about the topic of worship (2 Samuel 6:3-7).

Aquinas does not define biblical terms, and his comments are not reflective of biblical usage. Later uses of "worship" in any language are, likewise, utterly irrelevant, of course, as that would lead to the common error of anachronism, reading later uses back into the biblical context. Of course, that is exactly what Rome does. I have heard many an apologist use old or middle English uses of "worship" as if this is somehow relevant to the matter at hand, and, of course, it is not. Can you picture it? A man is caught bowing down before a Baal in Moses' day in his tent. He is brought before Moses, and when asked for a reason for his idolatry, the man replies, "Oh, that wasn't idolatry. Don't you know that someday, in a language that will come into broad use in about 3,000 years, you will be able to argue for a less strict use of the term?" I'm sure that would go over about as well as the, "Oh, I wasn't worshipping the idol by bowing down and lighting candles before it, I was giving it dulia instead" excuse. Both excuses would go with the idolater under a pile of rocks.

So the better question to ask would be, upon what basis does any Roman Catholic believe the distinction he or she embraces that allows him or her to bow down before a statue and light candles and repeat prayers will stand before the holy God who gave us His Word and who has revealed that He seeks pure worship? - James White

 

[Dr. Walter]

Actually, I have addressed the issue in The Roman Catholic Controversy and in my debate with Patrick Madrid on Long Island relative to the veneration of saints and angels. The topic illustrates, very clearly, the difference between deriving your theology from God's divine revelation in Scripture and deriving it from other sources. There simply is no biblical basis for saying it is acceptable to give service to created beings but only worship to God, for both concepts are part and parcel of the single meaning of "worship" in Scripture. "You shall worship and serve God alone" cannot be changed into "you shall worship God alone; but as long as you call your religious devotion 'service' you can 'serve' Mary and angels and saints, too." The Bible not only does not recognize such a distinction, it denies it, both lexicographically (both latria and dulia trace back to biblical usages and both terms refer to divine worship) as well as by direct assertion. Paul refers to the idolatry that marked the pagan past of the Galatians as "service" in Galatians 4:8 ("However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves ["served," root term being douleuo, leading to dulia in Latin] to those which by nature are no gods"). So if one begins with the Word as your ultimate authority, no amount of quibbling from later sources will change the reality of the definition of worship. And believe me, ask Uzzah if God is serious about the topic of worship (2 Samuel 6:3-7).

Aquinas does not define biblical terms, and his comments are not reflective of biblical usage. Later uses of "worship" in any language are, likewise, utterly irrelevant, of course, as that would lead to the common error of anachronism, reading later uses back into the biblical context. Of course, that is exactly what Rome does. I have heard many an apologist use old or middle English uses of "worship" as if this is somehow relevant to the matter at hand, and, of course, it is not. Can you picture it? A man is caught bowing down before a Baal in Moses' day in his tent. He is brought before Moses, and when asked for a reason for his idolatry, the man replies, "Oh, that wasn't idolatry. Don't you know that someday, in a language that will come into broad use in about 3,000 years, you will be able to argue for a less strict use of the term?" I'm sure that would go over about as well as the, "Oh, I wasn't worshipping the idol by bowing down and lighting candles before it, I was giving it dulia instead" excuse. Both excuses would go with the idolater under a pile of rocks.

So the better question to ask would be, upon what basis does any Roman Catholic believe the distinction he or she embraces that allows him or her to bow down before a statue and light candles and repeat prayers will stand before the holy God who gave us His Word and who has revealed that He seeks pure worship? - James White

When we come to the New Testament... we discover that there is absolutely no distinction made between [dulia and latria] relevant to religious worship. As an example, we note Galatians 4:8

However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

But when you did not know God, you served, or were slaves to, those which by nature are not gods. Paul is speaking of the former idolatry of the Galatians.

They served (dulia) idols, those which by nature are not gods at all. Are we to assume, then, on the basis of the Roman Catholic definitions, that since they only served these idols that they were free from the charge of idolatry, since they didn't give latria as well? Of course not! Their service of these idols was wrong whether the term latria or dulia was used. In fact, in the Latin Vulgate, both duleuo (to serve) and latreuo (to worship) are rendered by the same term, servio. No matter how the defender of Rome tries, no basis can possibly be found in Scripture for the distinction of latria and dulia. - James White

 

[Dr. Walter]

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

John Calvin on Latria and Dulia

A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE
In fact, the distinction between latria and dulia, as they called them, was invented in order that divine honors might seem to be transferred with impunity to angels and the dead. For it is obvious that the honor the papists give to the saints really does not differ from the honoring of God. Indeed, they worship both God and the saints indiscriminately, except that, when they are pressed, they wriggle out with the excuse that they keep unimpaired for God what is due him because they leave latria to him. But since the thing itself, not the word, is in question, who can permit them to make light of this most important of all matters?



But — to pass over this also — their distinction in the end boils down to this: they render honor [cultus] to God alone, but undergo servitude [servitium] for the others. For latreia, among the Greeks means the same thing as cultus among the Latins; douleia properly signifies servitus; and yet in Scripture this distinction is sometimes blurred. But suppose we concede it to be unvarying. Then we must inquire what both words mean: douleia is servitude; latreia, honor. Now no one doubts that it is greater to be enslaved than to honor. For it would very often be hard for you to be enslaved to one whom you were not unwilling to honor. Thus it would be unequal dealing to assign to the saints what is greater and leave to God what is lesser. Yet many of the old writers used this distinction. What, then, if all perceive that it is not only inept but entirely worthless?

 

[Dr. Walter]

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

Catholicism's FALSE Worship!

When Is Worship Not Worship?

Those who would defend Roman Catholicism persistently press the illogical and invalid assertion that the Roman cult neither teaches nor in fact practices worship of Mary. They argue that, as concerns Mary and the other ghosts in the RCC pantheon, worship does not mean worship and venerate does not mean worship and render homage does not mean worship and pray to does not mean worship and sacrifice to does not mean worship. Words can be used to convey many meanings, a fact the Magisterium has consistently used to its own purpose.

Regardless of what those who speak in Rome's cause may claim or of how they redefine word meanings, the Roman Catholic hierarchy indeed do foster mariolatry, worship of things and the spirits of the dead. When the Ladies' Sodality meets every night in the chapel to toll their beads and pray the Rosary, they are rendering worship to Mary. When a little old man struggles up to a statue of Mary and, falling to his knees before it, places coins in a box, lights a candle and offers prayers to her, that is worship. When a Blackrobed Benedictine oblate prays to St. Maurus and calls upon him to heal a dying child, he is not only praying to a spirit for a miracle but actually is rendering a low-level of worship. When the Catholic faithful genuflect or cross themselves when passing in front of the tabernacle where a consecrated host is kept, they might claim they are rendering honors to Christ, but the fact is they are paying homage to a cracker.

As one Christian theologian wrote:

"The same worship is rendered to Mary as to Christ. Churches are built to her honour; her shrines are crowded with devotees; enriched with their gifts; and adorned with their votive offerings. To her prayers are addressed as to a divine being, and blessing are asked as from one who has power to bestow them. Her votaries are taught to pray, 'Spare us, good Lady,' and 'From all evil, good Lady, deliver us.' Five annual festivals celebrate her greatness, and keep alive the devotion of her worshippers. In Roman Catholic countries the dawn is ushered in with hymns to her honour; her praises are again chanted at noon, and the day is closed with an Ave Maria sung to the Lady of Heaven." (James A. Wylie, The Papacy, London (1852) p. 370)

At this point, perhaps it would be well to define a few terms. The words veneration and worship are used often in catechisms and other RCC documents. Surely the meanings of these words are clearly understood by Catholics, religious and laity alike. One older Catholic dictionary provides these definitions:

"VENERATION. The word commonly used to express in English that worship given to saints either directly or through images and relics

"WORSHIP. Adoration and reverence paid to God…also for the honor paid to the saints….veneration." (William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, Eds., A Catholic Dictionary containing some account of the doctrine, discipline, rites, ceremonies, councils and religious orders of the Catholic Church, Catholic Publication Society:New York (1884); w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Interesting that this Catholic dictionary uses the word worship to define veneration and then goes on to define worship as adoration, reverence and veneration. Granted, the dictionary does draw distinctions between levels of worship rendered to God and to saints. However, this source does clearly give the lie to ill-informed Catholic apologists who would assert that Catholics do not worship their saints. Perhaps the problem lies with the age of this dictionary. A more recent Catholic dictionary provides no definition of worship but does address veneration:

"Veneration of the Saints: Devotion to the saints, who are invoked in recognition of their presence before God and thus capable of intercession on behalf of the living and those suffering in purgatory; they are particularly honored as patron saints because of their example in this life…The reverence shown the saints, called dulia, must be distinguished from latria, the worship and adoration given to God alone." (Peter M.J. Stravinskas, Ed., Catholic Dictionary, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc:Huntington (1993)

In this Catholic dictionary, the words devotion and reverence are used to help define veneration while worship and adoration are used to distinguish between the service rendered to saints and that given to God. Should one press the issue and seek to learn how this Catholic source defines the terms used, the issue becomes more clouded.

"Adoration: An outward act of giving worship to a person or object. Both the Old and New Testaments give clear indications that God requires exclusive adoration from His creatures…Adoration may also be internal (e.g., contemplative prayers." (Stravinskas, Op. cit.)

So, adoration is an outward act of worship that may be internal. It is giving worship to a person or thing but should be rendered to God alone. Yeah, that's clear.

Some Catholic apologists might be quick to point to the differences between dulia and latria as evidence that Catholics do not worship Mary or any of the saints in the Roman Pantheon. However, this is playing with word meanings – semantics, if you will.

"WORSHIP. The unique adoration and reverence paid to God, called latria; the word is sometimes used for the honour paid to the saints (dulia), but this is better distinguished by some word such as "veneration." (Donald Attwater, Ed., A Catholic Dictionary, The MacMillan Company:New York (1942); w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur).

Given the above definitions, it would appear that one is not in error when claiming that Catholics worship Mary, as well as things and other ghosts. This may be simply innocence on the part of ill-prepared Catholic apologists who do not understand that latria, hyperdulia and dulia are but various levels of worship, as is clearly explained by a trusted Catholic source:

"The word worship (Saxon weorthscipe, "honour"; from worth, meaning "value", "dignity", "price", and the termination, ship; Lat. cultus) in its most general sense is homage paid to a person or a thing. In this sense we may speak of hero-worship, worship of the emperor, of demons, of the angels, even of relics, and especially of the Cross. This article will deal with Christian worship according to the following definition: homage paid to God, to Jesus Christ, to His saints, to the beings or even to the objects which have a special relation to God.

"There are several degrees of this worship:

? if it is addressed directly to God, it is superior, absolute, supreme worship, or worship of adoration, or, according to the consecrated theological term, a worship of latria. This sovereign worship is due to God alone; addressed to a creature it would become idolatry.

? When worship is addressed only indirectly to God, that is, when its object is the veneration of martyrs, of angels, or of saints, it is a subordinate worship dependent on the first, and relative, in so far as it honours the creatures of God for their peculiar relations with Him; it is designated by theologians as the worship of dulia, a term denoting servitude, and implying, when used to signify our worship of distinguished servants of God, that their service to Him is their title to our veneration (cf. Chollet, loc. cit., col. 2407, and Bouquillon, Tractatus de virtute religionis, I, Bruges, 1880, 22 sq.).

(Continued next post)

 

[Dr. Walter]

dulia: honoring the saints (as in honor the father and thy mother)
hyper-dulia: a higher level of honor for Mary – the mother of God
latria: Worship reserved God alone

Catholicism False Worship (continued)


? As the Blessed Virgin has a separate and absolutely supereminent rank among the saints, the worship paid to her is called hyperdulia (for the meaning and history of these terms see Suicer, Thesaurus ecclesiasticus, 1728)." (F. Cabrol,Worship, The Catholic Encyclopedia

Once again, it bears noting that words such as devotion, veneration and honours are used in defining the term worship. Perhaps this is not convincing for, trustworthy Catholic source that it may be, the Catholic Encyclopedia is not an official source of Catholic teaching. Let us turn now to the Catechism:

"971. "'All generations will call me blessed': 'The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship.'[Lk 1:48 ; Paul VI, MC 56.]The Church rightly honors 'the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs.... This very special devotion ... differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration.'[LG 66.] The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an 'epitome of the whole Gospel,' express this devotion to the Virgin Mary.[Cf. Paul VI, MC 42; SC 103.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, (1994); United States Catholic Conference, Inc – Libreria Editrice Vaticana)

Notice that in this official source, we are taught that devotion to Mary is a vital part of Catholic worship. In the citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia, devotion was used to define the special worship rendered to God alone.

"2132. "The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, 'the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,' and 'whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it.'[St. Basil, De Spiritu Sancto 18, 45: PG 32, 149C; Council of Nicaea II: DS 601; cf. Council of Trent: DS 1821-1825; Vatican Council II: SC 126; LG 67.] The honor paid to sacred images is a 'respectful veneration,' not the adoration due to God alone:

"Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.[St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II, 81, 3 ad 3.]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Op. cit.)

Sonuvagun! Here, the Catechism talks of the veneration rendered images and such. The Catholic Encyclopedia used the same word to describe the worship tendered saints.

The thinking Catholic might acknowledge that, in the face of the foregoing evidence, Catholics indeed do worship Mary, saints and things. However, he likely then will seek to dismiss this clear infraction of the First Commandment by pointing out that the Catholic sources that use the word worship in reference to things and saints and such clearly define that it is not the adoration they give only to God.

Let me draw a parallel from the real world to demonstrate the flaws in the above argument. Notice my use of the word in these statements: 1) I love my wife; 2) I love cheesecake; 3) I love sleeping late. Each of these is a true statement; however, each expresses a different degree of love. All are accurate uses of the word, which has many applications.

One wonders why Roman Catholics have such a difficult time admitting that the word worship similarly has multiple levels of application. Rome has an arsenal of definitions for worship and draws from it according to the needs of the moment. The Catholic apologist is quick to point out that, should the RCC declare that the worship or veneration given to the saints is not the adoration that belongs to God, it shows that a clear line has been drawn as to what the church wants.

At this point it is worth noting that most Christians who post to this board have demonstrated a consistent literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic, whether looking at a passage in the Word of God or a logia from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I do not recall any Christian post here that adamantly argued that Catholic teaching required worship be offered to Mary and other spirits and things in the same manner or at the same level as that rendered to God. Like the cult of Mithra, from which so much of RCC doctrine and practice is derived, Catholicism is explicit in declaring three levels of worship for her gods and sacred objects. Rome has declared, in her Catechism, in her Code of Canon Law, in her councils and papal pronouncements, in her breviaries, liturgies and church calendars, that worship is tendered, at different levels, to God Almighty, Mary and all the pantheon of saints and to their leavings.

In an interesting sidebar, the Second Council of Nicea elected to use the word proskunei in addressing the veneration to be rendered to images rather than dulia, the preferred word for such veneration. Proskunei is found in Acts 10:25-26, where it is recorded for all time as the word used to describe the worship the Centurion Cornelius sought to render Peter. (Definition of the Sacred Images and Tradition, Council of Nicea II, (787), Denzinger 302)

Acts 10:25-26, "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped [proskunei] him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."

Golly gee! A council of the Catholic Church used the word to describe the worship due objects that the Holy Spirit used to describe the inappropriate worship Cornelius attempted to give Peter. Guess there are times when the RCC indeed does teach that things are to be worshipped.

This passage is made more interesting when one considers the RCC fantasy of apostolic succession. In Acts 10, Peter refused to permit people to bow down to him or to worship him in any way, yet those who claim to be his successors offer their hands or rings or feet to be kissed and seem to enjoy being carried about on the shoulders of men, just like those idols the churches parade through the streets every now and then.

Has the Roman Catholic Church in fact, if not in their written word, elevated Mary to the level of deity? I believeit has.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Isaiah 45:19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

Isaiah 45:20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

Isaiah 45:21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 45:22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.

 

[Matt Black]

Evidence please? No generalties please! Just evidence!

Munster and its abuses is of course well-documented. The SBC was founded on racist tenets and members assisted in the foundation of the KKK. Interesting discussion here

 

[Dr. Walter]

Munster and its abuses is of course well-documented. The SBC was founded on racist tenets and members assisted in the foundation of the KKK. Interesting discussion here

You response and evidence is given to prove that RACIAL persecution should be equated with RELIGOUS persecution or else there is no reason for you to provide the article. Hence, you have not provided any evidence that Baptist persecuted and killed others or forced them to accept Baptists beleifs.

In regard to RACIAL persecution the New Testament is full of admonitions forbidding it. Colossians, Ephesians and Philemon deal with the mistreatment of slaves explicitly. Colossians and Ephesians deal with the mistreatment of the wife and children by the Husband. However, you cannot equate mistreatment of slaves or family members as equal to persecution and killing of others due to religious differences. True, they are all wrong but they are not all synonymous.

However, if you read the history of the Southern Baptist Convention in regard to the issue of slavery, the convention did not support any kind of mistreatment of slaves but rather practiced the Pauline instructions given to slave Masters in Ephesians and Colossians. You have found just one example of a Baptist preacher who participated in the mistreatment of slaves. However, it could be equally argued that Paul would not have had to instruct Master's of slaves in New Testament churches to not mistreat their slaves if the slaves were never mistreated by members of the very churches he addresses.

The letter to Philemon is in part written in order to help Onesimus avoid mistreatment by Philemon for running away.

I still await for any evidence that Baptists as a people, as a denomination ever persecuted or killed anyone, including slaves for their religious beleifs or attempted to force others to embrace their beliefs. All you have provided is evidence that one Baptist Pastor was given to RACIAL persecution not RELIGIOUS persecution.

 

[Matt Black]

Now you're changing the goalposts: I simply said that no-one denomination has a get-out when it comes to atrocities. It matters didly-squat to me whether that was on racial, religious, social, cultural, whatever grounds. Google is your friend when it comes to evidence of SBC collusion with the KKK and other forms of racist behaviour; I don't have time to do your homework for you (you're the student, I'm trying to hold down a full-time job here!), for which the SBC has now rightly repented.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Now you're changing the goalposts: I simply said that no-one denomination has a get-out when it comes to atrocities. It matters didly-squat to me whether that was on racial, religious, social, cultural, whatever grounds. Google is your friend when it comes to evidence of SBC collusion with the KKK and other forms of racist behaviour; I don't have time to do your homework for you (you're the student, I'm trying to hold down a full-time job here!), for which the SBC has now rightly repented.

Why don't you save yourself a lot of trouble and just say there are no perfect saints, all are sinners? If sin is the issue then who is not without it. However, that was not the issue was it? The issue is that one cheif characteristic of false religion is that it persecutes and kills others for their RELIGIOUS views not their racial views, or any other sins that may be attributed to a particular church of any denomination. This is not a trait that characterizes true Christiany in any age but it is a trait that CHARACTERIZED Roman Catholicism for CENTURIES.

 

[Matt Black]

Your evidence doesn't add up or support your thesis: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Agers, Astrologers, Spiritualists etc, all practise false religions, yet none of them persecute those who do not adhere to their particular bogus brand. No, I think you were bang on the money when you said that sinners sin - even to the point of committing murder. That's all there is to it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your evidence doesn't add up or support your thesis: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Agers, Astrologers, Spiritualists etc, all practise false religions, yet none of them persecute those who do not adhere to their particular bogus brand. No, I think you were bang on the money when you said that sinners sin - even to the point of committing murder. That's all there is to it.

If you will return to my original post, I was listing the cheif characteristics of the Great Whore and specifically Revelation 17:6 - the murder of Christians. It was at that juncture I then went to John 16:1-4 to list several characteristics of apostate religion which were (1) murdering professed believers in the name of God; (2) state church union; (3) predicted apostate doctrine; etc. I emphasized the first one as the cheif mark of "The Great Whore" and her harlot daughters.

All false religion falls under one or more of these characteristics but the Great Whore, of whom I was specifically referring to is marked by all three characteistics. If you are an honest man, you will go back and take note that my discussion concerning killing others in the name of God was directed toward the Great Whore or Romanism rather than any and every false religion.

 

[Matt Black]

But if you are correct, then Catholics should be killing other Christians more recently than the 16th century - Rev 17 is after all eschatological in nature - eg: if you believe that we are living in the End Times, you would expect the Papacy to be issuing the Catholic equivalent of fatwas against all evangelical Christians today. Newsflash - it isn't, therefore your theory once again collapses. You can't shoehorn atrocities from the past into an eschatological text about the future!!!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Your evidence doesn't add up or support your thesis: Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Agers, Astrologers, Spiritualists etc, all practise false religions, yet none of them persecute those who do not adhere to their particular bogus brand. No, I think you were bang on the money when you said that sinners sin - even to the point of committing murder. That's all there is to it.

"Jn. 16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.

This is prophetic and specifically applied to Judaisms response to New Covenant Christianity. However, there is a deeper principle here that characterizes false religion from the time of Cain until the destruction of the Great Whore of Revelation.

Satan is a MURDER and so are his RELIGIOUS children and RELIGIOIUS institutions. If they cannot MURDER the very person of a child of God they will MURDER their character and doctrine by misrepresentation (Mt. 5:10-12). They will speak evil and misrepresent true Christianity even as they did John the Baptist and Jesus. The Great Whore is a murderer of God's people (Rev. 17:6).

The very character of their doctrine and practice invalidates their word in regard to their enemies and their true enemies will always be the true churches of God." - DW

Here are my words. I said that "murder" of either their person OR their character characterize Satan's people from Cain forward. I specifically applied this to the Great Whore and gave Rev. 17:6 as reference.

Factually, I was only speaking of false religion up to the Reformation period as that was my frame of reference. After that period laws were passed in most countries that forbid religious persecution. This should be obvious or else I would be making this charge of Rome TODAY.