Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?

[Thinkingstuff]

"I compare Orthodoxy to Catholicism."
--Now why would I do that? Every time any Catholic doctrine is or has been discussed on this board you have been one of the first to defend it. Most of the time posters have not been able to distinguish if you are a Catholic or non-Catholic because you speak like a Catholic on any Catholic related thread. You defend Catholic doctrine. Agnus, have you ever heard the expression: When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then....? To most people reading these threads, Agnus, if you had not told them outright, you would be classified as a Catholic. They would not know the difference. You speak just like one. For the little differences between Orthodox and the RCC are not very important in the light of the bigger picture here, for you have portrayed yourself well as a Catholic.

I have portrayed the RCC to eastern religions when applicable.
If the RCC treats Mary as a god, and they do, then that is polytheism, just like the Hindus.
If the RCC believes that water (H2O), i.e., baptism saves them, and they do, then they believe the same as the Hindus who also believe that they can wash away their sins by baptizing themselves in the holy waters of the Ganges River. It is a superstitious belief. Water cannot wash away sin.
--To say that I got that information from Hunt or Cloud or anyone else is foolishness and a false accusation.
The RCC is a pagan religion, always has been a pagan religion, always will be a pagan religion. Is my take on this novel? Not at all.
Go look in some of the most common commentaries on the WEB. Look at Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, and some of the other old standard commentaries that are available at e-sword or ccel. Find out what they say, when you look up:

Revelation 17:5-6 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.
Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Read the Reformers and see what their commentaries say. They all with one accord say the same thing. There are only two possible views among these writers--that this person is either the antichrist or the false prophet, and that being the case, it is the Pope, the head of the RCC.
This is not just my view.
Pagan is pagan. Pagan Rome or RCC is just as pagan as pagan Hinduism.
An unsaved Catholic needs Christ as much as an unsaved Hindu.
Both are on their way to Hell.

Just a point. Those guys you mention all quote the same source. And for literary work they don't seem to quote enough. And the prostitute could easily be the Rome that Martyred the Christians under Caligula and Nero. BTW in CHP 12 of the same book who is the woman crowned with 12 stars?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff...

"BTW in CHP 12 of the same book who is the woman crowned with 12 stars?"

This is one of the verses the Catholics and Orthodox use to perpetuate their goddess worship.


The "woman" is Israel, who gave, or "gave birth" to, Christ. The 12 stars represent the 12 tribes of Israel.




:godisgood:

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Every time any Catholic doctrine is or has been discussed on this board you have been one of the first to defend it.

Every Catholic Doctrine DHK, have defended that Catholic Doctrine of "Original Sin", paplism, sacramental theology...the Trinity?

Most of the time posters have not been able to distinguish if you are a Catholic or non-Catholic because you speak like a Catholic on any Catholic related thread. You defend Catholic doctrine. Agnus, have you ever heard the expression: When it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then....? To most people reading these threads, Agnus, if you had not told them outright, you would be classified as a Catholic. They would not know the difference. You speak just like one. For the little differences between Orthodox and the RCC are not very important in the light of the bigger picture here, for you have portrayed yourself well as a Catholic.

Still your ignorance shows through of Orthodoxy compared to Catholicism and the gulf that separates us is vast...I can speak of this first hand...I've been through Catholic RCIA classes and Orthodox Catechesis Classes...Our Sacramental Theology is different, Our view of human depravity is different "Original Sin", Our liturgical theology is different, Our view of Mary is drastically different, in regard to her sinlessness from birth, Purgatory, the Pope, the addition to our Creed (filioque), as we keep the authentic Creed, celibacy of the Priestly Orders, Divore and I can go on and on...you are clueless DHK, clueless.

I have portrayed the RCC to eastern religions when applicable.
If the RCC treats Mary as a god, and they do, then that is polytheism, just like the Hindus.
If the RCC believes that water (H2O), i.e., baptism saves them, and they do, then they believe the same as the Hindus who also believe that they can wash away their sins by baptizing themselves in the holy waters of the Ganges River. It is a superstitious belief. Water cannot wash away sin.

The bible is clear..."Baptism is for the remission of sin" your dispute is with Holy Scripture and our Creed confirms this.
Again, we Orthodox do not hold to the western view of "Original Sin". Our Baptism is not in regard to our salvation, meaning we need to be cleansed of the guilt of Adam's sin or be damned to Hell, in as much as Baptism is our initiation into the Church. Our Salvation is an ongoing lifelong process, which again is biblical. We don't believe in OSAS.

The RCC is a pagan religion, always has been a pagan religion, always will be a pagan religion. Is my take on this novel? Not at all.

And there's many, many Monks on Mt. Athos who would agree with you...

Go look in some of the most common commentaries on the WEB. Look at Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, and some of the other old standard commentaries that are available at e-sword or ccel. Find out what they say, when you look up:

Been there done that and got the tee-shirt DHK, I still have a bookcase filled of commentaries from Protestant heroes of the faith that paint the RCC is a bad way, and again...there's Orthodox Monks all over the world that would agree with these assessments of the RCC and some are extreme.

And let's not forget DHK, the Orthodox Church has suffered much more than that of the Protestants. From Islam, to the Catholic Crusaders, to Atheistic Russia...The Church has suffered more than you'll ever know, ever know, yet she still survives and the Truth remains as promised from our Lord!

In XC
-

 

[DHK]

Just a point. Those guys you mention all quote the same source. And for literary work they don't seem to quote enough.

Oh come now. What was the big rally cry of the Reformation that the RCC and Orthodox so detest, and for what Baptists have believed in far before the Reformation ever began? Soul Liberty!
Each of the Reformers had a different view on things--thus different denominations emerged. But the one thing that they did have in common was the Scriptures. Like all Baptists today the Reformers used the Bible as their final source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Of course they quote from the same source. It is called the Bible. What other source would you have them quote from? They were scholars. Many of them felt that they were living in the end times (as we all ought to feel), that the coming of Christ was imminent. If the coming of Christ was imminent then both the Anti-christ and the appearance of the false-prophet would soon appear also. They could even be alive now (or in their generation) ready to take the reigns of power. It is obvious to them (and perhaps many today) that one of those would be the RCC). That has been an age-old position held by many even before the Reformation, and still held by many today. It is not hate. It is a historic theological position even if it does have some speculation in it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Oh come now. What was the big rally cry of the Reformation that the RCC and Orthodox so detest, and for what Baptists have believed in far before the Reformation ever began? Soul Liberty!

Oh come now DHK, you trying to spoonfeed the class that the Orthodox Church was somehow involved in the Reformation!!!!! Next yer going to be trying to tell the class that the Orthodox sent crusaders to get the mean 'ol Reformers back in line? Pray Not!

Actaully the Orthodox had there hands full with the Turks, furthermore, the Reformation was writing on the wall considering the events of 1054...it was just a matter of time.

In XC
-

 

[EdSutton]

Interesting exactly how much 'history' one can find on this thread

>

>

>

from all points of view.


And I'm my local church historian, no less!


May I say -





Let me repeat that, if I may.





Ed

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The bible is clear..."Baptism is for the remission of sin" your dispute is with Holy Scripture and our Creed confirms this.

Let me ask you this: next week, we will be holding a birthday party for my oldest daughter's 17th birthday.

Now, when I say "for her birthday", do I mean that we're having a party in commemoration of her birthday or that it is necessary for us to hold a party in order for her to turn seventeen years old?

 

[DHK]

Oh come now DHK, you trying to spoonfeed the class that the Orthodox Church was somehow involved in the Reformation!!!!! Next yer going to be trying to tell the class that the Orthodox sent crusaders to get the mean 'ol Reformers back in line? Pray Not!

Actaully the Orthodox had there hands full with the Turks, furthermore, the Reformation was writing on the wall considering the events of 1054...it was just a matter of time.

In XC
-

You misread my post because you don't believe in what I say, and have a different view on history.
First, let me say this. Baptists existed before the Reformation, and did not come out of the Reformation. Thus they are not called Protestants. You will be hard pressed to find the "founder" of the Baptists in the same way as Luther is the founder of the Lutheran Church. The Baptists do not have a founder as such. They always were since the apostles. But that is for another thread.

I never said or even implied that the Orthodox came out of the Reformation. Quote me where I said that. What I said is that both Orthodox and the RCC hate the doctrine of soul liberty. And from previous posts you have demonstrated your hatred of this doctrine. You appeal to your church; your catechism, your creed; your church authorities, but not the Bible. The Bible is a secondary source to you.

I never implied that the Orthodox sent any Crusaders anywhere. Why such an emotional post from you? This is full of emotion, and false accusations. It is quite unusual for you.

Let's set the record straight. You may not like this but it is true. We tend to speak in generalities. You lump the Baptists in with the Protestants. I don't usually argue and protest against it, as you are doing when I lump you in with the Catholics. But the truth is that the RCC, the Orthodox, and the Anglican churches are all in the same group, having similar beliefs. They are all liturgical and all come from the same RCC. They don't have exactly the same beliefs as you have pointed out, and we knew that. But you have similar enough beliefs to be lumped into the same category. They are so similar that everyone on this board thought that you were a Catholic until you pointed out otherwise. So why the big fuss about this all.

 

[Jedi Knight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0JueyifsXA If you like more help on this.:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Oh come now. What was the big rally cry of the Reformation that the RCC and Orthodox so detest, and for what Baptists have believed in far before the Reformation ever began? Soul Liberty!
Each of the Reformers had a different view on things--thus different denominations emerged. But the one thing that they did have in common was the Scriptures. Like all Baptists today the Reformers used the Bible as their final source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Of course they quote from the same source. It is called the Bible. What other source would you have them quote from? They were scholars. Many of them felt that they were living in the end times (as we all ought to feel), that the coming of Christ was imminent. If the coming of Christ was imminent then both the Anti-christ and the appearance of the false-prophet would soon appear also. They could even be alive now (or in their generation) ready to take the reigns of power. It is obvious to them (and perhaps many today) that one of those would be the RCC). That has been an age-old position held by many even before the Reformation, and still held by many today. It is not hate. It is a historic theological position even if it does have some speculation in it.

I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't referring to the Reformers. I was referring to the authors you mentioned. Hardly comparable to the Reformers. Btw. Everyone claims to use the bible as their authority. Just here on this site a person is using scriptures to argue for homosexuality! Wow, I'm really shocked! Also I don't think the Orthodox hate the reformers. In a way I don't think they really care one way or another since it's the Metropolis of Rome's (or the bishop of Rome's) problem rather than theirs. In fact, the need for the Reformation actually gives the Orthodox a upperhand in their on going differences with Rome. Obviously the Reformers had issues with the policies and practices of the church of their day. Even the Catholics agree with this. (Kind of hard to argue with someone who says yep you're right there were abuses then).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW DHK what do you mean when you say "Soul Liberty"? How is it applied to baptist more than Catholics or Orthodox.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Let's set the record straight. You may not like this but it is true. We tend to speak in generalities. You lump the Baptists in with the Protestants. I don't usually argue and protest against it, as you are doing when I lump you in with the Catholics.

You're trying to prove a negative in the "Trail of Blood" thread DHK, that your particular sect that calls themselves "Baptist" is the authentic Church...unless your now having second thoughts...

From an outside adverage Joe that is illiterate of the Orthodox Church could visit both Churches and see the differences in our Worship and Sacraments. Really the only thing that looks the same is the number of Sacraments the Church administers...that's it.

You really don't have anything on the Orthodox faith, so you move to your next tatic and make a lousy attempt to lump the Orthodox Christian faith with the likes of Far Eastern Religions, and you do that just out of spit and to draw an argument, instead of staying on topic.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff...



This is one of the verses the Catholics and Orthodox use to perpetuate their goddess worship.


The "woman" is Israel, who gave, or "gave birth" to, Christ. The 12 stars represent the 12 tribes of Israel.




:godisgood:

If that's the case then what does this passage mean when referring to 1260 days? I get just over 3 years close but not quite 3 1/2 years?

. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

 

[Pastor Larry]

If that's the case then what does this passage mean when referring to 1260 days? I get just over 3 years close but not quite 3 1/2 years?

Months in ancient times (and in some places today) were 30 days. So 1260 is 42 months, which iks 3 1/2 years.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Months in ancient times (and in some places today) were 30 days. So 1260 is 42 months, which iks 3 1/2 years.

Ok so compare that to Israel unless its speaking of something else in the passage. What does it mean here with regard to Jesus. Unless the child spoken of is not Jesus but something else.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Ok so compare that to Israel unless its speaking of something else in the passage. What does it mean here with regard to Jesus. Unless the child spoken of is not Jesus but something else.

The passage is probably cramming an entire history into a few words. The child is Jesus, born out of Israel, and the 3 1/2 years are the end of the Tribulation. RL Thomas has one of the most comprehensive commentaries on Revelation that will be helpful here.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The passage is probably cramming an entire history into a few words. The child is Jesus, born out of Israel, and the 3 1/2 years are the end of the Tribulation. RL Thomas has one of the most comprehensive commentaries on Revelation that will be helpful here.

Still doesn't make sence. I'll read the commentary but How long was Jesus and his family in Egypt?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Still doesn't make sence. I'll read the commentary but How long was Jesus and his family in Egypt?

Probably 2 years or so, but that doesn't have any relevance for this passage I don't think. V. 5 is the ascension, and the flight to the wilderness occurs after that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Probably 2 years or so, but that doesn't have any relevance for this passage I don't think. V. 5 is the ascension, and the flight to the wilderness occurs after that.

Honestly, I don't know. And this is why I tend to view God as outside of time. He can view all of time simultaniously. Apocalyptic literature plays on themes and uses Peek historical events to make a point. Peek areas in time aren't necissarily at the begining or end or middle just during key events. Which would make the whole creating thing very interesting but thats another topic.

reading these verses just plainly from the english without commentary or the Greek this is how I would naturally render it.

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head.

The woman could relate to a specific person or not. Could be a group of people (like the Jews) or and idea like Sophia (wisdom). However, the next verse seems to specify what the first verse is speaking of

2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

and coupled with continuing verses describing the child and the woman we have

The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Specifically we have a male child who will rule the nations. Obvious to christians this is Jesus. So we know Mary was the mother of Jesus. It could also be the Jews who Jesus comes from. Yet the number of days in relation to the desert doesn't really seem to apply to Israel because of the number of days when Israel was saved by Joseph in Egypt for 400 years before returning home to the promised land. Also this dialogue of the dragon

3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth

Seems to reiterate the fall of Satan. Which makes us think of the begining and the age old challeng for mankind and of the promise God made to Eve

And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring [a] and hers;
he will crush your head,
and you will strike his heel."

So this great sign is a woman (Israel/Mary probably not Sophia) crowned with the tribes of Israel (either comes from the tribes of Israel or is Israel itself). Then shows the heavenly battle signifying the antagonist of humanity or the reason for the woman (Israel/Mary) and specifically her Child. Yet going with the Israel explanation this verse doesn't make sense

6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

Yet mabye explained by Mary having to flee Herod

13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."[f]

which would then make this verse

The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.

relate to this verse

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

which public disgrace might have lead to Mary's stoning to death and Kill Jesus before being born. Yet here Joseph wants to put her away quietly and God reassures Joseph

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[c] because he will save his people from their sins."

Giving him Joshua's name. So the dragon attempts to kill Jesus while Mary is pregnant. that seems to make more sense. Than Israel especially when you consider the 1260 days.

Like I said I'm just reviewing it from a layman's point of view but thats how it reads to me.

 

[Pastor Larry]

The 1260 days/42 months/3 1/2 years is a common thread in Revelation, which coincides with Daniel's seventy sevens. It is beyond any reasonable doubt a reference to the Tribulation period. The only question is whether it is the first half or second. During teh first half, it is a time of relative peace. And then the Jews flee in the second half.

As for God viewing all time simultaneously, that doens't really help even if it is true because events happen in time by God's one eternal decree. The time argument is way overdone. It has no real merit in the conversation.