Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?

[Thinkingstuff]

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.

It still doesn't make sense. Because then it would be Judaism in Israel under attack by the Dragon and not Christians and Christians would only be an after thought in God's plan of salvation since we are then in an intermediate time in the very last week of Daniels prophesy which throws the rest of Daniel's motiff off. In fact, you don't get to the Christians until the very end of the Chapter almost as an after thought again if you go with that premise. Then that would mean that the Jews were God's primary means of Salvation rather than Christianity. (which I disagree with)

17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Which would make more sence if it was speaking about Jesus, and Mary and the vast slaughter of Christians under Caligula and Nero and other Roman Emperors and Govenors. I stuggle with Darbyism and the whole pre trib rapture thing.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Which would make more sence if it was speaking about Jesus, and Mary and the vast slaughter of Christians under Caligula and Nero and other Roman Emperors and Govenors. I stuggle with Darbyism and the whole pre trib rapture thing.

You're on the right track...this isn't rocket science. A straight forward reading of this coupled with even a remedial knowledge of the Gospels account of the birth of Christ and the events that transpired after can put two and two together and see that Jesus and Mary are being referenced to.

And Darbyism and his pre-trib rapture theory is all new Reformation doctrine that's foriegn to the early Church...But make no mistake, Christ will return to judge the quick and the dead, but only once...

Good job

In XC
-

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

And Darbyism and his pre-trib rapture theory is all new Reformation doctrine that's foriegn to the early Church...But make no mistake, Christ will return to judge the quick and the dead, but only once...

Good job

In XC
-

Don't throw Darby & dispy pre-mil in our direction, OK? My guess is that we reformed Christians are probably closer to you & the OC in this area.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It still doesn't make sense. Because then it would be Judaism in Israel under attack by the Dragon and not Christians

That’s true though. In Rev 12, it is Jews that are under attack, not Christians. That is the Tribulation, the time of Jacob’s trouble when the Jews are under attack.

and Christians would only be an after thought in God's plan of salvation since we are then in an intermediate time in the very last week of Daniels prophesy which throws the rest of Daniel's motiff off.

Not at all. Daniel’s prophecy only makes sense in a pretribulational view.

In fact, you don't get to the Christians until the very end of the Chapter almost as an after thought again if you go with that premise. Then that would mean that the Jews were God's primary means of Salvation rather than Christianity. (which I disagree with)

Jesus, who came from the Jews, is the means of salvation, not Christianity.

Which would make more sence if it was speaking about Jesus, and Mary and the vast slaughter of Christians under Caligula and Nero and other Roman Emperors and Govenors.

It makes no sense talking about the slaughter of Christians under Rome because Christians are not the offspring of Israel, and certainly not of Mary. In view there is probably the 144,000.

Again, I urge you to get Thomas’s commentary. You might not agree, but at least you would see the issues laid out in a rigorous exegetical way.

I stuggle with Darbyism and the whole pre trib rapture thing.

I don’t. I used to, but the more I have studied, the less anything else seems able to account for what the Scripture says. To my conscience, I have to overlook too many Scriptures to be anything else. BTW, “Darbyism” isn’t a good way to refer to it. The ideas predated Darby and now the exegetical process has far passed Darby.

 

[Pastor Larry]

A straight forward reading of this coupled with even a remedial knowledge of the Gospels account of the birth of Christ and the events that transpired after can put two and two together and see that Jesus and Mary are being referenced to.

Really? So I don't have "even a remedial knowledge of the gospels account of the birth of Christ"?

Jesus is generally viewed as being the offspring of the nation, not just Mary. And the events of Rev 12 seem clearly to encompass more than that.

V. 17 makes no sense if the woman is Mary because Mary's offspring is in view there. That has to be something larger than Mary's offspring. However, if the woman is Israel, as almost assuredly it is, then the verse makes great sense.

And no one who knows what they are talking about refers to dispensationalism as "Darbyism," BTW.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My only point in going over it was to dispute somewhat the meaning that DHK pulled from Chp 17 of Revelation. And how he came to understand that based on writers he used here:

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.

Which seems to apply more to Rome during 1 century Christianity than to the Roman Catholic Church which is based in the Vatican as an independent nation. Therefore not on seven hills. So relation to the Catholic view of Mary or the Orthodox view of Mary for that matter does not apply in these passages. With a simple reading especially considering John in CHP 12 may be referrencing Mary in a positive light. Than in a negative light in Chp 17. which I automatically assumed with his statement preceeding

If the RCC treats Mary as a god, and they do, then that is polytheism, just like the Hindus.

So he would compare the RCC and the OC as having this veneration issue of Mary turn into idolatrous practice creating a false Mary God or (based on the verse he quoted) the Prostitute god that both these denominations worship. My point was thats not what Revelation with regard to Mary is speaking of but specifically of Rome.
A couple of elements for the Roman empire. Rome allowed for all deities save christianity. They didn't want to offend any one particular god. Which is why they called Christians Athiest because Christians refused to worship other gods. Rome was a moral nation that allowed for mystery religions to influence its people to include Simon Magus whom they errected a statue to on the Tiber. These mystery religions often allowed for more sensuality in practice than the other gods or Rome was comfortable with. The city was a republic until Julius and now had cruel emperors who were just as terrible to their citizens as to the Christians. The City therefore prostituted its original values for licensiouness. Therefore I don't really see Revelation speaking so much about Marian worship as Rome itself. (not that I'm promoting Marian worship. I'm not) However, I think often times ad hominem attacks on RCC or OC using misplaced or represented scripture is tasteless. Just my personal perspective.

 

[DHK]

My only point in going over it was to dispute somewhat the meaning that DHK pulled from Chp 17 of Revelation. And how he came to understand that based on writers he used here:
Which seems to apply more to Rome during 1 century Christianity than to the Roman Catholic Church which is based in the Vatican as an independent nation. Therefore not on seven hills.

The Catholic Church's great claim to their origin and authenticity lie in their claim to Peter as their first Pope. There was no vatican at that time. Pray tell where Peter was the supposed pope, and where this supposed pope ruled from?

 

[DHK]

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

There are the "fundamentals" of the faith. Almost all evangelicals agree on the fundamentals. We cannot disagree on those. Those are things like the deity of Christ.
Then there are those distinctives that are Baptist distinctives--principles that collectively define us and make us different from the other Protestants, and especially the RCC and Orthodox.
The RCC (and Orthodox) do not believe in the doctrine of soul liberty. In fact they hate such a doctrine and preach against it on a regular basis. I have seen a RCC website devoted to why soul liberty is a heretical doctrine. This is how deep the hatred is. To them it is intolerance of religion; intolerance of anything that goes against their religion; their Catechism; their creeds; their magesterium; their priests; etc. There is no freedom in the RCC (Orthodox, etc.) You are forced to believe whatever they tell you.

Here on the Baptist Board you see many examples of soul liberty--the freedom to agree to disagree over doctrine and still be brothers one with another, and in the same faith. Baptists are both: Calvinists and Arminian; Dispensationalist and Covenantal; Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, and possibly Post-trib. We don't excommunicate people for having a different view on things that are not heretical (outside of the fundamentals of the faith). If they go outside of the Baptist Distinctives, then why would they be a Baptist? Otherwise in many things there is freedom--soul liberty. The principle is taught in Acts 17:11

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Bereans were called "noble" by Paul because they didn't take what Paul had to say at face value. They took the NT message had, went back to their OT (the Scriptures that they had at that time), and using the Scriptures verified that the words that Paul spoke were true. Only then did they believe them. That is what we are commanded to do.

2Tim.2:15
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

[DHK]

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...

I never said that everything in the Trail of Blood is true. Quote me where I have said that. What I did say was that his general premise is true--that in every generation there have been bodies of believers outside the RCC (and Orthodox for that matter) that have held to the truth of God as Bible Believing Christians do today (much like the Baptists of today), though not exactly. I made myself clear that I do not believe in successionism. What I do believe in is called a "spiritual kinship theory."
If this theory is not true, then up until the Reformation period, from the Apostles onward there were no Christians; no Bible; and 1500 years of total darkness. We know from just the Bible alone that this is not true. God always leaves a witness for Himself. He knows those that are His. His is not the organization of the apostate RCC. They were groups of believers outside of the RCC who held faithfully to the Word of God throughout those ages.

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.

One doesn't have to visit the Orthodox or the Catholic Church to know that it is wrong. Works don't save; Christ does. Water can't wash away sin; only the blood of Christ can do that. Your religion tries to work your way to heaven, an affront to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. You imply that all the sacrifice that Christ did on the Cross was not enough to atone for your sins. You tell Christ that when he said "It is finished," No you are not Jesus, you have to wait until I am baptized, then you are finished. What heresy is this! It is called baptismal regeneration; and it denies the finished work of Christ. One doesn't have to compare religions to know that it is a heretical doctrine; a heretical church.

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.

Hindus wash away their sins in water and so do you. What is the difference? I find none.

 

[historyb]

Then that would mean that the Jews were God's primary means of Salvation rather than Christianity. (which I disagree with)

Interesting discussion. Doesn't it say somewhere salvation is through or is it from the jews?

 

[historyb]

Don't throw Darby & dispy pre-mil in our direction, OK? My guess is that we reformed Christians are probably closer to you & the OC in this area.

I'd say the same thing, most reformed I know are Historic Pre-mil, Historicist or Preterist. I am the last one along with being Amill

 

[EdSutton]

I'd say the same thing, most reformed I know are Historic Pre-mil, Historicist or Preterist. I am the last one along with being Amill

I believe Preterism would be Amillennial by definition, would it not??

Ed

 

[historyb]

I do believe so, but I got in the habit of saying them together

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Hindus wash away their sins in water and so do you. What is the difference? I find none.

Surely DHK, ??a preacher of the Gospel?? doesn't think that St. John the Baptist was a Hindu do you...pray not, but it doesn't surprise me, coming from you.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Mark 1:4-5.​

In XC
-

 

[Darron Steele]

Surely DHK, ??a preacher of the Gospel?? doesn't think that St. John the Baptist was a Hindu do you...pray not, but it doesn't surprise me, coming from you.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Mark 1:4-5.​

In XC
-

Are you sure that the baptism was for the remission of sins?

The text says "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

Agnus_Dei: you have been a paragon of grace under fire. However, I think you went a little too far above in your personal comments. Normally, you are an example and illustration about how a person can be Orthodox and bear fruit consistent with being a follower of Christ.

I dropped out of this thread after I made my first post. This thread was originally posted to ask if a person can be a practicing Catholic or Orthodox and be a Christian. I posted my answer. A short time later, the thread got hijacked into an opportunity for people who have an `axe to grind' against Catholicism to vent. The hijacking was finished by page 2. When a thread gets hijacked into a venting party off the thread's original topic, emotion is the main motivator of many posts, and there is no point in most people posting anymore.

 

[DHK]

Surely DHK, ??a preacher of the Gospel?? doesn't think that St. John the Baptist was a Hindu do you...pray not, but it doesn't surprise me, coming from you.

John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Mark 1:4-5.​

In XC
-

Hindus jump into the holy waters of the Ganges River, baptizing themselves in the hopes that their sins will be washed away.

Catholics define born again as baptism where the baptismal waters of regeneration wash away your sins. No difference; only different language.

And the Orthodox--the same as above.
There is no difference between the three. All three believe in baptismal regeneration--the idea that water washes away sin.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Hindus jump into the holy waters of the Ganges River, baptizing themselves in the hopes that their sins will be washed away.

Catholics define born again as baptism where the baptismal waters of regeneration wash away your sins. No difference; only different language.

And the Orthodox--the same as above.
There is no difference between the three. All three believe in baptismal regeneration--the idea that water washes away sin.

Really???

Do you really equate Hinduism with Catholocism and Orthodoxy???

Based on your comments, I would assume that you would put CoC into the mix as well???

 

[DHK]

Really???

Do you really equate Hinduism with Catholocism and Orthodoxy???

Based on your comments, I would assume that you would put CoC into the mix as well???

Yes I would, and I have.
Anyone foolish enough to believe in a silly superstition that water will wash away their sins needs an elementary education. Almost 3,000 years ago, Jeremiah mocked such an idea:

Jeremiah 2:22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord GOD.

 

[Matt Black]

And no one who knows what they are talking about refers to dispensationalism as "Darbyism," BTW.

Really? Dispensationalism was practically invented by Darby and is a novel and heterodox doctrine, repugnant to both Scripture and Tradition. Therefore to refer to it and other Darbyite innovations such as pre-millenialism* as 'Darbyism' seems meet and proper.

*I accept that there were others prior to JND and 'Mad Margaret MacDonald' who held to pre-millenialism, but you can count them on the fingers of one hand, so it was hardly mainstream Christian theology prior to the 1830s. BTW the Darbyists also deny the eternal Sonship of Christ - sure you want to have them as your theological bedfellows?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Really?

Yes. It is called "dispensationalism" or "Progressive dispensationalism." (Or "correct" ).

Dispensationalism was practically invented by Darby and is a novel and heterodox doctrine, repugnant to both Scripture and Tradition. Therefore to refer to it and other Darbyite innovations such as pre-millenialism* as 'Darbyism' seems meet and proper.

That is simply incorrect. Darby did a lot of systematization of ideas that were already floating around, and since Darby, much development as been done as the Scriptures have been continually studied. It would be like calling the Republican party in America "Lincolnism."

People who think Dispensationalism has no biblical substance either don't know the Bible or don't know dispensationalism. Quite often, it is both.

*I accept that there were others prior to JND and 'Mad Margaret MacDonald' who held to pre-millenialism, but you can count them on the fingers of one hand, so it was hardly mainstream Christian theology prior to the 1830s.

Again, that is simply wrong. It is just historical ignorance to say that.

BTW the Darbyists also deny the eternal Sonship of Christ - sure you want to have them as your theological bedfellows?

I don't have any "Darbyists" as theological bedfellows. That's kind of similar to the argument that Catholicism is wrong because Hindus was in the Ganges. It is a distraction from the real point which is "What does the Bible say?"