tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2927437653449007593.post8845576728320337247..comments2023-07-03T03:52:25.347-07:00Comments on Blessed Motherhood: Other 'Christians' by David Crankmotherofmanyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04877187218514833866noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2927437653449007593.post-79803102562826691332007-09-26T10:33:00.000-07:002007-09-26T10:33:00.000-07:00My stance would be that someone who knows the trut...<I>My stance would be that someone who knows the truth woul dnot continue in a church where extra things are taught, because the real danger is that when you add extra teachings, you make it very likely for people to put their faith in things that are not going to save them.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, but these kids I went to school with put their faith in saying a Sinner's Prayer, and it might cost them their salvation in the end.<BR/><BR/><I>Once saved always saved is dependant on whether the salvation was true or not.</I><BR/><BR/>But many people such as Candy talk about how you shouldn't have to always wonder about you salvation, the way that Catholics supposedly do. But if people get "saved" two or three times to make sure that they are really saved, how is that any different?<BR/><BR/><I>Also, not all of the church group in history heard of the Nicene creed, but relied on the verses that say those who believe Jesus was who he claimed to be and that he alone could save them were Christians.</I><BR/><BR/>But what are you basing this on? <BR/><BR/>I know that Candy (and yes, I remember that you two aren't interchangable, so feel free to tell me when you don't agree) wrote once that she thinks Christians used to be more knowledgable about the Word when it was forbidden by the Catholic Church, because Christians would borrow a Bible from their neighbor to copy it out themselves. <BR/><BR/>But paper and ink and candles to give light to write by were expensive! There is no way that there were peasants out there with a big stack of parchment copying out Bibles. Even if there was, wouldn't these heirlooms have been preserved? Even one!<BR/><BR/>There are Christians in Kerala India who claim, and have evidence, that they were converted by St. Thomas the apostle in the 1st century.<BR/><BR/>In Japan, Catholicism was introduced by the Jesuits in the 1500's. Eventually, all of the priests were expelled, and the converts were martyred. When Catholics returned in the 1800's, they found that many Catholics were still there, secretly practicing the faith that they had handed down from generation to generation. There is again, ample historic evidence that this is true. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are thinking of people such as the Montanists- who rejected the heirarchy and believed in following on the Bible. Only, Montanus also taught his followers that he was receiving Divine Revelation, and that his word was equal to the Word of God.<BR/><BR/>The Waldensians are often pointed to for such a history, however, even Protestant scholars agree that there is no historic evidence that they originated prior to Peter Waldo. Their doctrine also does not match with fundamentalism in many counts. They practiced infant baptism, believed in transubstantiation, confession, etc.<BR/><BR/><I>Just as the Bible tells us the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to the knowledge of our sins, someone does not need to read through the entire Bible before they realize they are a sinner.</I><BR/><BR/>I wasn't really speaking of conversion. I was speaking of how converts are always told that now they are saved, they should begin to read the Bible daily. That obviously isn't doable for the illiterate. Their only chance to hear Scripture is at church.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2927437653449007593.post-62787002172574344022007-09-24T16:31:00.000-07:002007-09-24T16:31:00.000-07:00I think the point you make is exactly where the cu...I think the point you make is exactly where the cusp of the difference lies. My stance would be that someone who knows the truth woul dnot continue in a church where extra things are taught, because the real danger is that when you add extra teachings, you make it very likely for people to put their faith in things that are not going to save them. I would say the verses about our righteousness being filthy rags and our traditions making the gospel void would warn about trying to add to the plan of salvation laid out for us. It is like a giant slap in the face to God, who has said this is my son, I will sacrifice him for you to make you free, and we say, no thanks, I'll keep trying to do it myself. Or God says Here is my word for you to follow, and we say well, I'd arther have mroe than just your words.<BR/><BR/>Once saved always saved is dependant on whether the salvation was true or not. God has promised that he can keep those who belong to him, as well as the promise that when we are truly born again, He will change us dramatically through the Holy Spirit. Anyone who thinks they can continue to sin has not been changed, and Luke 9:62 says if we put our hand to the plough (make our committment to the work of Christ) and tunr back, we are not fit for the kingdom. Many verses say that we are new creatures, and if there is nothing new about a person, it is not a real salvation.<BR/><BR/>Also, not all of the church group in history heard of the Nicene creed, but relied on the verses that say those who believe Jesus was who he claimed to be and that he alone could save them were Christians. I know you believe otherwise, but there were many splinter groups that survived apart from the Catholic church for centuries. Being 'saved' is just a term used to exlpan what happens whne someone is converted or born again. Thiose who put their FULL trust in Christ from the very beginning, even before his crucifixion, were saved.<BR/><BR/>A biblically sound church teached both the milk of the word (basics) and the meat (deep theological stuff) in order to be edifying all present. I have bnever been in a biblically based service where the gospel message was not presented. Check out Ray Comfort (there are many others, but he is my favorite). The gospel message can be taught in 5 minutes, because our conscious tells us that sins is wrong, and the Bible says sin leads to death. That's another reason I am against friendship evangelism- what if the person dies in the midst of your attempt to teach them over a course of casual meetings? They can know and be saved in a very short time, because we are not promised tomorrow to tell them a little more. We read in the Bible that the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. Just as the Bible tells us the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to the knowledge of our sins, someone does not need to read through the entire Bible before they realize they are a sinner. And there are many examples of conversions during a single preaching session in the Bible, because the people already knew the law (even the gentiles because they were written in the conscious of man) and they very qwuickly realized they had broken them, were headed for damnation, and could rely only on the perfect sacrifice of Christ.motherofmanyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04877187218514833866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2927437653449007593.post-75922308758484872032007-09-23T11:48:00.000-07:002007-09-23T11:48:00.000-07:00You know, I was really hesitant to read this, but ...You know, I was really hesitant to read this, but I have to say, it was very evenhanded! I especially liked this part:<BR/><BR/><I>Most of us can also think of many professed sincere Catholics who have lived lives of habitual sin while participating in the Catholic “sacraments” and regularly going to confession. These certainly show no indications of being “true” Christians. However, much the same can be said about a number of folks in Protestant churches as well.</I><BR/><BR/>I think my big question about articles such as these, is, if you are a true "saved" Christian, then would you be condemned for practicing "extra-Biblical practices"? <BR/><BR/>I don't know about your views in particular, Amy, but I have had "once saved, always saved" Christians tell me that they could commit any sin after being saved (though they shouldn't, they hasted to add) and it would not effect their salvation. <BR/><BR/>Yet, I would be condemned for following the teachings of the Catholic Church, despite my belief that I have been saved though my faith in Jesus Christ, by the grace of God. It just doesn't make sense to me. <BR/><BR/>I feel this is especially the case when I partake of the Catholic sacraments out of the sincere belief that this is God's plan for us. I think I'm presuming a lot less on God's mercy than my many, MANY "saved" friends in school who felt that God would overlook a little fornication, since they were Christians and couldn't lose their salvation. <BR/><BR/>I also think it is interesting how the definition of Christian has changed relatively recently. Historically, Christian meant affirming the historic creeds, the Nicene or the Apostles if you wanted to avoid the "filoque clause" problem. Using this formula would give a "pass" to nearly everyone but the Mormons.<BR/><BR/>It has only been since the first Great Awakening that the idea that you must have an emotional experience of "being saved" has existed. No one was "saved" before, say, 1750. Why would Jesus have bothered to die in the 1st century if it would take over 1700 years for his death to being salvation to anyone? If the "gates of hell will not prevail against" the church, why would it have fallen into error almost from the start? <BR/><BR/>From my perspective, this is a totally new view of Christianity, which is distinctively American, which is quickly denying salvation to anyone else. <BR/><BR/>Putting such an emphasis on READING the Bible as a means to salvation (as opposed to proclaiming) makes sense in America, where the literacy rate is only 1%. Yet worldwide, 20-25% of the population can't read. The illiterate population is mostly concentrated in the areas MOST in need of hearing the gospel---South and West Asia (places such as India and Indonesia), Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Arab States. Handing out King James Bibles is not going to help these people to be saved. <BR/><BR/>I once went to a Baptist church were it turned out, I had visited in the midst of a 20 week study of one of Paul's letters. I was handed an outline for the day's homily, and a pencil for taking notes. I can think of some good points to this system. We rarely get to do such indepth study of one particular book during the regular Sunday service in a Catholic Church.<BR/><BR/>However, if I were someone in India who couldn't read, after nearly six months, I would have heard only one book of the Bible. Whereas, if I had attended a Catholic Church (or Anglican or Lutheran for that matter), by coming to services daily, I would hear almost the entire Bible over three years. <BR/><BR/>I think I've started to ramble, but I guess what I'm saying in the end, is that I don't think this system of salvation makes sense either historically, or globally. I'm interested to hear your thoughts, and I hope I didn't come across too harshly.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16120027058653022897noreply@blogger.com