Ragdoll
Well-Known Member
- Apr 26, 2022
- 472
- 161
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Private
I think its safe to day that once you get past the first 1000 years of Christianity you begin to see Christianity dumb down and become not so smart. Yes, sure, there are a few reformers who took a stand for genuine Christianity and their efforts were well hidden by the Puritans who not only oppose the Roman Catholics of the time, but also stood in stark opposition to Luther and Tyndale, accusing them of not going far enough. So the Puritans wanted to take it as far as they could and here we are today living in a land full of apostate Christians who left their Puritan denomination and joined Satan. They did not reason in their minds that maybe they have been dumbed down by deceiving doctrines. They did not reason in their minds that maybe their denomination is not true orthodoxy? They just said goodbye to Jesus Christ and began worshiping Satan without even realizing they left Christ for Satan.
I've seen this patteran for many many years now and its not easy to see so many people apostate from the faith when there are simple solutions for their problems. True Christianity is found in the Holy Bible from the most trusted Bible translations. True Christianity can be best understood through ancient Christian traidition (i.e., the early church fathers). Heresy never produced strong churches.
I would like to drop one last thing into this conversation. I'm a former Catholic who is now a Lutheran. And no, Martin Luther was not a prophet nor did he claim to be a prophet. Luther was a theologian and that's all he was. We Lutherans do not prop him up to be without sin or the most perfect man who ever lived. We know Luther wasn't perfect. He is the founder of a church that he really did not want to be the founder of. Luther merely wanted to reform the church....not to destroy it like the Puritans desired.
In order to know what Catholics belief you absolutely have to have been a Catholic who had taken the catechsim and been confirmed. Any person who has not done these things will not understand a single doctrine of the Catholic church. Not one. The language used in the Catholic system is not the language used by Protestants or Puritans. So you absolutely have to have been a confirmed Catholic in order to speak for or against the Catholic church. How many SDAs or other anti-catholics have ever actually been Catholics before? Not very many. Not very many at all.
So if you want to know all the good, the bad and the ugly about the Catholic system you should just ask people like me and I will give you an honest and accurate assessment of the Catholic system as it is today. But you will not ever get me to say bad things about the ancient Catholic Church. For I know now that there is a major difference between the Catholic system today and the ancient Catholics (*Note: I use the phrase "Catholic system" to account for both Roman and Anglican Catholics). Even in the 15th and 16th centuries the Catholic system was not lost. In some parts of the world the Catholics were very strong in faith and had genuine leaders who led in holiness and not out of their human lust for power). I think the only thing I will agree with SDAs and other anti-Catholics on is that the modern Catholic system is corrupt. But our reasons for agreeing will be completely different in how we view the details. Even now I am not an anti-Catholic. I do not delight or rejoice in the fall of the Catholic system. Like Luther, I would rather reform it or hit the reset button and start over. This means to stop following all modern Churches and go back to the early church.
Though I will and often do make exceptions for creationism since that comes from many denominations and usually taught in a non-denominational manner. Funny thing, once I studied creationism from the early church I actually saw their approach as stronger than modern creationists overall. The early church didn't mess around with silliness. Its good to be open but not good to stray from the ancient church. Whatever it is we do differently today from the early church, must still be in line with what the early church would have wanted for those changes. The writings of the early church are there to keep us from heresy.
I've seen this patteran for many many years now and its not easy to see so many people apostate from the faith when there are simple solutions for their problems. True Christianity is found in the Holy Bible from the most trusted Bible translations. True Christianity can be best understood through ancient Christian traidition (i.e., the early church fathers). Heresy never produced strong churches.
I would like to drop one last thing into this conversation. I'm a former Catholic who is now a Lutheran. And no, Martin Luther was not a prophet nor did he claim to be a prophet. Luther was a theologian and that's all he was. We Lutherans do not prop him up to be without sin or the most perfect man who ever lived. We know Luther wasn't perfect. He is the founder of a church that he really did not want to be the founder of. Luther merely wanted to reform the church....not to destroy it like the Puritans desired.
In order to know what Catholics belief you absolutely have to have been a Catholic who had taken the catechsim and been confirmed. Any person who has not done these things will not understand a single doctrine of the Catholic church. Not one. The language used in the Catholic system is not the language used by Protestants or Puritans. So you absolutely have to have been a confirmed Catholic in order to speak for or against the Catholic church. How many SDAs or other anti-catholics have ever actually been Catholics before? Not very many. Not very many at all.
So if you want to know all the good, the bad and the ugly about the Catholic system you should just ask people like me and I will give you an honest and accurate assessment of the Catholic system as it is today. But you will not ever get me to say bad things about the ancient Catholic Church. For I know now that there is a major difference between the Catholic system today and the ancient Catholics (*Note: I use the phrase "Catholic system" to account for both Roman and Anglican Catholics). Even in the 15th and 16th centuries the Catholic system was not lost. In some parts of the world the Catholics were very strong in faith and had genuine leaders who led in holiness and not out of their human lust for power). I think the only thing I will agree with SDAs and other anti-Catholics on is that the modern Catholic system is corrupt. But our reasons for agreeing will be completely different in how we view the details. Even now I am not an anti-Catholic. I do not delight or rejoice in the fall of the Catholic system. Like Luther, I would rather reform it or hit the reset button and start over. This means to stop following all modern Churches and go back to the early church.
Though I will and often do make exceptions for creationism since that comes from many denominations and usually taught in a non-denominational manner. Funny thing, once I studied creationism from the early church I actually saw their approach as stronger than modern creationists overall. The early church didn't mess around with silliness. Its good to be open but not good to stray from the ancient church. Whatever it is we do differently today from the early church, must still be in line with what the early church would have wanted for those changes. The writings of the early church are there to keep us from heresy.
Upvote
0