Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
>>In what ways do Protestants mortify themselves because of sin?<<
The sin is what's mortified, not the person. The person is sanctified through the Holy Spirit. the process is an individual one, and not necessarily a corporate one, since each believer struggles with different sins. When we congregate in fellowship, we lift each other up in prayer, and edify each other by sharing each others' burdens.
The sins I struggle with are mortified through prayer and study of the Bible, not through traditions or rites. Outward actions such as avoiding places and people which would tempt me to sin can be helpful, but only with a regenerate heart can one even begin the process. Being able to see your sin is a gift from God, so naturally only though that power can we achieve victory over it. True sanctification is a fruit of being in the spirit.
I take a lot of comfort in 1 Cor 10:13:
"No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it."
Nope, sorry but this is plainly wrong. As you know I reviewed the early church fathers writings and creeds to see what their beliefs were-specifically Augustine prior to reading anything by Calvin and Luther. Never having read Calvin or Luther I could articulate their perspectives simply by knowing what Augustine had stated. This would not be possible if Luther/Calvin had been innovators.
What you neglect to see is that over time the Church was like a frog in water with the heat rising. It never felt the changes in doctrine but it was changing ever so gradually. Some saw this change. Bit by bit it became more and more intolerable. The Orthodox left over the authority of the Pope in 10??AD. People started leaving because of the Crusades. The Church established doctrine to keep them. The 12th Lateran Council of 12?? made it official doctrine saying if you left you would be damned. The Eucharist became the official policy and the only way you could receive God's grace was to go to mass. Money was needed. The doctrine of Purgatory and indulgences became official to buy your relatives way out of it. People like Hus, Wycliff and Luther had had enough. Had they felt the only avenue was the Orthodox Church they would have went there. But the Orthodox Church wasn't what they wanted. They wanted a return to the roots of the western Church.
Pinging you to post #403.
"People like Hus, Wycliff and Luther had had enough. Had they felt the only avenue was the Orthodox Church they would have went there. But the Orthodox Church wasn't what they wanted.
What was it about Orthodoxy, save its 1500 year old theology, which the Reformers didn't want?
They wanted a return to the roots of the western Church.
Until at the earliest the 800s, probably even later, the dogmatic theology of the Eastern and Western particular churches was identical. Its no answer to say that Blessed Augustine taught this or that. Neither Augustine nor any of the other Fathers spoke infallibly or dogmaticly. By 1500, if one accepts the Protestant claims that erroneus practices and beliefs as a matter of dogma, or what might as well have been dogma, had crept into the Latin Church, the same claim cannot be made about Orthodoxy whose dogma and praxis have been fixed since the 7th Ecumenical Council. The only reason that Protestants could have had to reject Orthodoxy would have been to reject the established dogma and praxis of The Church, East and West, as of 787, which represents the root beliefs of the Western Church.
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
>>. First you had Luther and Calvin's followers. Then they broke into sub-groups, then the Baptists came along and told the first wave of Protestants that they were wrong.<<
I follow Christ, not men, and cling to His gospel.
Reformed theology simply explains it best.
>>Arminian Baptists (what's that????)<<
Baptists (who believe in immersion as the outward symbol of a life dedicated to Christ), but think they made the decision to follow Christ (rejecting election), that it was not the work of the irresistable Holy Spirit.
>>Now you have Reformed Baptists forming in the 1970s<<
You mis-read. Our specific Church was planted in the 70's in RI as part of the SBC. We hold to the teachings of reformed theology.
>>And what's the Warren theology of church growth??<<
Church marketing to expand the number of people in the pews. Making church what "the people" want it to be, and not what God commands it to be. Usually it involves surveys and being sensitive to the seekers "felt needs".
Doing whatever it takes to "get them in the door", and usually watering down scriptural truths so as to not offend the congregation.
"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
It's not my position to say yea or nea. This is the Baptist's view. Regardless of my pithy comment I'm not a Baptist.
However, in their defense I see no difference in what the Baptists are doing than in other more formalized church structures. The Roman Catholics or Presbyterians may have policies and creeds of their beliefs but as we all know there are vast differences in views from place to place regardless of what Rome or Presbyterians headquarter states. Simply because a Church/church may have a policy against abortion doesn't mean the cleric enforces it or the congregation believes it. Just because it's "official policy" so what?
Many non-sola scriptura people find it appaling to read that Protestants (especially Baptists) rely solely on the Bible. This is far from true. Go to any Christian book store and look at the vast numbers of commentaries, study guides and references books. History abounds. They simply look at what the scriptures states and then research historical differing views. Any serious Baptist will do a great amount of reading of history and objectively come to their own conclusion. Is there anything REALLY wrong with this? Don't we think that God will guide us to all truth? Conversely try to find a Catholic Bible study or even a Catholic commentary.
I personally like creeds and confessions because I think they act as doctrinal guides but these are lacking in the Baptist churches (unless you want to accept the London Baptist Confession of Faith).
We probably have different definitions of 'works'. I prefer Paul's biblical definition. A work is something we do for pay. It is earning our way to salvation. Grace is a gift freely given. But "doing" something is not a "work". Again, I ask you, which does Jesus condemn, the action, or the attitude? THAT is what is important, friend. Doing something is ultimately required of us. But it is our internal attitudes and dispositions that determine whether it is a "work" in Paul's definition. NO ONE condemns actions! Everyone condemns that attitude where we earn our way to heaven.
Thus, fasting and tithing are not "burdens" when we do them in the spirit of love. We WILLINGLY do these things because we know they will bring us closer to our Love. As to the rest, you worry about the minors and are forgeting the majors. Paul calls himself father. Those garments are no more "fine" then the three-piece suit that Protestant ministers wear.
Regards
I don't agree. The Orthodox do not accept Augustine's views, they promoted John Cassian's views who the west condemn as a heretic, and they do not accept the Council of Orange creeds which are based upon Augustinian theology. The churches were not identical.
You still wear three piece suits?
That was thoroughly refuted last month, by myself, and in much greater detail by another Catholic whose name I cannot spell at the moment, but starts with a "Dio". Even from St. Augustine HIMSELF, I have given you quotes that refutes the idea that he was some sort of proto-Protestant on total depravity of man. Sorry, it just wasn't there. Especially the creeds! Where is anything about "total depravity" of man mentioned in any creed of Catholicism?
As to your history lesson, forget about it. It won't hold water to any unbiased scrutiny - for example, people leaving the Church BECAUSE of the Crusades and as the cause of the doctrine of the Eucharist. Didn't I already show you how dumb that idea was? Come on, you are losing any sort of credibility whatsoever by expressing that the Eucharistic doctrine came as a result of the Crusades. The proof of that, again, is the Eastern Churches hold to the same doctrine that we do, that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
The Eucharist became the official policy and the only way you could receive God's grace was to go to mass
Wrong
Money was needed
Yea, that can be a problem...for any church.
The doctrine of Purgatory and indulgences became official to buy your relatives way out of it.
Wrong.
People like Hus, Wycliff and Luther had had enough.
I think you forgot "...of obeying the Church of Christ."
Like I said before, the theme song of Protestants should be "I did it my way", because that is exactly what people like you and Luther demand - to interpret God's Word your OWN way, despite the fact that it contradicts the only authority to whom Christ gave the power to bind and loosen, the Church. But the Orthodox Church wasn't what they wanted. They wanted a return to the roots of the western Church.
That's hilarious! There was not two separate churches with two separate doctrines of beliefs. Explain to me again how the Eastern Church and Western Church were different in 300 AD. Oh, well, first, the Eastern fathers had beards...Please, if you want to return to the roots of the Western Church, look up under "Roman Catholic Churches" in the phone book and make your way to it this Sunday. We have room for another.
Regards
"You still wear three piece suits?"
No. And you?
We are finally in agreement with each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.