For much of the Church's history, both Unity and Right Theology within a single, visible structure was considered a "given" in the faith. That did not mean "uniformity," as the liturgies that developed in Palestine were different from those that developed among the Irish or the Spanish, and there were many local variations of practice. In spite of those differences, they all considered themselves part of One Church: If a Council was held in Asia, you could be sure that bishops from Spain and Africa were there as well; a bishop in Lyons was still a bishop when he travelled to Alexandria.
After 1000 years of unified existence, in 1054, the Church divided into East (Eastern Orthodoxy) and West (Roman Catholocism). There were some theological issues, but they were fed by political fires as well. The largest problem was the assertion by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) that he had "jurisdication" over all the bishops, world-wide; the West accepted that, the East rejected it.
In less than 200 years, many of the most difficult times of the western church emerged: the Crusades, the first Inquisitions, the requirement of a celibate clergy, and new doctrines surrounding purgatory and the immaculate conception. Had the Western Roman Church stayed in communion with the Eastern Churches, this probably would not have happened since during the period of unity, the churches "checked" each other.
As a result, there was a flurry of activity in the 1500s we call the protestant reformation. The reformers rebelled against various new practices of the Roman Church, but many also rebelled against practically everything the Church had been teaching for her entire 1500-year history. The most critical "new" doctrines adopted by the Protestant Reformers was the idea that the Church was not a visible structure at all, but an invisible collection of saved persons. (Since they were seperating themselves from the Roman Church, this was a necessary ingredient!)
The second big theological change was the idea that each individual should interpret the Bible for him or herself, rather than have the Church interpret the Scriptures.
Once these two concepts took hold, it meant that many groups of people felt "free" to re-interpret, mis-interpret, un-interpret, and you-name-it-interpret the Bible in their own way without fear of condemnation by God: after all, they felt (1) it was their right to interpret the Scripture and (2) their salvation was not connected to the physical, visible, "organized" Church.
The result, today, is intriguing: in Eastern Europe and northeast Africa, there still remains a virtually undivided Orthodox Church, which is unified in both Doctrine and "organization"; the Roman Catholic Church remains united organizationally, but tends to be doctrinally all over the board. And as for Western Protetstantism - -well, at last count that has divided into 38,000 seperate groups.
Now, I know what I now write will upset some: this isnot a flame, I'm just offering my own perspective as a Christian. I used to be a non-Denominational Christian preacher and church-planter. My own personal opinion on this is that protestantism - and the "I'm-Just-A-Christian" approach - violates both Scriptures command for unity (One follows Paul, one follows Apollos....), as well as 1500 years of Church teaching and practice. The result has been all sorts of crazy cults like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, each claiming to simply be "interpreting" the Bible the "correct" way, rash statements about things like the end of the world (I still have one of Hal Lindsay's original books where he boldly claims that we'dall be raptured in 1988...), and all sorts of legalistic and historically & theologically innacurate teachings "boldly" pronounced from the pulpit.
In effect, Rome reaped what she sowed: She claimed to have authority independent of the East; her children, the Protestant denominations, each claim authority independent of Rome; and so, 38,000 churches - each claiming direct relationship with God - have doctrines that are incompatible and and mutually exclusive.
GodsGladiator
10-23-2003, 02:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]
For much of the Church's history, both Unity and Right Theology within a single, visible structure was considered a "given" in the faith. That did not mean "uniformity," as the liturgies that developed in Palestine were different from those that developed among the Irish or the Spanish, and there were many local variations of practice. In spite of those differences, they all considered themselves part of One Church: If a Council was held in Asia, you could be sure that bishops from Spain and Africa were there as well; a bishop in Lyons was still a bishop when he travelled to Alexandria.
After 1000 years of unified existence, in 1054, the Church divided into East (Eastern Orthodoxy) and West (Roman Catholocism). There were some theological issues, but they were fed by political fires as well. The largest problem was the assertion by the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) that he had "jurisdication" over all the bishops, world-wide; the West accepted that, the East rejected it.
In less than 200 years, many of the most difficult times of the western church emerged: the Crusades, the first Inquisitions, the requirement of a celibate clergy, and new doctrines surrounding purgatory and the immaculate conception. Had the Western Roman Church stayed in communion with the Eastern Churches, this probably would not have happened since during the period of unity, the churches "checked" each other.
As a result, there was a flurry of activity in the 1500s we call the protestant reformation. The reformers rebelled against various new practices of the Roman Church, but many also rebelled against practically everything the Church had been teaching for her entire 1500-year history. The most critical "new" doctrines adopted by the Protestant Reformers was the idea that the Church was not a visible structure at all, but an invisible collection of saved persons. (Since they were seperating themselves from the Roman Church, this was a necessary ingredient!)
The second big theological change was the idea that each individual should interpret the Bible for him or herself, rather than have the Church interpret the Scriptures.
Once these two concepts took hold, it meant that many groups of people felt "free" to re-interpret, mis-interpret, un-interpret, and you-name-it-interpret the Bible in their own way without fear of condemnation by God: after all, they felt (1) it was their right to interpret the Scripture and (2) their salvation was not connected to the physical, visible, "organized" Church.
The result, today, is intriguing: in Eastern Europe and northeast Africa, there still remains a virtually undivided Orthodox Church, which is unified in both Doctrine and "organization"; the Roman Catholic Church remains united organizationally, but tends to be doctrinally all over the board. And as for Western Protetstantism - -well, at last count that has divided into 38,000 seperate groups.
Now, I know what I now write will upset some: this isnot a flame, I'm just offering my own perspective as a Christian. I used to be a non-Denominational Christian preacher and church-planter. My own personal opinion on this is that protestantism - and the "I'm-Just-A-Christian" approach - violates both Scriptures command for unity (One follows Paul, one follows Apollos....), as well as 1500 years of Church teaching and practice. The result has been all sorts of crazy cults like Mormons and Jehovahs Witnesses, each claiming to simply be "interpreting" the Bible the "correct" way, rash statements about things like the end of the world (I still have one of Hal Lindsay's original books where he boldly claims that we'dall be raptured in 1988...), and all sorts of legalistic and historically & theologically innacurate teachings "boldly" pronounced from the pulpit.
In effect, Rome reaped what she sowed: She claimed to have authority independent of the East; her children, the Protestant denominations, each claim authority independent of Rome; and so, 38,000 churches - each claiming direct relationship with God - have doctrines that are incompatible and and mutually exclusive.
[/ QUOTE ]
Okay a history and psych major, andi dont know this, i best get crackalackin
Adam Knowlden
10-23-2003, 06:43 PM
I agree with some of what you said Celt, but not all. And I don't take it as a flame either. /forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
rash statements about things like the end of the world
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with that. For one, the world is never going to end. <font color="red"> 21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. </font> As the old saying goes. /forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif Armageddon is not the end of the world. It is Christ coming to stop those that would destroy the world.
Second, anyone predicting dates on the rapture should be drug out in the street and shot. /forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif Not really, but noone knows when the rapture will occur. However, I do believe we can rightfully distinguish signs of the end times.
[ QUOTE ]
The result has been all sorts of crazy cults like Mormons
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe their error is that they add other books to the bible, not simply re-interperting the bible, but claiming those "other books" or their "leaders authority", as equal with God's Word.
They then use those outside sources to interpert the bible, instead of allowing the bible to interpert itself, as proper rules of interpertation dictate. See our bible study links, parts 1, 2, and 3, for a complete history of interperting the bible.
For example, the "Standard Works of the Church" for the Mormons are fourfold:
The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.
These constitute the written authority of the LDS church.
In addition, since Mormons believe in continued revelation, new books approved by the president can be published by or for the church and be considered authoritative, ABOVE the bible.
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> Every person in the church can receive private revelations, but only the President can speak with authoritative revelation for the entire church; he is "a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet." [Joseph Smith, Doctrine and Covenants, sect. 107:92] Source: Ron Enroth and Others, A Guide to Cults & New Religions p.122
[/ QUOTE ] </font>
[ QUOTE ]
and Jehovahs Witnesses, each claiming to simply be "interpreting" the Bible the "correct" way,
[/ QUOTE ]
Jehovah's Witnesses are not allowed to study the Bible on their own, to interpret what they read in the Bible for themselves, or to teach directly from the Bible. They must teach from approved Watchtower publications about the Bible. In other words, the let others "think" for them, as opposed to allowing the Holy Spirit to guide their life and their knowledge of the scriptures.
Theologically, the movement is a cult of Christianity due to its acceptance of heretical doctrines.
Jehovah's Witnesses deny the central cardinal docrines of historic Christianity: the Trinity, the deity of Jesus, the physical resurrection of Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit.
Also denied is the conscious eternal punishment for the wicked, the immorality of the soul, and the substitutionary atonement of Christ (grace).
It should be no suprise that most Witnesses have memorized the basic doctrinal teachings of the "Society" and will defend them vehemetly, even when their defense is irrational, unbiblical, and nonhistorical.
And this is the same problem I have with a single chuch, or single leader/single counsel, dictating what the scriptures say.
[ QUOTE ]
As a result, there was a flurry of activity in the 1500s we call the protestant reformation. The reformers rebelled against various new practices of the Roman Church, but many also rebelled against practically everything the Church had been teaching for her entire 1500-year history. The most critical "new" doctrines adopted by the Protestant Reformers was the idea that the Church was not a visible structure at all, but an invisible collection of saved persons. (Since they were seperating themselves from the Roman Church, this was a necessary ingredient!)
The second big theological change was the idea that each individual should interpret the Bible for him or herself, rather than have the Church interpret the Scriptures.
[/ QUOTE ]
The 16th century reformers distinguished themselves from Catholicism in two viatl ways.
First, they saw the Bible as the sole foundation for authority (sola scriptura) rather than the Pope, church dogma or tradition.
Second, the reformers taught salvation by “grace alone” (sola gracia). They also insisted that sola gracia could be faithfully maintained only by understanding the gospel to be the message of a free pardon and righteous standing with God through ''faith alone'' (sola fide) in the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church claimed (and still claims) to affirm sola gracia, but anathematized sola fide, teaching instead that grace is received and maintained by a combination of faith plus works (religious rites, sacraments, or human endeavor).
The chief characteristics of original Protestantism were the acceptance of the Bible as the only source of infallible revealed truth, the belief in the universal priesthood of all believers, and the doctrine that a Christian is justified in his relationship to God by faith alone, not by good works or dispensations of the church.
There was a tendency to minimize liturgy and to stress preaching by the ministry and the reading of the Bible.
[ QUOTE ]
Once these two concepts took hold, it meant that many groups of people felt "free" to re-interpret, mis-interpret, un-interpret, and you-name-it-interpret the Bible in their own way without fear of condemnation by God: after all, they felt (1) it was their right to interpret the Scripture and
[/ QUOTE ]
This is certianly true of the Catholic church as well.
[ QUOTE ]
My own personal opinion on this is that protestantism - and the "I'm-Just-A-Christian" approach - violates both Scriptures command for unity (One follows Paul, one follows Apollos....), as well as 1500 years of Church teaching and practice.
[/ QUOTE ]
Where is the scriptural reference for this? Calling Protestantism, essentially paganistic, is somewhat disappointing coming from you. Especially with no scriptural backing.
If you want to discuss paganism, I could talk about allowing the pagan religion of evolution into Christianity.
Destroying the truths of His Word, by allowing pagan compromise of the doctrine of salvation, is mingling paganism and the church, and deception at its finest.
Peter was able to convert thousands after the Pentecost as he was preaching to Jews--they had a culture founded in God, Creation, and the coming Messiah. Much like we had a hundred years ago.
Paul was preaching to Greeks. Their culture had no idea who God was, anything about creation or even the need of a Messiah. That is the culture we are preaching too. Greeks not Jews. And this "new Greek culture" is mostly due to the church's compromise of the bible.
<font color="red"> 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
</font>
[ QUOTE ]
The result, today, is intriguing: in Eastern Europe and northeast Africa, there still remains a virtually undivided Orthodox Church, which is unified in both Doctrine and "organization"; the Roman Catholic Church remains united organizationally, but tends to be doctrinally all over the board. And as for Western Protetstantism - -well, at last count that has divided into 38,000 seperate groups.
[/ QUOTE ]
In their book, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?, John Ankerberg and John Weldon write:
[ QUOTE ]
Categories of Roman Catholicism
The issues surrounding Catholic belief and authority are compounded by the fact there are some ten categories of Roman Catholicism around the world. The distinctions between them are often not clear because they may tend to overlap and merge or blur into one another. Nor would individual Catholics necessarily appreciate or agree with such labels. But they will serve as a convenient grouping for purposes of illustration:
Nominal or social Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism of the largely uncommitted -- perhaps those born or married into the Church but who have little knowledge of Rome's theology. In practice, they are principally Catholics in name only, although still Catholics ''in Christ'' because of baptism.
Syncretistic/eclecti Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism that is, to varying degrees, combined with and/or absorbed by the pagan religion of the indigenous culture in which it exists (e.g., as in South America and Africa).
Traditional or orthodoxy Catholicism
The powerful conservative branch of Roman Catholicism that holds to papal authority and historical Church doctrines such as those reasserted at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. Among this group may be classified the ultratraditionalist Catholics who adamantly reject Vatican II and generally distrust modern changes (e.g., abandoning the Latin Mass -- something Trent pronounced an anathema upon). [1] Also included are traditionalist Catholics who, while adhereing to the entirety of creedal Catholicism and papal authority, more or less accept Vatican II reforms while yet staunchly rejecting liberalism.
''Moderate'' Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism of post-Vatican II which is neither entirely traditional nor entirely liberal.
Modernist, liberal Catholicism
The post-Vatican II ''progressive'' Roman Catholicism that to varying degrees rejects traditional doctrine.
Ethnic or cultural Catholicism
Often retained by migrants to American who use ''their religion to provide a sense of belonging. They feel that not to be Roman Catholic is not to belong and to lose [their] nationality and roots.'' [2]
Lapsed or apostate Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism which involves alienated, backslidden, or apostate Catholics who are largely indifferent to the Catholic Church and its God.
Charismatic Catholicism
The Roman Catholicism which seeks to accept the ''baptism of the Holy Spirit'' and speaking in tongues and other spiritual gifts as signs of a deeper Catholic spirituality. (This illustrates the related, if largely distinct, category of mystical Catholicism, undergirded by the mystical Catholicism, undergirded by the mystical and not infrequently occult writings of the Catholics mystics).
''Evangelical'' Catholicism
Former Protestant Evangelicals who may retain some of their former beliefs but whyo now accept Roman Catholicism as the one true Church and its doctrines as authoritative.
Evangelical ''Catholicism''
The branch of former Roman Catholics who are truly Evangelical and who have largely rejected the unbiblical teachings of Rome, often deciding to remain in the Church as a means to evangelize other Catholics or help reform their Church.
Theology
The major broad areas of theology include the following:
Bibiology The doctrine of the Bible
Theology Proper The doctrine of God (Theism, Trinitarianism)
Angeology The doctrine of angels
Anthropology The doctrine of man
Hamartheology The doctrine of sin
Ecclesiology The doctrine of the Church
Christology The doctrine of Christ
Pneumatology The doctrine of the Holy Spirit
Eschatology The doctrine of last things
Soteriology The doctrine of salvation
In all of the above categories, Roman Catholic teaching historically (to one degree or another) has distorted these key theological doctrines. To the observer having only a general familiarity with Catholic teaching and conservative Protestant theology, this may not at first seem evident. Yet, it would be possible to write an entire text on each one of the above doctrines revealing how Catholicism has distorted what the Bible teaches on these subjects -- either through tradition, its approach to biblical interpretation, or other means.
In other words, whatever truths Catholicism may teach in theology generally, serious errors are also encountered. We can see this, in theology proper (the Catholic Church as the continuing incarnation of Christ); in bibliology (Catholicism as the only true Church of Christ); in hamartheology (aspects of pelagianism; moral and venial categories); in Christology (Mariology; the Church as continuing incarnation; the Mass); and in soteriology (Catholic teaching on justification, sanctification, regenerarion, and the sacraments).
No single doctrine is more important to each of us personally than the doctrine of salvation. In examining the component parts of the biblical portrait of salvation, we find the following:
Depravity -- the spiritual condition of man before God.
Imputation -- to reckon sin or righteousness to another's aco****
Grace -- the fact of God's nature making Him spontaneously favorable in His dealings with man.
Propitiation -- the satisfaction of God's justice and righteousness through the atonement of Jesus Christ.
Atonement -- the vicarious (substitutionary), efficacious (producing the desired effect) death of Jesus Christ for human sin.
Renconciliation -- to restore to fellowship with God by removing the barriers preventing this.
Calling (efficacious) -- the work of God drawing men to Himself.
Regeneration -- the miraculous work of God making the human spirit alive to Himself and the imparting of eternal life to the individual believer.
Union with Christ -- the spiritually living union of the believer and Jesus Christ.
Conversion -- the human side of regeneration; turning to Christ in faith and repentance (leading to a change in both attitude and behavior).
Repentance -- changing one's mind (mental) and turning from sin (behavioral) (i.e., a change of attitude and action).
Faith -- trust in God, leading to right belief about Him, dependence upon Him, and right behavior toward Him.
Justification -- the forensic or legal declaration of God concerning the believer's absolute righteousness before Him as a result of his faith in Jesus Christ.
Adoption -- to be brought into the personal family of God.
Sanctification -- to be set apart to God's purposes (i.e., growth in relationship to and holiness toward God).
Eternal security -- the absolute security of the true believer with respect to his salvation from the point of regeneration.
Perseverance -- the continuation of the saints in faith unto death.
Election/predestination - to be chosen by God for salvation.
Redemption to remove one from slavery to sin and Satan by payment of a ransom (i.e., the atonement of Christ).
Death, resurrection, and the final state -- involving the physical/spiritual nature of death, the intermediate state, resurrection of the body, immortality, heaven and hell (the physical resurrection of the believer to eternal glory and the unbeliever to eternal ruin).
The church -- the collective body of true believers called out of the world by God for His glory who are joined together visibly in worship and invisibly in union with Christ and one another.
Again, if we were to examine each of the above doctrines in detail, examining what the Bible teaches about them on the one hand and what Catholic tradition/doctrine teaching about them on the other, we would discover that Roman Catholicism has denied, altered, or confused all but one or two.
It is in light of our study of such theology that we find it most difficult to reconcile the current movement on the part of many Catholics and Evangelicals to join themselves together as spiritual brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ. For their part, Evangelicals characteristically maintain that they are not abandoning or glossing over important differences in doctrine between orthodox Catholicism and conservative Protestantism; they merely want to stress the unity of the true church, whether Catholic or Protestant. The problem, however, is that we are not going to gloss over important doctrinal differences, then it becomes impossible to maintain that Catholics and Protestants are genuine brothers and sisters in Christ.
Again, this is not to deny that many Catholics, individually speaking, are saved individuals because they have placed true faith in Jesus Christ and trust in Him alone for salvation -- not in their good works, the sacraments, or the Church. The problem arises when we say that all those committed to the traditional orthodox doctrines of the Catholic Church are saved individuals just as much as the simple believer in Jesus Christ. If so, it would seem that what an individual believes (i.e., whether it is either Catholic or Protestant teaching), has little or no bearing as to his individual salvation. But to say this is to abandon biblical authority and teaching entirely.
The bottom line is this: It is virtually impossible to claim to maintain important doctrinal distinctions on the one hand, and to simultaneously unite Catholic and Protestant believers into a spiritual fellowship on the other.
We can illustrate this by examining the following five doctrines and considering briefly how each doctrine relates to Catholic teaching:
Propitiation/atonement
This doctrine demonstrates that the death of Christ fully propitiated or satisfied God's wrath and paid the full divine penalty for all the believer's sin past, present, and future, thereby proving that neither the sacraments, penance, purgatorial suffering, indulgences, the Mass, priests, nor any other aspect of the Catholic Church is involved in any way in the propitiation or remitting of sin.
Reconciliation
This doctrine involves one result of the death of Christ for sin wherein the state of enmity between God and man is replaced by one of peace and fellowship, proving that final reconciliation between God and man is something accomplished by God on behalf of man, not by the Church on behalf of man.
Regeneration
This doctrine involves the making alive of the human spirit toward God and the imparting of eternal life, proving that true spiritual life is eternal and a miracle of God, not something instituted by the Church through sacraments or good works.
Justification
This doctrine constitutes the legal declaration of the believer's absolute righteousness before God on the basis of his personal faith in Jesus Christ, proving that our perfect standing before God is not dependent upon Church teaching, sacraments, personal character, or good works, but solely upon our faith in Christ.
Sanctification
This doctrine involves being set apart to God for His glory. A correct understanding of its past, present, and future applications proves that sanctification does not lead to justification, nor should it be confused with regeneration, as Catholicism teaches.
A brief evaluation of the above doctrines illustrates our central concern: As a result of its tradition and/or interpretation of Scripture, the Catholic approach to biblical doctrine is characteristically colored in a nonbiblical fashion.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and so, 38,000 churches - each claiming direct relationship with God - have doctrines that are incompatible and and mutually exclusive.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the end who cares. I believe in tounges. Now you will say, "I don't and here's why...." And I'm familiar with the arguements. But I don't care. I don't mean that to be rude or insultive. But you don't have to believe in it! I believe it because it's the one prayer Satan can't understand. It's a spiritually alive language, and he's spiritually dead.
Religious viewpoints and theological traditions are not the requirement of salvation. That is the fundamental importance!
If the Roman Catholic Church suits your personality and teach in way that is meaninful for you, then I say attend those services! Some like different styles of teaching, some like different manners of preaching, etc.
Many like different styles of worship. Which is what church is truely about anyway. Not just the singing, but the learning, tithe, etc. As a diverse culture, one can not expect everyone to want to worship in the same manner.
If Catholic services are the manner in which you like to worship the Lord, that's awesome! If not, then find the style of worship that you feel blesses God the most from your heart.
But this "holier than thou" attitude of "my denomination is better than yours!" is flat out ignorant though.
Denominations, non-denomination, and interdenominations are not going to exist in heaven.
We need unity, not uniformity.
<font color="red"> I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
</font>
And this thread is not going to turn into some huge denominational war where we go through all the history of the church in a futile effort to prove who belongs to the right club, and who's in the right "camp".
God's not going to ask me to present my "southern baptist" card at the pearly gates, nor is he going to say, "thanks! I always like you catholics more!"
<font color="blue"> 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
12 When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
13 Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
14 Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them.
15 And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.
16 Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;
17 Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.
18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
</font>
God doesn't care about traditions of the church. He cares about acceptance of His Son.
I'm in no way putting down the traditions, only saying they are not worth putting this or that denomination on a pedastal over that one. We are all one church, one body, one faith, one Lord, one Baptism.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.