High Demand Religions?

[Valerie]

Because we find its views heretical. Anabaptists have long regarded infant baptism as the greatest abomination of popery. Eastern Orthodoxy is essentially a fusion of church and state.

The big question is_If the Orthodox Church is the “one true church” why don’t you join it?

They hold the true "interpretations" which I certainly trust more than Reformation era. Celestial flesh? Really?
Sorry, if the Anabaptists were the Church God waited for for 1500 years I don't think the representation of truth and being of one mind is at all close to trustworthy in interpretation.

No I came here as a seeker to Anabaptism, that was my direction long ago- in fact it was an Orthodox who led me here, knowing I was a seeker.
The forum and more searching for truth is why I don't agree the Holy Spirit guided Anabaptists in interpretation but they are very good at many things Christian, but I do know they are not free from grievous sin among them too, not widely known to the public.

Our own pastor debated a well known Presbyterian pastor on infant baptism.
So- people can be convinced they're right without actually being right & like Muslims, be willing to die for wrong beliefs.

Prophetically speaking, the falling away from the faith happens at the end so I sure wouldn't make infant baptism a hill to die on.

Heresy began while the apostles were still alive, guess you have never read 1 John. The problem that orthodoxy has is that their lives do not line up with the Bible at all. You have the majority group proclaiming that the state they are in harmony with claiming that they have the “right “ to rule over all Russian speakers, and the church enthusiastically supports this heresy of the highest order, that they endorse murder in the name of Jesus. Added to the abomination of infant baptism, real presence of Jesus in their worship and monasticism. None of this is remotely endorsed in the New Testament. These claims that “oral tradition “ is endorsed by those verses you cite is proof texting without any context. If you understood the simple principles of interpretation, that will always lead to errors.

“A text without a context is a pretext for a a proof text”

I never said there was not heresy in the earliest days of the Church- of course, even Galatians lists it among the works of the flesh, along with other grievous sins-
We disagree about which is heresy. I do not (any longer) agree that the Anabaptists were correct in stating infant baptism is heresy, then or now. I agree with Churches that would say vehement attacks against it is heresy & by the definition of heresy itself, that would be the Anabaptist on the subject.

Interesting while driving today & listening to a message on Christian radio, the pastor mentioned Constantine. How he thought the divisiveness of what was happening in the Church was worse than war- so he called the council to settle it- I kind of thought that was timely however I understand what led to the Reformation in the West-

I didn't bring this topic up- I just will never agree with people calling those who believe in BOTH Believers baptism AND the baptizing of their children, heretics and I really don't believe the Lord is pleased with that either. It was taught by the Apostles whom Christ commissioned to start Churches in every city which they still practice this ancient teaching in same places the Church was started. Both Eastern and Western Christianity.

[Josh]

It was not taught by the apostles. zero evidence for that

[Sudsy]

'Nonsense' ? Wouldn't 'I disagree' be less offensive ?

No, historically, it is nonsense. The Catholic Church, as we understand it, likly came in existence shortly before 390 AD, when Theodosius was excommunicated for the “incident” at Thessalonica. That was largely the beginning of Roman Catholicism, principally through the display of Ceaseropapism.

I will have to disagree with you and Ken in the way we are to disagree with each other. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 I believe says that a servant of the Lord, must not be quarrelsome and must be kind to everyone. Paul tells Timothy to be humble and gently teach those who don't agree with you.

James writes - But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

When someone says to me that what I think is 'nonsense', regardless of how incorrect I might be, it makes it more difficult to listen to them. Imo, it is not reflective of certain characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.

With that said, I have failed to always live up to this understanding that how we say/post our disagreements, is very important to obey.

[Valerie]

It was not taught by the apostles. zero evidence for that

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

[Valerie]

'Nonsense' ? Wouldn't 'I disagree' be less offensive ?

No, historically, it is nonsense. The Catholic Church, as we understand it, likly came in existence shortly before 390 AD, when Theodosius was excommunicated for the “incident” at Thessalonica. That was largely the beginning of Roman Catholicism, principally through the display of Ceaseropapism.

I will have to disagree with you and Ken in the way we are to disagree with each other. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 I believe says that a servant of the Lord, must not be quarrelsome and must be kind to everyone. Paul tells Timothy to be humble and gently teach those who don't agree with you.

James writes - But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

When someone says to me that what I think is 'nonsense', regardless of how incorrect I might be, it makes it more difficult to listen to them. Imo, it is not reflective of certain characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.

With that said, I have failed to always live up to this understanding that how we say/post our disagreements, is very important to obey.

JM has believed people who have influenced him just like we all do, weighing in on all things Church, and Christianity. The tendency towards arrogance and pride at insisting 500 year old interpretations & conclusions drawn & viewpoints of the earliest days of the Church and those who were contending for the faith once delivered to the saints can be likened to how it was displayed when they were attacking the Catholic Church in their beginning - having read the history, it was anything but peaceful. One can understand why the Reformation happened, men & women taking things in their own hands to try to address the problems in the Church but I think this led to the real tragedy of the Church at large being a horrible witness of disunity & seemingly a curse of splitting ever since. If only allowing God in His long-suffering to address it "His" way, as He had always done with His elect.

[Josh]

It was not taught by the apostles. zero evidence for that

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

[Valerie]

It was not taught by the apostles. zero evidence for that

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teachings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

[ken_sylvania]

No, historically, it is nonsense. The Catholic Church, as we understand it, likly came in existence shortly before 390 AD, when Theodosius was excommunicated for the “incident” at Thessalonica. That was largely the beginning of Roman Catholicism, principally through the display of Ceaseropapism.

I will have to disagree with you and Ken in the way we are to disagree with each other. 2 Timothy 2:23-26 I believe says that a servant of the Lord, must not be quarrelsome and must be kind to everyone. Paul tells Timothy to be humble and gently teach those who don't agree with you.

James writes - But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

When someone says to me that what I think is 'nonsense', regardless of how incorrect I might be, it makes it more difficult to listen to them. Imo, it is not reflective of certain characteristics of the fruit of the Spirit.

With that said, I have failed to always live up to this understanding that how we say/post our disagreements, is very important to obey.

JM has believed people who have influenced him just like we all do, weighing in on all things Church, and Christianity. The tendency towards arrogance and pride at insisting 500 year old interpretations & conclusions drawn & viewpoints of the earliest days of the Church and those who were contending for the faith once delivered to the saints can be likened to how it was displayed when they were attacking the Catholic Church in their beginning - having read the history, it was anything but peaceful. One can understand why the Reformation happened, men & women taking things in their own hands to try to address the problems in the Church but I think this led to the real tragedy of the Church at large being a horrible witness of disunity & seemingly a curse of splitting ever since. If only allowing God in His long-suffering to address it "His" way, as He had always done with His elect.

Yes it was anything but peaceful. The Roman Catholic church tortured and murdered hundreds or thousands of innocent people who simply wanted to know God and do his will. Roman Catholic men and women took matters into their own hands to try to protect the institution and yes, it was a horrible tragedy.

[ken_sylvania]

I didn't realize you're old enough to have been there! I will agree with those that said they did teach it. You think they wrote everything down, but you're truly incorrect about that.

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teachings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

Yes, the New Testament does say that there were false teachings being circulated orally even during the time of the apostles.

[Valerie]

Our record of the doctrines we are to follow is the New Testament. Anything else is simply men’s teachings, which may have value, but are not absolute.

More to the point, you keep claiming all these oral traditions are somehow authoritative… are they written down anywhere?

That New Testament states there were "Oral" teac. hings that were not written down so yes, I agree with Scripture & Apostolic teachings held in every country the Gospel was taken.

Yes, the New Testament does say that there were false teachings being circulated orally even during the time of the apostles.

And they were called out. For 1500 years Believers had their infants baptized with no opposition until the Reformation. Yet other heresies were called out and addressed. Apostles taught infant baptism. They were not false teachers.