[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: Man' Vain vs. God's Will and Teachings  (Read 2460 times)


  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
  • Obviously I'm a Novice
Man' Vain vs. God's Will and Teachings
« on: February 08, 2007, 06:29:29 PM »
Protestantism and Ecumenism

Although God Itself came in the world and He taught us by word and example what to do to gain the salvation, although the Spirit of the Truth has descented to guide us, although Father’s Son let us Apostoles, learners and men who saw what had happened then, even He guided the evangelists, although He coached us at the Seven Ecumenical Synones, the man has chose to interpret His teaching upon his own pleasure and to break so the Church body.
The conceit, the superficial study of the Holy Teachings, the ability to see the straw that is in the other’s eye and to observe no girder in his own eye, all these things and more others has drived to the actual huge diversity among the Christian confessions. And the situation is that each confession affirms that only its teachings are true, only it teaches the people the right path to salvation.
This article deals with a new view concerning the Protestantism and of one of the movements that it sustains, the ecumenism (We must note that the ecumenism had existed from the Christianity beginnings and is also manifesting in the Orthodox Church, but its meaning is different from those that it was promoted by Protestantism).
But, in this paragraph, we are dealing with something else. We stress that in the Christian Church history there is a fact that has the greatest importance: the days when the Father’s Son descended at the man’s level. Then, Saviour arrived among us as simple man, His words and His personal example, showed to man the way that he must follow to achieve the redemption. His message was received not only by apostoles, but also by His learnerers and by the other men who met Him, many of those men having the chance to tell, to hear and to see Him.
But there are more that 2,000 years from those times and He neither came again amoung us nor sended us a new message that could change in any mode His teachings that founded the Christianity. So, we have no reason to follow any else teachings because He gave us only the above one, we must follow His only message.
Sure, it is not an an easy work to understand His teachings and there are more subtle aspects which agitated the Christians’s soul and mind because different people has understood dissimilar meanings. The Church has solving those problems with the Sacred Spirit’s help, Holy Person who had also called at the Seven Ecumenical Synodes to teach man the right way. But there are being other aspects that would not must to follow at different understndings because in those cases the message was very clear. The Protestantism, for example, introduced the „Sola fide” concept, teaching people that the belief alone is enough for someone who wants to achieve the redemption, the good deed having no importance. An objective analysis reveals that their conception is true partially. However, there are also strong arguments against it, but we will not present them here because the target of this article is different. We are noticing only that the Saviour Himself stresses that the redemption needs good deeds. So, once that the condition that must be passed to achieve the salvation depends exclusively by God, the result is clarly: any thought (however deeply it could seem to be to someone) could follow to fewer good results as it could someone get if he does what God wants.

A New View About How the Proterstantism Appeared, How it Spreaded and What It is It

The Protestantism appeared when it took place the New World conquest. In those times The Catholic Church was full of strength and it imposed its power in all the aspects of the life, beginning with the religious and the moral ones.
As it is hnown, the new lands „civilization” really meant the destruction of more advanced civilizations and the killing of tens of millions of indigenous. At this fact it must be added that the Europeans that gone to the New  World had not was selected to do a real civilization, but even they were the leasted civilizate people: convicts, men with a poor morality, adventurers. They made Anti-Christian deeds: murders, thefts, and so on. When they had driven away, they not only were out of the Church teachings, but also they were impeled to do more wrong deeds. And they did do those.
When they returned to Europa with a lot of wealth for the kings and other people, they also retained some for they and so they became rich men. Of course, they didn’t change their wrong religious and moral visions, but, because they had brought services to the kings and because the kings expected to send them again in expeditions to the New World to become richer, it could be suppesed that the kings defeated them when they had problems. As kings’s protected men, as rich people and with an conquering hero’s halo it may be supposed that they acquired a great influence in the society. This implies that a segment of the society began to admire and to follow their visions and their behaviour. So, if until there Inquisition had repressed (very) drastically any departure rellative to the Catholic teachings, beginning with the apparition of those people, there was installed…”the exception”: for those men there were other rules, namely the population saw that it could live also without the need to follow the Catholic Church rules…
In fact, those vaquisher of the New World were a knot of influent people that exhibited Non-Catholic Views and behaviours. Otherwise, caught between the Not-Christian deeds that they have did in expeditions and the opulence that they might show when they returned in Europe, it could be assumed that they didn’t have much time to teach, to know and to follow the Catholic Church’s requirements.
In those conditions the Protestantism was a way for Christianity to keep that people under his wings. How? We are showing that in sequel.
At it is known, the Protestantism lacks an important aspect that most of the religions of the world have: a real or supossed divine will (a god that revealed himself to someone and teached him what the people have to do, a god that showed himself to the people, etc.). The Protestants cann’t affirm that the God teaches they what to do. In their case only the reason of some people decided what is good and what is wrong, how to be interpreted the Saviour message.
Interesting, in overall the Protestantism has limited itself to ignore some of the Catholic Church teachings. In other words, it has throwing values that it has considering as inutile: The Holy Tradition, The Holy Sacraments, the canon laws, etc. It doesn’t bring new elements that the Catholic Church haven’t and whose applications could lead in a better manner to the resurection. It affirms that it knows alone the resurection path, but its way is only an extended simplification of the Catholic Church teachings.
As a paranthesis, it could be observed that someone who acknwledges the catholic requirements will also do what the Protestants ask, whereas the acknowledgement of the Protestantism’s needings alone  implies the emergency that some arbitrary rejected catholic demendes to don’t be acomplished.
In other words, even if (strictly hypoteticaly and … „rational”) some of the demandes at what the Protestants waived couldn’t be necessary for the salvation, their realization is at most inutile, but not harmful, whereas if, even it exist only one needed for the resurection demend that was rejected, the man who do so puts himself in the emergency to loose its own salvation.
In conclusion, the Protestantism seems to be only an extreme simplification of the Catholic Church teachings.
Very interesting, even this simplification leads to his power. Because it allows even to a person that in reality has almost no belief in God - as thoughts or deeds – to name itself as Christian. If we reffer at those first Protestants, they had been acquainted with the fact that God exists, but they had almost nothing to do to prove their membership. They believed and that was all, their behaviour and thoughts were nearly unchanged, they can do anything. Minimal requirements, maximal vows, this was an much more tempting offer as the Catholic Church could do. Warning! The promises were great because form God originates, whereas the requirements were low because they came from man. And if the man passes over the God words, if he didn’t make what God asked he, then could be he doubtless that God will … give he the payment that he wish?
The Protestantism’s sunny side was and is that it has allowed to man to doesn’t make a completelly break between he and God, to mantain a link (even weakly) with the Creator.
But there is also a dark side because it affirms that only it can conduce the man to resurection. Because it rejected some of the God’s requirements it is difficult to believe that. It is harmful because it tries to inveigle Christians that are members of other confessions to it, namely it teaches them to waive also to hear the God’s will. In other words – by the extreme simplification of the Christian teachings that it brings – it is like a child that learned that after he learned that 1 + 1 = 2, then it tries to convince the PhD in mathematics Professor that all the mathematics is what he knows.
So, the Protestantism promises much (even it hasn’t arguments to prove that it really can do what it says) and asks very few. Nearby this aspect it exhibits elements that makes it attractively for many men. For example, it involves the people in many social actions as to sing together, to bring new members, to deliver jurnals, to revard the best members, etc. In reality it is like something as “the instrumentalists’s batch” or “the walking friends”, so it is a place when the youths can spend their energy and challenge for a better rank in the group and the olds can avoid to feel theirself alone. But the most important is to do the God’s Will. It could be of interes that every Protestant to check how much counts in his participation at the Protestant groups the social needs and what is the part that is in reality for God. The money and the material goods are also elements of attraction for someone. There is no secret that some people becames Protestants because on this way they can emigrate easier or to have a house. Could be named Christian belief this pass to the Protestants that depends of money, and is not founded in love for God?  And this is important more when it could be seen that by this way there are men who lost their Christian deeds and beliefs and arrive to ignore some of the Good’s words. Let us don’t forget the Saviour teachings and life and how the first Christians had lived.
Really, are the Protestantism not a movement in which the man remains in the state in which he do like to be, only speakig about God and trying to bring God at his rational level and its interests?

And the Ecumenism Came into View…

The Protestantism has the good aspect that each of its members studies carefully the Gospel. Even there are more wrong interpretations, even they don’t recognize the importance of the Holy Spirit for a correct understanding of the God’s word, however their reson and effort help them to understand some teachings.
In these conditions, around 1910, the Protestantism gave birth to a new and strong movement: the (protestant) ecumenism, an attempt to unify the Christian Churces.
The initiative seems to be laudable because we, all the Chritians, must confess the same God and we have to hike on the same narrow and straight way that carries to salvation.
Of course, the exumenism may be understood as a protestant technique to attract all the Christian under its wings too.
But it may signify an awaken. Namely, “my family and my friends are Protestants and I myself have learning since my very erarly days that the Protestantism is the unique way to salvation, but…. Some things seems to don’t go well. But, it seems that other conffesions act more correct as us do. But, why the Protestants ignore some of the Saviour words? I don’t have the courrage to think more because I am afraid that I will be regarded as heretic and because my family and my friends could avert from me, but…”
In other words, the ecumenism may be also an expression of the fact that some Protestants feel that the way is wrong. As a direct recognition could have disagreeable personal consequences, a more acceptable path seems to be the realization of a tendency toward the change of the protestant concepts theirself. The direction can be only one, toward a reapproch toward the Saviour’s teachings.
As this implies to recognize that other confessions had a more correct behaviour, this thing can be interpreted as a defeat and so the conceit and the concern about how the Protestantism could be judged by other confessions begin to intervine.There are human concerns, but very important for someone who feels that he made mistakes and feels fear concerning how the others will react…
In these condition it seems to be necessary that the others waive from some of their concepts too. If this will happen, the others will cann’t judge your defeat and so your “honor” will remains unchanged.
So, the ecumenism could signify both that the Protestantism did make faults, but also it could be seen as a technique that avoids the Protestantism judgement by other confessions by persuading them to waive also to some of their concepts.

What to do?

There is no astonishment that the Protestantism was who proposed the ecumenism (in the shape about which we are dealing in this article). This is because the protestant movement has made the biggest changes to the Catholic Church teachings and, so, it has done the most important waiver at the Jesus Christ’s words and example. The outcome was that the errors are becoming more evidently.
Because the truth is this: the Christian teachings were made 2,000 years ago and those we have to follow! The Protestantism bases involved some conceit that required to Protestants to exhibit an individual way, apart from the Saviour teachings. So, it ignores some fundamental Christian aspects. Even more, at the beginning of the third milenium, the Protestantism didn’t return yet to the Jesus Christ’s path that leads to redemption because of the same conceit: how could it cedes to other confessions?
But the most important aspect is not to cede or not to cede, but to become again duteous of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity that, only He, can save us.
It matters only one thing: that to do to gain the salvation. If the Protestants rennounce only a little and follow an average direction, it is very probable that they remain out of the narrow and straight path that leads to the redemption.
The unique option, that is good also for the Protestants, is to follow the way that Jesus Christ Himself had showed us and the Orthodox Church has followed from the beginnings.

About the article's image:

At the bottom is an icon that shows the Jesus Christ as emperor and priest.
From Him to the upside is drawn an path to the Heaven, which is below a wall that has an open door next at the upper end of the salvation path.
From the Saviour springs an not straight line that represents the Church's ways.
At the beginning there is an unique way, those of the Church before the schism of 1054.
After that event, the line is branching in two, the Orthodox and the Catholic ways.
When the Protestantism was born, the catholic line was also divided in two.
Due to the fact that the protestant doctrine ignores some of the most important and clear teaching that the Lord brought to us, the protestant line is going apart from the salvation line and point firmly to the wall.
In this condition, the ecumenism is represented as an line that lies between the three main direction (do by the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant doctrines), line that also points toward thge wall.
So, an average direction is not good because one man must follow the right direction that Jesus has teached us very carefulyl if he wish to obtain the salvation.

Theodore A. Jones

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Man' Vain vs. God's Will and Teachings
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2012, 02:35:56 PM »
Why is baptism in water a requirement in the process of becoming born again of God?
There are many religious proposals asserting that if they are believed and followed the result is a union with God, a god or many gods, which are supposedly unseen beings of supernatural power.
"No man hath seen God at any time." The main claim the Bible makes is that the god it describes as God is the only Living God. And it is only this God who has supernatural power for no other gods have any power whatsoever. "There are no other gods besides Me and you shall not have any other gods beside Me." Period. But devious sinful mankind, who is practically unalterably wicked because of being a natural descendent of Adam, has the devious idea that the Living God did not mean exactly what he said. And no matter what form God presents himself in, unseen, manifested in the flesh and even in one Word, devious wicked mankind always erroneously thinks he has the best ideas regardless of what the Living God says. There is nothing of greater contrast, absurdity and oxymoronic than this one term, YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN, to the naturally born human. Because the naturally born erroneously thinks he is a child of God, but the actual truth about him is "Ye are the children of your father the Devil" which is the curse of natural birth to both the Jew and Gentile alike.
There are two things we all know from the Bible. But regardless of whether one accepts these things as being true it does not change these facts into not being true. The man, titled as the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible, is God manifested in the flesh. The man, titled as the only Begotten Son of the Living God, has perfected the only Way any child of the Devil by natural birth can escape from that curse by his crucifixion. However the naturally born must have the faith to use, put into physical human practice, exactly what the Lord thy God says through the apostles to become redeemed from the curse of your physical natural birth. This has only produced another child of the Devil.
In all of your cases there are actually four things you must have the faith to do in order to be redeemed from the curse of your natural birth.
1. Lay aside every contemporary explanation of salvation which you have read, heard from any contemporary church's pulpit. The salvation doctrines of all theologians and whomever they have taught, and whoever positively pontificates in any form that what theologians teach about the Lord's Way of salvation is not falsehood. For their doctrines of salvation are specifically designed to keep you out of God's kingdom and t
2. If you get over that hurdle, which I doubt many of you will, it is necessary to test what I teach. In other words you will have the faith to try what I teach to prove or disprove what I teach. If any of you sincerely obey my gospel one or more of the spiritual gifts listed by the apostles will be physically manifested in you proving what I teach is actually true. But the required confession must be your honest conviction or it is a lie.
3. Hurdle three. Where the rubber meets the road and what every theologian and contemporary preacher hotly contests and must contest. But if you continue to believe what they contest and pontificate there is no hope of you escaping the curse of your natural birth. None. For this is the actual key you must have the faith to hope, trust in, and in sincerity use to escape from the consequence of your natural birth. For there is absolutely no other way of escaping the curse of natural birth and the curse of the law. For by Jesus' crucifixion a law has been added to the law. And you must have the faith to obey this law exactly as you have been commanded by the Lord thy God given through the apostles. Or willfully disobey a law of God which is not forgivable. Which is what Jesus meant by saying “they are now being forced in” by the law added to the law by and after his crucifixion?
4. Hurdle four. Recanting your former ways of salvation and be baptized into the new testimony about Jesus' bloodshed. For without the shedding of His blood there is no remission of sin's penalty for any of the naturally born. But understand me clearly. The crucifixion of Jesus' has only perfected the Way you might escape from the curse of your natural birth and the law's penalty. But to escape both you must by faith, sight unseen, obey an actual law that has been entered into the law as an act of righteousness. That if correctly obeyed by any naturally born individual God will declare him righteous as he promises.
"It is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."Rom. 2:13
The only Way this law, the Law of the Spirit, can be obeyed is by making this confession directly to God sincerely meaning it in your heart and be baptized in water to receive the promise.
"Oh God I am so truly and sincerely sorry your only begotten son Jesus' lost his life by bloodshed when he was crucified." There is no other way to escape.
"I am not ashamed: for
I know whom I have
believed, and am
persuaded that he is
able to keep
that confession
which I have committed
unto Him against
that day.
Theodore A. Jones


  • Guest
Re: Man' Vain vs. God's Will and Teachings
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2012, 03:25:45 PM »
For your information:  most on this site take the time necessary to reply as accurately as possible with research through scripture from the Holy Bible and for some like myself, it takes time to do so, as we are new to the Reformed Doctrines.  Your 'copy and paste' methods of reprehensible doctrines at that, simply do not work here! 



[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]