Well, is it? The author of Keeping the Home seems to think so, as she points out in this blog post. She has a lot of pictures of pagan symbols and compares them to distinctly Catholic images, including things that the Pope carries with him. I think she fails miserably to make the case in her blog post, but at the same time, I think it’s a good question.
It’s a plain fact that Christians and Pagans use many of the same symbols. But symbols are representative. Christians and Pagans may use the same ones, but with very different meanings attached. Pagans worship the God and Goddess whom, according to their beliefs, appear in nature. For them, nature is part of deity. Thus, nature plays a huge part in Pagan art and symbolism. We Christians, however, take a different view. We see God reflected in His creation. If we put an acorn on a staff, it isn’t a symbol for God, but a decoration reflecting the beauty found in His creation. So, if you want to say that the use of a symbol found in Pagan art on the Pope’s staff equates Catholicism with Paganism, I think you’ve missed something, and are far from proving your case.
Most Christians, Catholic and Protestant alike, celebrate certain holidays like Christmas and Easter. Different schools of thought have different ideas about when Christ’s birth was, but most scholars agree that it was unlikely to have been in late December. The late December holiday was, for Pagans, the rebirth of the Sun God, when light came back into the world, and the days began getting longer. We Christians borrowed the holiday and changed the symbolism. We still see light coming into the world, but now instead of it being the sun, it is the Son of God, bringing the light of salvation to us. Most of us bring a tree indoors, and may even be aware of it being symbolic of everlasting life (because it’s evergreen). But far fewer of us are aware that the decoration and use of a Christmas tree is an ancient pagan tradition.
Easter is the most ancient Christian holiday. But Easter is the name of a Pagan goddess whose symbol was the hare (rabbit) which was a sign of fertility. It’s fitting that we should celebrate the Resurrection in the Spring, for as the Earth begins to spring to life again, so do we find eternal life in Christ.
If we condemn Catholics as Pagan because of some shared symbols (with very different meanings attached), it seems only fair to condemn Protestants who decorate Christmas trees, or celebrate Easter. It seems only logical that after 2000 years of incorporating Pagans into the faith, we would adopt some of their symbolism. And, I don’t think it’s necessary to apologize for it. Because we’ve changed the meaning. The symbols now reflect the God who created them as opposed to simply being objects of worship in and of themselves. It seems to me that we should rejoice in that!
But what really makes me a Christian and not a Pagan? That I can, and do, believe:
in God the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I believe in Jesus Christ his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried. He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.
A Christian who denies the truth of these words perhaps does not fully understand them. Perhaps that’s a subject for another post.
Hi!
I’m so happy to see you did this. I seriously considered doing what you just did – starting a seperate blogspot to educate the ignorant. I found your site through Keeping the Home. I love her other stuff, but when it comes to Catholicism my heart beats fast and I feel an incredible urge to defent the Catholic Faith because – let’s face it – Jesus Christ started the Catholic Church … it wasn’t man made! I will be posting your blog on mine. Thank you, thank you, thank you!!
I’m not a Catholic(I’m Lutheran, but what’s more important to me is my relationship to Christ.) However, Protestants attacking the Catholic Church makes me ANGRY! It just makes me upset! Same with Catholics attacking Protestants! I thought this was 2007, not 1537! There’s a reason Paul wrote for unity among the believers!
I have a good friend (mom of
who is Catholic. A while back (about 7 years ago) we “got into it” over her faith, because I’d been raised all my life (including my bible college!) to believe that Catholics were NOT followers of Christ (except for a few exceptions who somehow barely managed to get saved EVEN while being Catholic).
That started a one year intense-but-always-warm conversation about Catholic doctrine and practice. I learned SO MUCH. Mostly about how TWISTED my former education about Catholics had been. From that point on, I’ve never been able to keep quiet when hearing Catholics get bashed for their “evil doctrines,” or when they’re spoken of as if they aren’t followers of Christ.
Have you been following Barbara Curtis’s journey into the Catholic Church over on mommylife.net? Probably. It’s sure been interesting!
Lots of Love,
The gal who’s going to the Quaker meeting again today.
What happened? Did you not get the memo that the ultra-conservs put out? It plainly states that all Catholics are going to hell because they pray to Mary and worship Saints and they don’t get saved!
(tongue in cheek, of course) I’ve actually really looked at the Catholic church because I crave tradition and beauty. It was something sorely missing from my background before.
Which ties in nicely with Molly’s comment above. One of the few things I disliked about the Quaker church was the fact it was so plain. I wanted candles and stained glass and Christmas decorations, etc. 99% of Quaker churches don’t have anything, including a wooden cross. Most are plain rooms with benches and that is about it. Some Quaker meetings even eschew hymnals because one might consider them “ornaments.”
‘
Hmm… I was raised in a pentecostal church that taught us to almost be afraid of Catholics. Sad.
Right now, I think that what determines whether you are a ‘pagan’ or not within the ‘Christian’ groups would be whether you worship and follow God or the doctrine/teachings/leaders of the church you are in, whether Catholic or Protestant…
(Yes, I meant to imply that by the standard they use, there are many Protestants that are as ‘Pagan’ as they accuse Catholics of being.
)
Has anyone else not been able to view the blog article on Keeping The Home? When I click on it, it says the page doesn’t exist.
It’s a minor point in your article, but FYI if you haven’t run into it yet, MANY conservative protestants are no longer observing Christmas or Easter (and certainly not Halloween!). There is much ado every year about it – how “real” Christians stay far away from pagan things like christmas trees, santa claus, easter eggs, trick or treating, whatever even HINTS at pagan roots. It really makes me tired and sad when there is so much energy spent on these arguments. For me, one of the amazing things about this world is how it ALL belongs to Him, even the pagan symbols – they are HIS! It’s His trees, His acorns, His bunny rabbits. And Easter and Halloween and the Winter Solstice, they are HIS DAYS! They don’t belong to anyone else. Nyah.
I don’t know where the original post went. I’m still looking for it. I wrote this post ages ago, and I think Candy moved it.
Robyn, yes quite a few Christians (though still a small percentage of the total number) are eschewing what they have deemed “pagan” traditions. Which is kind of sad, I think, because these celebrations have, through the ages, been a way for believers to celebrate the faith together.
But I also laugh a bit when I see a church having a “Harvest Festival” because that’s one of the oldest pagan traditions around.
I’d agree with this post, except for one thing I saw at a Catholic wedding I went to once. The couple placed flowers at the foot of the statue of Mary and bowed down to it for a minute. I asked about it later, and they were praying to her for fertility.
Other than that practice, which I can only describe as pagan, I tend to agree with you — we all have our symbols.
Excellent post. While I enjoy Candy’s blog most of the time, when she gets off into religion I have to read it all with a big grain of salt. She’s one who would rather throw the baby out with the bath water, I’m afraid.
I think one does have to understand the Catholic idea about praying to Mary or the Saints. Catholics don’t believe that Mary or the Saints can give them anything, but that since they are in heaven, that they can pray for us, or intercede with God on our behalf. Like having a friend pray for you.
But asking Mary for fertility does have pagan roots. I think for many early Catholics converted from paganism, Mary took the place of the Mother Goddess.
The truth of the matter is that MANY churches have adopted “pagan” rituals and practices. If we are going to critique…don’t stop at the Catholic church.
Another thing…in my opinion, “the word of God” is not the only way that he reveals himself to us…and IT MAY be infallible in the “original” forms, but man or woman’s interpretation and application certainly is not, or we would not have Catholic, protestant, AOG, Quakers, Baptist…etc..craziness…I think I’ll just stick to Jesus and let the rest of you hash out the details!
I grew up in a Roman Catholic neighborhood. I thought everybody was Roman Catholic and that I was the oddball for being Protestant. I understand what it means to be attacked only because of a particular sect I belong to within Christendom.
My father was able to trace the family can be traced back to the Great Reformation (another family member is working to go beyond that timeframe).
Yet, my father emphatically held that Roman Catholics were Christian and that we just disagreed in a few points (RC=7 sacraments & Protests=2; RC=purgatory & P=no purgatory; etc.). He emphasized putting the term “Roman” in front of the word catholic (catholic=universal) when discussing issues be they Bible, history, civics, etc.
Rightly or wrongly, I am highly offended when folks say Roman Catholics are not Christian.
With respect to “paganism” … that word simply means “from the country”. If we are talking about how the pagans have influenced our lives, let’s look at the months of the year, the days of the week, why a wedding ring is worn on the left hand, etc.! Just because certain things began in a certain fashion it does not equate that those using the names of the days of the week/month or wear a wedding band are to be considered non-Christian or “pagan”.
One Who Has Been Burned, you make some really good points. I wonder if the Christians who are giving up on the “pagan” traditions of Christmas and Easter are also going to start giving new names to the days of the week. After all, I’d hate to be a part of “Thor’s Day”.
And while you are right about pagan meaning “from the country” (and I believe heathen has a similar meaning) I think it’s also important to point out that a whole group of god/goddess worshipers have reclaimed the name “pagan” and now wear it proudly.
Also those giving up the “country” or “pagan” traditions of Christmas and Easter—in my experience—are the first ones to have birthday parties for their children or wedding anniversary celebrations.
So, what they are implying (without realizing it?) is that their children & anniversaries are more important by the very fact that they do not acknowledge of Christmas and Easter.
The New England Puritans tried to stop the celebration of Christmas only to realize (the hard way) that there is no such thing as a void in Creation. If Christians do not fill that void, non-Christians will. Therefore, they began to acknowledge CHRIST-mas.
Others have told me, and I quote, “It is not commanded in the Bible.”
However, when I tell them Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, cars, computers, TV, prints from the 1800s & l900s, etc. are also not commanded, I get a lot of blank looks.
“Rightly or wrongly, I am highly offended when folks say Roman Catholics are not Christian.”
Me too. From one raised Convention Baptist, then reformed Baptist, then reformed Presbyterian and now in an evangelical Mennonite church.
They are no more pagan than any church which acknowledges the passages and celebrations of life in the context of church. For example, war memorials or Rememberance Day services, Easter candlelight services, midnight watch services at new years, christmas trees and greenery in the sanctuary, thanksgiving services with pumpkins.
It is refreshing for churches to recognize where people are in their culture and acknowledge the meaningful and rightful aspects of it. We spent years in churches who officially pretended those special days, events didn’t exist. It became an exercise in extreme righteousness for those against all of the above and a watch your P’s and Q’s dance for those of us who thought differently. It also was oppressive and maddening because the line was always shifting and you were never sure of what language was acceptable. Within our family it became a joke to say in a rather in a naive way, “is this allowed?” whenever, we were having a rip-roaring good time, laughing, playing, ENJOYING.
Oh, and no one dared acknowledge mothers on Mother’s Day or fathers on Father’s Day, and certainly not birthdays. And most certainly you did not tell anyone that you were taking the evening service off and spending it with family for a special event or just because or yikes, that you missed last week’s second service because you and hubby got, ahem…delayed.
Anne2 wrote: “no one dared acknowledge mothers on Mother’s Day or fathers on Father’s Day, and certainly not birthdays.”
LOL!
I have not run across that one … yet …
however, if I do, I’ll be the first to point out that “pagans” lived in houses, tents, caves, apartments, and other types of dwellings … so, because they had these types of living arrangements does that mean we cannot?
Oh gosh, One who has been burned, it never even occurred to me to use that response. How dull of me. Thanks!
LOL … Anne2 … you are so funny
you can do this with pretty much any holiday … my exposure is the type we are discussing is that they really get into Thanksgiving … yet, thanksgiving (how we Americans do it) is not commanded in Scripture either
how about pants (doesn’t matter if it is for male or female) …
why aren’t the men in this crowd we have been discussing wearing togas?
… it is true, the Celts (women & men) wore pants, but if we are going to be THAT strict about the whole thing (i.e., conforming to another culture’s idea of what is/is not okay and not adhereing to anything that is so-called “pagan”) … then, why are the men and little boys in these groups wearing slacks? … after all, it was the ancient “pagan” Celts that wore slacks and not the ancient Romans, Greeks, or Hebrews ….
hmmmmmmmmmm????
hmmmmmmmmmmm … that winking face wasn’t supposed to be there …
now how on earth did I manage that
I don’t know about “pagan” but deffinately sending folks in the wrong direction.
“The Roman Catholic Church and its twin, Eastern Orthodoxy, were formed by a spiritually adulterous relationship between the political empire and apostate church leaders. The latter claimed authority over the Lord’s churches and amalgamated pagan practices with New Testament truth to form an impure form of Christianity. This explains the origin of such unscriptural practices as the mass, purgatory, sacraments, prayers to and for the dead, consecrated buildings, Mary worship, scapulars, and the rosary. Eastern Orthodoxy has its roots in this same apostasy.”
“Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy both claim direct descent from Christ and the Apostles, but that this claim is bogus is evident in their non-apostolic doctrines and practices. As a result of the split with Rome, Eastern Orthodoxy is not united under one head. There are many groupings of Orthodox, all having the same basic doctrine and practice with some minor variation: Russian Orthodox, Albanian Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, etc. Though not united under a world headquarters, these groupings are united separately into episcopal councils, over which a bishop rules. Also, each group is in turn in formal relationship with the Patriarch of Constantinople, who presides over all the Eastern Orthodox churches. “No one patriarch is responsible to any other patriarch; yet all are within the jurisdiction of an ecumenical council of all the churches, in communion with the patriarch of Constantinople, who holds the title Ecumenical Patriarch” (Handbook). From a biblical perspective, there is little difference between the ecclesiology of Roman Catholicism and that of Eastern Orthodoxy. Both incorporate an unscriptural form of church government through which a intra-church bureaucracy lords over the local assembly.”
I just know someone is gonna get upset. *insert me frowning here*
Littlewings, I’m not going to go into the many ways in which your quotes are mistaken. I am, however, going to request that you provide sources for them, or I will remove them. Nothing personal, but when we post quotes as evidence here, we must also show sources. To not do so not only robs the one who wrote it of the credit, but also doesn’t allow us to fully investigate the information and give it proper intellectual weight.
Thanks.
I apologize, I thought I had state; tha was on my previous post however. Same author; Br. Cloud
wow, I need to type slower …lol (stated and that)
You know Anne, I though I would hang here a while and try to discuss the many aspects that show the Roman Catholic Church as “pagan” but after reading through many of your quotes and “feeling’ I have and understancing for your passion; I sought it pointless.
If you say that I have a missunderstanding of Catholisism they you are just turning a blind eye.
All one has to do to prove such a point is visit Rome. Take note of the numberless times that “symbols” and “saints” and “idols” are used throughout all its “churches” and you get the feel that Rome “worships” anything and everything but the God of the Bible.
But of course after my drive by of one of your other commentarie blogs I can see plainly that symbols and creeds and the like are seen as just ways to keep one in the faith and draw one closer.
One verse Anne (ok, maybe a couple),
Exd 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:
Lev 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God.
Deu 4:16 Lest ye corrupt [yourselves], and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female,
But, we could always turn a blind eye and pretend that they are God fearing Christians inspite of all their idolatry.
hmmm, yeah, menothinso ….
See, Littlewings, that’s the problem I end up having right there. You don’t say, “I’m not going to spend the time, because I know you are a believer and we simply disagree” instead you say “I’m not going to spend the time because you’re simply blind, incorrect, and it’s not worth the time to educate you”. At least that’s how your posts come across.
The Roman Catholic Church includes many symbols that can be found in paganism. But, they do not represent pagan themes. They represent Christian themes. We Christians do many things that pagans do, but we do them for God.
If I believed that Roman Catholics worshiped the statues or pretty pictures, I would agree with you that it was idolatry, but that’s simply not the case.
And all one needs to be a God fearing Christian is to believe the biblical doctrines listed in the Apostles Creed, and they can.
If you don’t think the Catholics can be Christians, then you deny your own doctrine that all one needs is faith in the blood of Christ Jesus shed for them on the cross for the forgiveness of sins. I had such faith as a Catholic and I know many others did as well.
You are welcome to disagree with the Catholic Church. I certainly do on many issues and I’m sure the other authors here do as well. But I will not allow attacks on Catholics to go unanswered. They are, despite differences in theology, our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Source
Littlewings, it was Br. Cloud? or did you not finish his name? I’m having trouble finding any information about him/her.
I was wondering, LittleWings- you have any pictures of Jesus in your house? In your Bible or your kids’ Bible?
No Cally, no pictures, no crucifictions, no “jesus” dolls, no images pertaining to “any saint” or “god.”
No jewelry either.
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/calvins-prooftexts.html
Here it is Anne, if you so would like to read it in its entirety.
I understand what you have explained Anne. I would like to believe what you are saying in that “all” Catholics ‘worship” as you have stated.
But are you aware, that to destroy such and idol or dispose of a papal picture is looked at as blasphemy?
I don’t know Anne, perhaps you and I have met two very different “types” of professing catholics.
When an image is made with the “intention to look up it to worship,” this is the point I understood God was making.
No images where to be made lest they “corrupt” their ways. Which is exactly what happened to Israel.
They were told not to do this for their own good and it was not long before they went “whoring” after other “gods.”
This instruction was for their benefit.
To link family pictures with this matter is being silly. No one but a love sick fool, looks to a picture with the intent to worship it.
I understand it to mean that God was refering to anything pertaning to “worship.”
As for his instruction regarding the cherubs … I have no answer (as of yet, I will search out the matter).
I want to thank you Anne, because if nothing else this has cause me to search the scriptures more.
Peace!
Honestly, Littlewings, I’m sure I don’t speak for “all” Catholics. I’m certain that there are Catholics who do not understand who Jesus is and I can’t speak to their salvation. But neither do I think you can condemn them all, for the same reason. There are people in every faith who have it wrong.
Destroying a picture of the Pope isn’t blasphemy, but it is considered highly disrespectful. And for the same kinds of reasons we don’t let the flag touch the ground, and burn it if it does. Because it represents something important to Catholics.
I agree that it’s ridiculous to compare the issue of idolatry to having a picture of one’s mother. But I think it’s equally ridiculous to think that Catholics worship their statues. They don’t. They worship one God. Period.
I understand that some prefer a more austere faith, and I respect that. Some people soften the hard messages of Jesus in pretty surroundings, incense, and candles. I’m okay with that too. So long as we all understand the truth of Him whom we worship.
I’d also like to amend my previous statement where I said all one needed was to confirm the biblical doctrine as laid out by the apostles creed. It’s possible that one might believe some very wacky things and still confirm that basic creed.
I actually prefer the Nicene Creed which I believe is a bit more specific:
Well, at least you’re consistent. We don’t have any images of Christ/God in our home either as we believe it violates the Second Commandment. Usually, Independent Fundamentalists don’t have any problems with pictures or renderings of Jesus or religious art- at least not the ones that I’ve encountered.
The “issue” I have with such “renderings” is that they all make Jesus out to be effeminate.
God had a problem with long hair on man (with the exeption of those under submission to him in the OT, ie Sampson).
The “jesus” image that most portray is that of a “hippie” with a soft “compassionate” face and a “fair” complexion.
Jesus was of Jewis decent, a carpenter; I personally believe that his “appearance” would have been very “manly.”
Not like the “girly” image based on the “artist” rendition.
That is the issue I have with such images.
I’m FIB, and I do have issues with that.
FYI Anne, the link provided for said blog is not available.
You might want to check that.
I’m sorry for pegging you with a religious conviction that you obviously don’t have. You just haven’t run into a Jesus that fits your image yet. Good luck with that.
Our home does not have any images of Christ/God in our home because we hold it violates the Second Commandment.
Littlewings wrote: “The “issue” I have with such “renderings” is that they all make Jesus out to be effeminate.”
the term “effeminate in this sense is very subjective … what you may consider effeminate others may not.
Littlewings wrote: “God had a problem with long hair on man (with the exeption of those under submission to him in the OT, ie Sampson).”
uh … I disagree … but I would like to know where your scriptural support for this statement is?
I used to have historical sources here (which, after tearing my home apart I cannot find) that talk about how many ancient civilizations used not only clothing & jewelry, but how one’s hair was done to show your role in that society at a glance.
I’m aware that the link isn’t working. I’m trying to determine if she removed the post or if the permalink has changed. She doesn’t have a search and I’m finding it difficult to locate.
BTW, if anyone can help me locate that post, I’d really appreciate it. She has no archive, no way that I can see to get to previous posts, etc.
Just to be clear I’ve attempted to provide the link that would allow her words to be read in context, and it’s something on her end that no longer allows that to occur.
I’ve been looking, Anne, and I can’t find it. I did find this, which implied heavily that Catholicism isn’t Christianity.
http://myblessedhome.blogspot.com/2008/04/anti-christianity.html#article
I don’t know how to make it clickable.
Cally, I don’t like the way that those images “portray” a would be image of “jesus.” I don’t for one think that is how he looked.
If Jesus wanted us to “know” his face, he would have left a picture book, not a word book.
I am not nor will I ever be looking for an image that lives up to my idea of what he should look like because only in death will I behold him face to face and not one minute sooner.
Burned~ “uh … I disagree … but I would like to know where your scriptural support for this statement is?”
1 Cor 11:4 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
Would you like more supporting scripture on the matter?
Jud. 13:5 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
Only those that were under the Nazarite vow wore their hair long.
Littlewings – You’ve made me consider something that was mentioned in the doctrines of grace thread. Each of us has some things that really rub us wrong and we tend to jump into debate about these things easily. Sometimes some of us even turn somewhat viscious (I’m saying that about myself, not you) if the topic touches us deeply.
I agree with you on the issue of pictures of Jesus, etc. We have no pictures of Jesus or the saints on our walls, in our bibles, or anything like that. We do have some childrens books that have cartoon pictures illustrating the stories, but I think of these in a different light. We don’t have statues at all and I would strongly oppose that if asked, but we do set manger scenes at Christmastime, so that probably violates my proclaimed position on this.
However, this issue just doesn’t touch me deeply. I don’t have a lot of concern over it, so I don’t jump into a debate about it typically.
I think one of the things that led me to view this issue with some temperance is that the Baptist college I attended (Baptist Bible College and Seminary) purchased a monastery property way back (late 60s, I think). When they purchased this property, they “Baptized” it by eliminating the things they found offensively Roman Catholic. Our Western Civ/History prof took us up to the bell tower one day. He had placed ladders around the bell tower so we could see the upper side of the beams that held the roof up. On the upper side of those beams, which could not be seen from below, were beautiful intricate carvings of bible stories. They were gorgeous.
Of course, the question was raised, “why did they hand carve these beautiful works of art on the side of the beams that no one would ever see?” Our professor, Dr. Rembert Carter, explained to us that those carvings had been done on all four sides of the beams. When the property was purchased by the college, the Baptists planed off the carvings on the three sides that could be seen.
The carvings on the upper side of these beams, according to documents found in the library, had been done for God’s pleasure – fully knowing that they would not be visible to people. The Baptists obviously didn’t think it mattered if God saw the graven images – as long as no humans laid eyes on them.
They also pulled hand carved marble statues of the saints out of the library and smashed them. Our professor showed us photos of the smashing, which the people who did it were obviously proud enough of to have someone photograph it for posterity.
I think we need to stop trying to find ways to point the finger of blame at others and just work to live in the way that we are convicted by the Holy Spirit through the reading of the Word.
This brings me back to the idea of what we are willing to jump into the fray about. Truth is always truth. It is the same for each of us, regardless of our situations. But certain things rise to the level of importance that we are willing to debate them when the Holy Spirit has personally convicted us of these things. These are things that we individually need to be taught for the glory of God. It isn’t necessarily so for others. The truth remains the same, but the Holy Spirit has not seen fit to convince the others of that particular thing at this point in time.
I think these discussion are great and it is good for us to tell others about our convictions as we can all learn from the experiences of each other.
This is probably a throwaway comment, as I’m not recommending any course of action. These are just thoughts I’ve had recently.
Littlewings, how long is long hair? The issue of long hair is largely cultural, and what would be long to one culture would be medium length to another. I think you’re judging these images by your own macho standards, but that’s just my opinion. And I don’t think a disagreement in this area is the dividing line between Christian and pagan.
Richard, I understand what you are expressing. “Something’s” are just not worth getting “heated over.” Some neither “add” nor “take” from Salvation.
My point here being however is that the “idolatry” that I find rampant within the Catholic Church has a tendency to lead folks astray.
You know, Anne made the point that these images are not “worshipped” but merely are a representation of something respected or reverenced. But who truly deserves all the reverence? God and God alone.
We are conforming to the image of “Christ” in our attempt to live as “Christians.” This means separating ourselves from things that are of the world and give others “the wrong” impression.
So many are content living like the world that nothing sets them apart. Nothing in their lives (on the outside) makes those who are unsaved “long” for or “desire” what they have.
We ought to live our lives so as to please God and God alone but in this walk others should be able to see something so different so as to desire the peace that God gives us.
1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Rom 12:12 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
IMO, when I see someone “reverently” bow down before an “idol” to “pray” I do not find myself desirous of such a form of worship. I do not even “link” that to God (not did I, when I was unsaved). I may be wrong, but that is how I see it.
Isa 44:9-20 They that make a graven image [are] all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they [are] their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image [that] is profitable for nothing?
Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they [are] of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; [yet] they shall fear, [and] they shall be ashamed together.
The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
The carpenter stretcheth out [his] rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish [it].
Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth [it], and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth [it]; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth [himself], and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
And the residue thereof he maketh a god, [even] his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth [it], and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou [art] my god.
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; [and] their hearts, that they cannot understand.
And none considereth in his heart, neither [is there] knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten [it]: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, [Is there] not a lie in my right hand?
In regards to the long hair thing Anne, we were talking about the images of “jesus.”
I guess that I would have to ask a “rabi” such a question … lol.
LW – I completely understand your uncomfortableness with seeing people bow in front of statues and such. It bothers me as well.
When I worked for a Catholic organization for about five years the large majority of them preferred praying to Mary rather than Jesus. I think the RC teachings about Mary are so far afield that they cause significant trouble to many Catholics.
However, much of what is taught is not really a problem in and of itself. The perpetual virginity is blatantly not biblical, the bodily assumption is not biblical, and there are other things in their teaching that I don’t agree with. But they do not teach the Catholics should worship Mary or the saints. They teach that those people should be reverenced.
The people who I worked with who had graduated from Catholic seminaries and colleges understood completely that Mary or the saints are not to be worshipped.
I liken it to the many churches that lean Arminian. They absolutely believe in original sin and many of them believe in total depravity, but the people in the pews quite often are full Pelagian in their beliefs, which is rank heresy.
It comes down to a matter of lack of teaching or lack of understanding on the part of the people in the pews. It’s not really completely the fault of the leaders of the church. I think they could do a better job teaching, but much of the false teaching is coming from parents who tell their children that they are Catholics but never take them to church or enroll them in the many education classes the Catholic church offers about their faith.
Your comment, “This means separating ourselves from things that are of the world and give others “the wrong” impression” is just too Fundamental Baptist for me. I believe in personal separation. I think it is fully biblical. We certainly should not behave like the world. But I reject the vast majority of IFB thinking on ecclesiastical separation. They’re just far too willing to split over the non-essentials. And I don’t really see too many people in the secular world bowing to pray in front of statues, so that probably makes the Catholics more different than the world than we are.
“I think they could do a better job teaching, but much of the false teaching is coming from parents who tell their children that they are Catholics but never take them to church or enroll them in the many education classes the Catholic church offers about their faith.”
Richard~ I read what you are saying here, but I will have you understand yet another of my perspectives, these come from “well meaning” RC’s.
The truth is that not so many years ago (say about 40 give or take) the RCC never encouraged their people to read their bibles. I personally knew (my grandmother who died several years ago at the ripe age of 96) and have known RC’s who stated that they were not “personally” permitted to read the bible. It was said to them that it was only for “preistly interpretation and understanding” and not for the lay folk.
I knew a relative in seminary who bacame “very confused” in the process of it, stating that he saw “differences” between what was taught and what he read (in the bible).
I understand that it is up to the individual or the parents but when a whole (or many in this case) generation grows up under that cloud well then one can see the derailment of many “a well meaning folk.”
To this day my dear mother-in-law does not believe the bible is meant to be understood by “regular folk.”
Try getting and old stubborn mule to move and I feel that this is what we are contending with when trying to witness to many a RC.
“But I reject the vast majority of IFB thinking on ecclesiastical separation. They’re just far too willing to split over the non-essentials.”
What is this said belief? Please share with me what you believe “the vast majority” think on the matter.
You have to remember, LW, that the RCC is very old. It’s ideas about people reading the bible were laid out when people didn’t have bibles and weren’t literate. I think it was hard for the church to make the change.
In regards to the statues, you said that the praise and worship should be for God alone, but it is!
I always had trouble with it because I was raised Protestant, but the Catholic teaching is that the Saints are Saints because they can teach us something about how to follow God in difficult circumstances. So, Catholics ask them to pray for us. They pray and ask Mary to intercede for them and to help them come to her Son. Because, in the Catholic way of thinking, what kind of mother would want glory for herself? She would, of course, only help someone get to know Jesus better.
I get that it doesn’t work for you, and that you would find it distracting. But for devout Catholics, all the pomp and circumstance is just a way for them to be closer to God, by involving all of their senses. The feel of a rosary, the taste of the Sacramental wine, the smell of the incense, the sound of the hymns, and the beauty of the artwork. It is all designed to help them focus on the source of all beauty and goodness.
For you, perhaps it would be idolatry, and perhaps it is for some Catholics, but I wouldn’t generalize and say that it is for all.
yeah, I guess Anne. But that leads many astray.
Isn’t the question, though, does God care how we worship Him? Has He instructed us in His Word how he wants to be worshiped, adored, reverenced, etc.? Of course, I would answer in the affirmative, but that’s beside the point.
When I think of Roman Catholic symbolism, I see a lot of man-made stuff that helps people feel closer to God when, in actuality, it doesn’t. I think it gives people a false sense of the spiritual.
God has given us the preached Word and the Sacraments to impart His grace to us and to bring us closer to Him. He has called us to pray and to study His Word and to minister to others. He hasn’t commanded us to hold a set of beads and pray to Mary (or ask her to pray for us). He hasn’t commanded us to fill our churches with ornate artwork (as much as I love it, well, you know what I think about it Anne
.
I’m not sure where I’m going with this. I guess I just see a lot of very sincere people devoting time to practices that don’t actually bring them closer to the Lord. Please understand what I mean by the word “actually.” I mean that it accomplishes the intended affect. Receiving the body and blood of Christ by faith actually brings you closer to God. Hearing the Word preached, hearing that our sins have been forgiven in Christ actually brings you closer to God. Does that make sense?
Thanks for letting me ramble…
LW – The following is taken from the IFB General Association of Regular Baptist Churches web site:
“The goal of holiness in the church requires both separation from sin and error and also complete consecration unto God because the church belongs to Christ and to Him alone (2 Corinthians 7:1). Therefore, ecclesiastical separation involves both parting from evil and drawing near unto God (James 4:7–11).
Ecclesiastical separation glorifies God by showing forth His holiness in local churches, in church associations, and in pure and proper cooperative ministry endeavors. Ecclesiastical separation enhances the task of perpetuating truth. It also enables a fuller maturing of church members and a greater unity among believers because they are committed to the same faith. Ecclesiastical separation enhances doctrinal precision and ministry candor as the truth is spoken in love and without compromise (Ephesians 4:13–16). It acknowledges that God is working through many cooperative ministries, but it encourages the commitment of human and fi nancial resources to those ministries that are compatible in doctrinal position.”
The two issues I have with that statement are: “ecclesiastical separation involves separating from evil” and “ecclesiastical sperationg enhances doctrinal precision.” I found both of these statements to be used to paint others with the “your evil” brush, which is exactly what you’ve done in most of your comments here. And I don’t think you even realize that you’re doing it. We can all disagree without becoming antagonistic, but I’m sure you noticed the strong response people had to your comments when you first arrived. It was because of this sense of “doctrinal precision” and “separation from evil.”
What I saw in practice was that IFB churches would not play baseball with SBC churches because they were not deemed “doctrinally pure.” I thought Southern Baptists were satanic growing up and was shocked to find out that they believed pretty much the same thing I believed. And it really threw me for a loop when I found out that my beliefs were also shared by Lutherans and Methodists and Holiness and Grace Brethren and Independent Bible churches and Calvary Chapels and on and on and on.
I was taught that the fundamentals of the faith were such things as the virgin birth, the sufficiency of scripture, the deity of Christ, and the sovereignty of God. But what I saw in practice was that they separated over styles of music, length of hair, movie attendance, dancing, and alcohol use. And lest you say that I am basing that on just the church I grew up in, my father was one of the leaders of the GARBC, so I grew up in hundreds of churches. I had a home church, but I was regularly in other churches for conferences and other events. I attended an IFB approved bible college where I met other students from hundreds more churches. This was the way they were. And then many years later, you have presented the same sort of thinking. That is why I knew immediately that you were Fundamental Baptist. It oozes from every pore of the commited IFB person and is very obvious.
I am not attacking you personally. I truly think you’re caught up in a whirlwind that you may someday escape from and you may not. It won’t make a difference to your eternal destination. I think most IFB churches preach the gospel and their people are usually well educated in theology and I think are ready for judgment day. But from what I’ve seen, IFB folks will be wailing and gnashing their teeth in regret when God talks to them of love for the downtrodden, care for the poor and sick, and such things as that.
In my experience with Roman Catholics, I have found them to be essentially ignorant of the bible, even those who are young and who have been through Catholic colleges and seminaries. So I think these accusations have good foundational support. But I am glad that the Catholic church no longer forbids the reading of the bible, although they do still teach (from what I’ve been told) that only a representative of the church can properly interpret the bible.
LW, I believe just about anything can lead man astray because we are fickle creatures. But God is faithful to hold on to us. I believe Catholics who understand what they believe are not led astray by art. There are plenty of Protestants led astray by aspects of their faith elevated over what they should be. That’s a human problem, not a Catholic one.
Cally, I’m not sure we can judge what someone else experiences subjectively like that. But I appreciate what you’re trying to say.
Richard, yes, the Catholic church does teach that only the Magesterium can interpret scripture. I have mixed feelings about that. The point of it is to avoid schisms within the body. But, honestly, they happen anyway and it also doesn’t allow for one to disagree, which is a huge part of why I can’t consider myself a Catholic anymore. I worked very hard to learn to read the bible and understand it for myself. And while I welcome the input of those more learned than I, my conscience will not be subject to any man or woman, but to God alone.
In the end, this was not a post to prove the rightness of the Roman Catholic Church. I think it’s fair to disagree with the Church on many issues. I think it’s unfair to label the church as Pagan, which it is not.
Anne, I’m trying to look at it with an objective standard. God has prescribed certain actions (for lack of a better word) that actually bring us closer to him. All I’m trying to say is that, while praying the rosary, being “reminded” or your baptism as the priest walks down the aisle flinging water over the congregation (that did happen to me once- not sure how else to put it)- those kinds of things can absolutely make a person FEEL closer to God, increase his devotion and all that. But it doesn’t actually make him closer to God because those things are outside of what he has prescribed in Scripture.
And you know, of course, that I don’t believe the RC church is pagan. They have borrowed from pagan symbolism and “Christianized” it- Protestants have done that too. Ever heard of a Christmas tree, anyone? Easter? The Harvest Festival at your local church as a replacement for Halloween?
That certainly doesn’t make the church pagan.
I agree, Anne. I have dear friends who are Roman Catholics and who I know to be brothers and sisters in Christ. We have some doctrinaly disagreements and are uncomfortable discussing certain things. But we love each other and love to talk about God’s grace in our lives.
So … a Lutheran pastor of a large church died and went to heaven. He met Saint Peter at the gate. Peter said, “Welcome – we’re so glad you’re home. Come, let me show you around.”
As they walked along Peter introduced the pastor to many people, “This is Greg, he was a Methodist missionary to Eastern Asia” and “This is Pam, she was the secretary for Our Lady of Angels in Mattawamkeag, Maine” and “This is Fred, he worked for the Pentecostal Mission to China.”
After a while all those walking along with them became very quiet and began tip-toeing. Peter turned to the pastor and said, “please keep your voice down as we pass this wall up ahead.” The pastor asked, “Why? What’s behind that wall?”
Peter responded, “That’s the Baptists – they think they’re the only ones here.”
Oh it wont’ be a Baptist that’s sitting on the throne
A Presbyterian or a Methodist that’s calling me home
And it won’t be a Charistmatic that plays that trumpet tune
So let’s all just life for Jesus because he’s coming back real soon.
–The Imperials
I don’t know Cally – I might have to disagree with you on one point. Harvest Festivals replacing Halloween may not make those churches pagan, but it makes me want to go all pagan on their hineys.
Am I allowed to say that here?
That’s so funny, Richard, I told Cally/Jennifer that joke just yesterday! LOL
You guys kill me! ROFLOL!
“IFB General Association of Regular Baptist Churches web site:”
I am not sure who these guys are Richard. We are not “associated” with any other church.
We are Fundamental Independent Baptists. We are a local church (called out body of believers).
We do on occassion “fellowship” with like minded believers but our church answers only to Christ and itself.
“folks will be wailing and gnashing their teeth in regret when God talks to them of love for the downtrodden, care for the poor and sick, and such things as that.”
I am not exactly sure I understood what it was you were trying to say here.
We in our church have many an “elder” that is ill or “shut-in” or sick with cancer, whom we all try to minister to. I know that you said that this was not a personal attack … but I will have you know this; IMO our pastor is a wonderful example of “service to others.”
He ministers to so many and has a heart for all. I can appreciate this and find it a good example to follow.
I am not sure about the “IFB’s” you grew up in, but this is asuredly not the case for us.
I guess we all have something to learn.
By the way, that was a good one … lol…
Really, you feel many a baptist feels that way? That’s sad. I have yet to meet a pastor or brother/sister in Christ who believes that.
Littlewings – The General Association of Regular Baptist churches is an association. There is no heirarchy. Each church is completely independent. The association is a way for those who don’t want to dirty themselves by visiting a church that doesn’t listen to the same type of music, wear the same length hair, or read the same version of the Bible to find churches to attend when they are traveling.
The associations were moe common until about 20 years ago when the newer pastors that came out of the “approved” seminaries began even disassociating themselves from the associations (even though there was no heirarchy at all). The main reason for this was adherence to the King James Version of the bible only.
I was not saying anything about your church as I obviously don’t know your church. My comments in regards to IFB churches is general in nature. You are obviously from an IFB church. There are many things that are very common to IFB churches. If your church is reaching out to those in distress – that’s great. But that would not be talking about people in your own congregation who are sick. That does not fit the model of the Good Samaritan. It means helping the downtrodden who are not part of your assembly. And the IFB model for vilification of those outside its doors is not likely to make the poeple of the church want to help those people.
Also- that is not something the elders of your church should be doing alone. Caring for the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden is something that each person in your church should be doing.
I did send the author a message via her blog and asked for a working link. I provided a link to this blog and my e-mail address. She has not posted the comment nor has she responded to me privately. I’m leaving the link in, since it did work at one time, and I’m doing my part to provide the source of the quoted material.
Very well-written post. I came across the anti-Catholic writings on the “Keeping the Home” site a couple of years ago and just couldn’t bring myself to even try to reason with her. (My comment is late to the party~I’ve been scrolling back, reading earlier posts).