Historical Objectivity of Rome

[Dr. Walter]

The Roman Inquisitor in Bohemia

"The other is AEneas Sylvius, who wrote the history of Behemia, and afterwards ascended the pontifical chair with the title of pope Pius II. Thus, writes the inquisitor concerning the Waldenses of Bohemia.

The first error of the Waldenses, says he, that they affirm the church of Rome is not the church of Jesus Christ, but an assembly of ungodly men, and that she has ceased from being the true church, from the time of pope Sylvester, at whch time the poison of temporal advantages was cast into the church, and that they alone live righteously - That they are the true church of Christ, and that the church of Rome is the whore mentioned in the Revelation. They despise and reject all the ordinances and statutes of he church, as being too many and very burdensome. They insist that the pope is the head and leader of all error - That the prelates are the scribes and seemingly religious pharisees - That the popes and their bishops, on account of the wars they foment, are murders - That our obedience is due to God alone, and to prelates, whch they found on Acts iv. 9 - That none in the church out to be greater than their brethren, according to Mat. xx 25 &,- Tha no man ought to kneel to a priest, because the angel said to John Rev. xix 10) 'See thou do it not'.....They condemn all the sacraments of the church. Concerning the sacrament of baptism they say, that the catechism signifies nothing, that the absolution pronounced over infants avails them nothing - that godfathers and godmothers do not understand what they answer to the priest. That the oblation which is called Al wogen is nothing but a mere human invention....They contend that the doctrine of Christ and his apostles is sufficient to salvation without any church statutes or ordinances...." William Jones, The History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, pp. 31,32,34

 

[Dr. Walter]

Billy, I quoted these things from Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition!!

Are you goint to tell us that they don't believe what they said????? I simply quoted what they said.

BTW, our Catholic friend dressed in Baptist attire perverted nearly everything I said as usual. He didn't quote Fox to sustain evidence that there is an evangelical people outside of Rome which they butchered but to sustain his ecclesiastical argument and it is for the same reason he quoted the other books. He never checked the the books he quotes to see if they simple parrot Roman source materials.

HE REFUSES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT REGENERATION IN BAPTISM! Why? Because it might get him into trouble with his church???

Born SINLESS= Immaculate Conception. This is a gift of God through Christ (yes – there is no time in heaven, toto)

ETERNAL virgin: Well, she led a chaste life. Soooo, if she died a virgin, then she would necessarily be a virgin for all eternity. Before you give the old “until” argument, please look at the Greek (the Aorist tense)



incorruptible body: I don’t think that is Church doctrine, but perhaps someone else knows more about this.

she ascends to heaven: She did not ascend into heaven (under her own power) – she was assumed into heaven (by the power of God)



divine REDEMPTRIX: Again, I don’t think this is Catholic dogma.

MEDIATOR between God and man: Wrong again there, doc. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. He does, however, allow us to share in that. He is the head of the Church and we are part of the body. A body can do nothing without the head.



OMNISICIENT in that she is capable of hearing millions of prayers and answering them: Again – she can do nothing without God – just as the saints and angels can do nothing without God’s power. Through him all things are possible.


She is WORSHIPPED: Nope. She is venerated (hyper dulia) – and deservedly so, since she is the Mother of God.

and PRAYED unto:Well, yes - as praying is often a request and is NOT synonymous with worship. Remember that the prayer of a righteous man (or woman) is powerful and effective. And who is more righteous than those in heaven?

It is clear that you know virtually nothing about which you speak.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

Born SINLESS= Immaculate Conception. This is a gift of God through Christ (yes – there is no time in heaven, toto)

ETERNAL virgin: Well, she led a chaste life. Soooo, if she died a virgin, then she would necessarily be a virgin for all eternity. Before you give the old “until” argument, please look at the Greek (the Aorist tense)



incorruptible body: I don’t think that is Church doctrine, but perhaps someone else knows more about this.

she ascends to heaven: She did not ascend into heaven (under her own power) – she was assumed into heaven (by the power of God)



divine REDEMPTRIX: Again, I don’t think this is Catholic dogma.

MEDIATOR between God and man: Wrong again there, doc. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. He does, however, allow us to share in that. He is the head of the Church and we are part of the body. A body can do nothing without the head.



OMNISICIENT in that she is capable of hearing millions of prayers and answering them: Again – she can do nothing without God – just as the saints and angels can do nothing without God’s power. Through him all things are possible.


She is WORSHIPPED: Nope. She is venerated (hyper dulia) – and deservedly so, since she is the Mother of God.

and PRAYED unto:Well, yes - as praying is often a request and is NOT synonymous with worship. Remember that the prayer of a righteous man (or woman) is powerful and effective. And who is more righteous than those in heaven?

It is clear that you know virtually nothing about which you speak.

Peace!

I would answer each one Billy, but it is too tiresome.
What can I say, but a post filled with absolute damnable heresies.
I would like you to defend them from the Bible. That is what we do here.
We use the Bible and defend our doctrines on the basis of the Bible.
If you can't defend it on the basis of the Bible then throw it out.
It is a doctrine of man and not of God.
The Bible is our final authority. Defend these heresies that you spout off here from the Bible and demonstrate if you can that they aren't heresies. But to do that you will have to use the Bible and the Bible alone.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Nope still hasn't taken up my challenge. Probably hasn't read post 75 either. I say Character is probematic.

 

[DHK]

Nope still hasn't taken up my challenge. Probably hasn't read post 75 either. I say Character is probematic.

I think your at odds with each other. Have you given a simple answer to a simple question as to whether or not you believe in baptismal regeneration? Why not start there. Then ask your question again in a simple and polite manner and hopefully it will be reciprocated.

Let's get this conversation down to a civil level--all of us.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think your at odds with each other. Have you given a simple answer to a simple question as to whether or not you believe in baptismal regeneration? Why not start there. Then ask your question again in a simple and polite manner and hopefully it will be reciprocated.

Let's get this conversation down to a civil level--all of us.

No one asked me about Baptismal regeneration. Do I believe in it. No I was baptised and I wasn't saved. It wasn't until I made a decision to follow Christ that I was saved. However, I'm still owed an apology. I was attempting to be civil but was called filth. Would you put up with that?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I think your at odds with each other. Have you given a simple answer to a simple question as to whether or not you believe in baptismal regeneration? Why not start there. Then ask your question again in a simple and polite manner and hopefully it will be reciprocated.

Let's get this conversation down to a civil level--all of us.

No one asked me about Baptismal regeneration. Do I believe in it. No I was baptised and I wasn't saved. It wasn't until I made a decision to follow Christ that I was saved. However, I'm still owed an apology. I was attempting to be civil but was called filth. Would you put up with that? Read post 75 to get a jist. or just read the thread from the begining.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Dr. Augustus Neander's Church History

It is interesting in reading Dr. Neander's Church History concerning the Paulicians that he repeatedly cautions his readers of misinterpretations and false accusations by Rome against the Paulicians:

"But we have strong reason for doubting the truth of this whole account.....We find nothing at all however, in the doctines of the Paulicians, which would lead us to presume, that they were an offshoot from Manichaeism; on the other hand, we find much which contradicts such a supposition.....(pp. 244-245).....On the contrary, we may confidently reckon it among the characteristics of the Paulicians, that they knew of no higher distinction than to be in the true sense of the word Christians...(p. 245)...Constantine, if we may credit the account given by opponents.......(p. 248)....If we placed certain realiance on the reports of opponents....But accusations of this sort cannot be received without suspicion.....If, then there is any ground for the assertion....(p.253)"

Dr. August Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 3.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Did I really call you "filth" OR did I say "anyone" who took a certain position fit that?? Are you admitting you fit that criteria I applied to that qualified "anyone"?

Do you equate baptism at the time you were saved as part of that salvation experience or saving faith?

No one asked me about Baptismal regeneration. Do I believe in it. No I was baptised and I wasn't saved. It wasn't until I made a decision to follow Christ that I was saved. However, I'm still owed an apology. I was attempting to be civil but was called filth. Would you put up with that? Read post 75 to get a jist. or just read the thread from the begining.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Did I really call you "filth" OR did I say "anyone" who took a certain position fit that?? Are you admitting you fit that criteria I applied to that qualified "anyone"?

Do you equate baptism at the time you were saved as part of that salvation experience or saving faith?

I admit that I believe the infant church developed and grew and fought and evolved and that the true church was in the covering of the catholic church in the three hundreds but as time went on the things that went wrong were addressed during the reformation as most history books tell you. Including all the non roman one's I've listed. And since that is what I believe I believe you called me filth. I've never said Landmarkism was filth. Just an unsupported fantasy which is much better than filth.

read post 75 its clear

 

[Dr. Walter]

I read this post and responded to it when talking to Billy as I thought you directed it through another person to me.

Your response about Fox is the difference between apples and oranges. My question had nothing to do with Fox's ecclesiology but that is what you used Fox for. My question had nothing to do with the ecclesiology of the other source materials but that is what your response had to do with. So, I asked one thing and you were asserting another thing. So you inferred that I called you a Liar to Lori when I only denied you were addressing my question and indeed you were.

I put in place qualifications for a generic "anyone" concerning the "filth" statement. If the shoe fit, wear it. If not, then don't worry about it.

I asked you if you agreed with the Roman Catholic view of regeneration in baptism. You never answered.

I did call you a deceiver on the basis of claimng to be a Baptist but taking up as your own arguments Roman Catholic heresies. I havn't changed my mind because every defensive position you take reaffirms it.

Hi Lori,

Let me show you the Lie of Dr. Walter. His claim is as follows:
This he says on post 65
Is this true? Lets look

Just a few post before I said

Is Fox a Roman source? No. Yet He agrees with my analysis. Attend Lori, Is this all I said? Lets look some more in Post 11 I said Are both of these Catholic sources? No they have no allegience to rome as they are both Evangelical sources. Wait...is there more Lori? Quite possibly Now does that sound like no responce? Of course it isn't. Let me add another source thats not Roman Minnisotal Apologetics and the Christian History institute's Dr. Murphey. Funny how they hold my perspective.

Now if he said I had no responce and clearly I've shown I have responded. What does that make him? LIAR. Yet I am called such. I even threw down the guantlet and he did not pick it up. I would gladly meet him at my church with my pastor to prove to him I am indeed a baptist. He just doesn't want to admit baptist did not exist very long prior to the reformation. Nor the historical evidence that Christianity has evolved and changed as every scholar University professors both christian and not agree save for the few radicals that he adheres to.

But further Lori what else did the vile Dr Walter do? By Dr. Walter

1) He claims that I am not born again which means saved and is against the forum rules.
2)Saying that Catholicism once carried the true church is "spirit of error" When I can show NON CATHOLIC TEXT after TEXT that this is exactly the supposition.
3) that I am ... lets see how he put it in other words filth. He is claiming I am filth a children of filth for believing this! His Character shows. Wait further he says.
4)
I am Catholic! Which would suprise my pastor. and a deceiver and not a baptist by any confession! I'm Southern Baptist and I would love him to meet the whole congregation so they can give testimony of who I am. But wait even further he argues I am catholic because what? because I mention Theotokos. Which is Greek for something he brought up "Mother of God" You and everyone with education knows this is a techinical term. But how do I know it? Because I'm educated. So his claim for me being catholic is that my education shows therefore logicaly if I had no education about church history I would be baptist!!! How ludicrous!!!!

So in summation. Who has been shown to be a liar? Will he take up my challenge we can even go through a moderator so that no ones personal information gets out until we meet that way he can be safe.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I read this post and responded to it when talking to Billy as I thought you directed it through another person to me.

Your response about Fox is the difference between apples and oranges. My question had nothing to do with Fox's ecclesiology but that is what you used Fox for. My question had nothing to do with the ecclesiology of the other source materials but that is what your response had to do with. So, I asked one thing and you were asserting another thing. So you inferred that I called you a Liar to Lori when I only denied you were addressing my question and indeed you were.

I put in place qualifications for a generic "anyone" concerning the "filth" statement. If the shoe fit, wear it. If not, then don't worry about it.

I asked you if you agreed with the Roman Catholic view of regeneration in baptism. You never answered.

I did call you a deceiver on the basis of claimng to be a Baptist but taking up as your own arguments Roman Catholic heresies. I havn't changed my mind because every defensive position you take reaffirms it.

Then take up my challenge. And you asked if I used other sources other than roman and I amply replied which was specific to your question. You're trying to generalize it but I quote you directly. My challenge is still there. You can satisfy yourself if I'm baptist or not. I've got nothing to hide.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I admit that I believe the infant church developed and grew and fought and evolved and that the true church was in the covering of the catholic church in the three hundreds but as time went on the things that went wrong were addressed during the reformation as most history books tell you. Including all the non roman one's I've listed. And since that is what I believe I believe you called me filth. I've never said Landmarkism was filth. Just an unsupported fantasy which is much better than filth.

read post 75 its clear

From the ECF Rome has believed in Mary as a co-redemptrix, "Queen of heaven" through which believers come to Christ as it still does as they quote the very ECF as current doctrine - NO CHANGE HERE. From the ECF Rome has believed in regeneration in baptism and still does - NO CHANGE HERE.

No church can embrace these salvational aspects and not come under the "accursed" of Gal. 1:8-9 as they are inseparable from the gospel of salvation they teach and preach. This is the "filth" I am talking about and it is the "filth" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7:23 "depart from me ye workers of INIQUITY."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

From the ECF Rome has believed in Mary as a co-redemptrix, "Queen of heaven" through which believers come to Christ as it still does as they quote the very ECF as current doctrine - NO CHANGE HERE. From the ECF Rome has believed in regeneration in baptism and still does - NO CHANGE HERE.

No church can embrace these salvational aspects and not come under the "accursed" of Gal. 1:8-9 as they are inseparable from the gospel of salvation they teach and preach. This is the "filth" I am talking about and it is the "filth" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7:23 "depart from me ye workers of INIQUITY."

You don't even know what you are saying Co-redemtrix and Mariology wasn't defined until the 1800's long after the reformation. Very little is said with the Ante-Nicean fathers. So again you fail at history. Boy you keep having probems there.

You ever hear of the document the syllybus of errors?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I put the evidence twice on this forum. I quoted directly from Volume VIII of the church Fathers and then I quoted directly from the Catechism of the Catholic church concerning Mary and her intermediate position between Christ and man. Please don't confuse the adoption of later terminology with earlier teaching or formal later adoption of a position and technical explanations with former practice.

Billy, tried to answer it but just refused to believe it was ECF or Catholic dogma. Perhaps you better take a look before charging me with ignorance of history because I merely quoted the words and they were not my words.

BTW you never responded to my challenge. I challenged you to look at your great majority of historians and see if they simply accept Roman testimonies as credible sources for their own views or do they exercise any critical investigation to see if they are credible. Just throwing historians and books down at the book store at me is vain unless you can demonstrate their view is not based simply upon assumption of Roman Catholic sources as credible.

You don't even know what you are saying Co-redemtrix and Mariology wasn't defined until the 1800's long after the reformation. Very little is said with the Ante-Nicean fathers. So again you fail at history. Boy you keep having probems there.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I put the evidence twice on this forum. I quoted directly from Volume VIII of the church Fathers and then I quoted directly from the Catechism of the Catholic church concerning Mary and her intermediate position between Christ and man.

Billy, tried to answer it but just refused to believe it was ECF or Catholic dogma. Perhaps you better take a look before charging me with ignorance of history because I merely quoted the words and they were not my words.

BTW you never responded to my challenge. I challenged you to look at your great majority of historians and see if they simply accept Roman testimonies as credible sources for their own views or do they exercise any critical investigation to see if they are credible. Just throwing historians and books down at the book store at me is vain unless you can demonstrate their view is not based simply upon assumption of Roman Catholic sources as credible.

The problem is that some Catholic historians are credible. Don't you site credible sources or only ones that have your view? Anyone who does his homework will have studied Catholic historians as well as other sources as I have. Not everything catholics say is a lie. And you questioned if I used sources other than catholic and I showed you I did. Anything not to apologize.

Now what question did billy not answer that I must?

 

[BillySunday1935]

I would answer each one Billy, but it is too tiresome.
What can I say, but a post filled with absolute damnable heresies.
I would like you to defend them from the Bible. That is what we do here.
We use the Bible and defend our doctrines on the basis of the Bible.
If you can't defend it on the basis of the Bible then throw it out.
It is a doctrine of man and not of God.
The Bible is our final authority. Defend these heresies that you spout off here from the Bible and demonstrate if you can that they aren't heresies. But to do that you will have to use the Bible and the Bible alone.

That is your doctrine not mine. Scripture states that not everything is in scripture. You hold to scripture alone, yet you deny this? The Bible is not my final authority and it NEVER states that about itself. I do not feel inclined to defend that to which I do not hold. That would be your position and one, I might add, that you have consistently failed to defend.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

I NEVER said that everything Catholic historians say is a lie. My whole challenge was in the area of those evangelicals whom they called "heretics" and attributed every scum sucking charge they could muster at them in order to bring them under the Codes of Justinian and kill them, which they did kill them. There is evidence among their own writings and among other historians from several different denominations that their charges are riddled with false accusations and misrepresentations and I have already provided more evidence from credible historians in addition to those first listed.

Historians who have a vested interest in Rome being the "true church" and origin of their own faith will not be motivated to investigate more thoroughly this sphere of evidence. Your typical Protestant historians have a vested interest in just adopting Romes charges in regard to these people instead of critically examining the evidence that IS AVAILABLE AND IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUSPICION.

I did not ask you if you used other sources. I asked you if you used other sources that took a critical view of Rome's assertions in this area. You quoted Fox, but not to answer this question. You quoted Fox in order to defend you ecclesiastical theory.

Again, have you attempted to use other credible sources (not credible by Rome or those who simply adopt Rome's veiw) that investigate the claims of Rome in regard to the accuracy of their charges against those they called "heretics" which fit the evangelical groups (groups that denied the church or sacraments were essential for salvation)?

The problem is that some Catholic historians are credible. Don't you site credible sources or only ones that have your view? Anyone who does his homework will have studied Catholic historians as well as other sources as I have. Not everything catholics say is a lie. And you questioned if I used sources other than catholic and I showed you I did. Anything not to apologize.

Now what question did billy not answer that I must?

 

[lori4dogs]

Hi Lori,

Let me show you the Lie of Dr. Walter. His claim is as follows:
This he says on post 65
Is this true? Lets look

Just a few post before I said

Is Fox a Roman source? No. Yet He agrees with my analysis. Attend Lori, Is this all I said? Lets look some more in Post 11 I said Are both of these Catholic sources? No they have no allegience to rome as they are both Evangelical sources. Wait...is there more Lori? Quite possibly Now does that sound like no responce? Of course it isn't. Let me add another source thats not Roman Minnisotal Apologetics and the Christian History institute's Dr. Murphey. Funny how they hold my perspective.

Now if he said I had no responce and clearly I've shown I have responded. What does that make him? LIAR. Yet I am called such. I even threw down the guantlet and he did not pick it up. I would gladly meet him at my church with my pastor to prove to him I am indeed a baptist. He just doesn't want to admit baptist did not exist very long prior to the reformation. Nor the historical evidence that Christianity has evolved and changed as every scholar University professors both christian and not agree save for the few radicals that he adheres to.

But further Lori what else did the vile Dr Walter do? By Dr. Walter

1) He claims that I am not born again which means saved and is against the forum rules.
2)Saying that Catholicism once carried the true church is "spirit of error" When I can show NON CATHOLIC TEXT after TEXT that this is exactly the supposition.
3) that I am ... lets see how he put it in other words filth. He is claiming I am filth a children of filth for believing this! His Character shows. Wait further he says.
4)
I am Catholic! Which would suprise my pastor. and a deceiver and not a baptist by any confession! I'm Southern Baptist and I would love him to meet the whole congregation so they can give testimony of who I am. But wait even further he argues I am catholic because what? because I mention Theotokos. Which is Greek for something he brought up "Mother of God" You and everyone with education knows this is a techinical term. But how do I know it? Because I'm educated. So his claim for me being catholic is that my education shows therefore logicaly if I had no education about church history I would be baptist!!! How ludicrous!!!!

So in summation. Who has been shown to be a liar? Will he take up my challenge we can even go through a moderator so that no ones personal information gets out until we meet that way he can be safe.

The 'good doctors' fangs have been showing for some time now.

 

[BillySunday1935]

The problem is that some Catholic historians are credible. Don't you site credible sources or only ones that have your view? Anyone who does his homework will have studied Catholic historians as well as other sources as I have. Not everything catholics say is a lie. And you questioned if I used sources other than catholic and I showed you I did. Anything not to apologize.

This reminds me of current liberal academia - posit a thesis and cite only sources in support of said thesis.

Now what question did billy not answer that I must?

I think I answered all of them - but I'm not sure if he excepts my answers.

Peace!