Historical Objectivity of Rome

[Thinkingstuff]

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)?

Wow that was a bit confusing. I think I got the jist of what you are saying. The sources I used did their homework and looked at rome critically. Thats my answer I hope to your question.

 

[BillySunday1935]

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.

I did answer you in post #77. Why not respond directly to my points therein. I showed clearly that you're ignorant of what the RCC teaches. And yes - please take my responses in post #77 and compare them to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. You made the accusations and I responded point-by-point. Let's get this out in the open right now doc.

Peace!

 

[DHK]

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

Much of your outlook on the history of the "church" has to do with your outlook of the very doctrine of ecclesiology itself. There is no denomination in the Bible, and I don't believe you can demonstrate there is. There is no "church" per se, although we keep referring to one. There is Christianity and Christendom. There are about five different meanings or so for the English word "church". But the Greek work that is translated "church" in the NT has only one meaning, and that is "assembly." The Greek word is ekklesia. It is used 115 times in the Bible; 3 times it is translated "assembly," all three in Acts 19; and all other 112 times it is translated "church." The reason for that was political correctness on the part of the Anglican Church in the 17th century. Translations such as Darby's consistently translate ekklesia as "assembly."

Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches; no one church; no denomination; no universal church; but only local independent churches. That is what history teaches. Read the NT. "To the church at Corinth," to the church at Philippi," to the church at Rome," etc. He writes to churches, and churches send their greetings. Read Romans chapter 16 for that evidence. They were independent churches, and none exercised any control over the other; not until corruption entered into the churches. During the Apostolic era there was nothing but "churches."

Very early into these churches doctrinal error began to enter. As always God raises up some who will speak against heresy. The movement of the Montanists was a movement against the corruption that had entered into many of the churches, not into "the church" or into a denomination, but into many autonomous churches that were present in that area. He convinced believers to follow him in a life of purity and holiness. That is what he emphasized. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far in some cases. It was a reaction to the corruption that had crept in among many of the churches. It doesn't mean that all the churches were corrupt. Neither does it necessarily mean that all the Montanists were absolutely uniform in their doctrine.

However, in every age there have been churches, independent of larger organizations and denominations that have been faithful to God's truth. These are the churches that have most often been the object of persecution by the RCC and by others as well.

There is no such thing as a "universal church." A church is an assembly. It is a contradiction of terms to have an unassembled assembly. How is that possible? The Bible speaks of assemblies not hierarchal organizations made by man. Thus when you read "church history" books that speak of the history of the "church" you know that you have picked up a biased book already. They need to get their ecclesiology straight before they can speak of the history of it.

 

[DHK]

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!

You state Catholic doctrine on this board (post #77), you defend it.
Don't attribute your post to mine!

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560762&postcount=77

The above link is your post, a post of the heretical Catholic doctrines that you say you believe in.

Now defend them with the Bible. If you don't care to do that then don't post here. Notice the title of the Forum: Other Christian Denominations

Christians post here Billy, Christians! Christians use the Bible, and believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible. If you don't believe that then you don't belong here.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Billy, I cited official Roman Catholic Doctrine from their Catechism. I cited your favorite source of truth ECF. You are not opposing me but you are opposing the very things you claim as sources of truth.

Am I to understand that neither Catholic doctrine or ECF's or the Bible is your source of truth???? If that is the case, then it seems that YOU are your source of truth?

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



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

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Billy, here is what you are opposing in post #77 but never addressed.

"As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary........And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, threfore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"

'The Virgin Mary....is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer...She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ'....since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.' 'Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." [/COLOR][/I]- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 251

The Catechism is quoting from Augustine for support of its dogma on Mary.

May I remind you, please do not confuse LATER official chuch terminology and confirmation with PREVIOUS belief and practice and don't pit one against the other in your responses because what they believed in and practiced earlier is the foundation for their later confirmation and explanation.

"'The Virgin Mary....is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer...She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ'....since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.' 'Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 251

Note the langauge! New birth is acheived through Mary's "charity" and made members of Christ, who are members of its head.

What about you gentleman? Were you birthed by Mary's charity and made members of His body? She is called not only the "Mother of God" but in addition "Mother...of the Redeemer.....Mother of the church" in the sense of new birth.

The catechism goes on to demand that Mary is inseparable from "spiritual union" with the Son in the work of redemption:

"Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from he union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is mande manifest from teh time of Christ's virginal concpetion up to his death.....Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved from from all sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things...." Ibid., pp. 251,252

Most of this is being directly quoted from the so-called early church father's.

Friends, you have to be brain dead to see this languague is not ascribing to Mary all the qualities of God that are ascribed to the Son of God. She is the QUEEN of heaven over all things.

Any "Baptist" that can defend this inseperable Maryoltry doctrine from salvation doctrine of the Roman Catholic is simply not a genuine Christian.

THIS IS THE GOSPEL OF ROMAN CATHOLCISM FROM THE TIME OF THE SO-CALLED CHURCH FATHERS.- A FALSE GOSPEL EQUALS A FALSE CHURCH.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Billy, do you believe that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of God? If so, then "theotokos" does not merely refer to Jesus but to Mary as well! Did the human nature of Christ come from God's Divine nature or from Mary's human nature? Which nature did Mary supply and which nature did God Supply? No question they were united in Christ's Person but "mother" and "Father" speaks of origin. What originated with the Mother versus the Father???? If the human nature is derived from God's nature than there is no need of Mary. If the divine nature is derived from Mary there is no need of God in this birth. Which is it Billy?

Hmmm... It sounds as though you don't believe in the hypostatic union there, doc. Notice the word "union". I believe that there was a group labeled as heritics who held to just that idea. Can we say Nestorius?

Nestorianism: (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus.

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Thank you. Foxes book of Martyrs does not support Romes presuppositions against the "heretics" as he does not characterize them as "heretics" but as saints and so he is on my side not yours. What other historians fit the criteria that you say which have critically examined Rome's claims to those evangelical "heretics" (heretics who reject ordinances and the church as means of salvation)?

What frustrates me with your responses is typified in the response you gave to my two statements concerning Mary and baptismal regeneration.

There is no question that baptismal regeneration is practiced and believed in the ECF as well as official church dogma now and therefore in regard to the very essence of Gospel salvation they HAVE NOT CHANGED and therefore from ECF till now preached an "accursed gospel."

However, instead of facing that truth you decided to wave both off and just deny that ECF also believed and practiced Maryoltry, co-redemptrix simply because the official recognition and definitions were not provided by Rome till many years later. However, anyone remotely knowledgabel of Rome's history knows their belief and practice existed long before their official recognition and terminologies were adopted. So why pit eariler belief and practice against later formal recognition and definition???? I posted the historical quotation from ECF to demonstrate what demonstrates their belief and practice toward Mary. I also posted the current Roman Catholic Catechism to demonstrate what they now beleive and practice - NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.

Again, there is no possibility that an "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) church can be regarded as a "true" church of Christ. Sacramentalism is a fundemental denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Maryoltry as mediator between Christ and man, thus a co-redemptrix is fundementally repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ BY BIBLICAL DEFINITION. This places a double "accursed" upon Rome from ECF to the present as there is NO CHANGE in PERVERTING the very essential of Apostolic doctrine.

I asked you if WHEN you were professedly saved, did you then or now believe that regeneration occurs in baptism and would you use Acts 2:38 to defend that position? If not, what would you use Acts 2:38.

Please answer straight as your previous answers are the very basis of my charge that you are a deciever - Please convince me that I am wrong and I will gladly apologize.

Wow that was a bit confusing. I think I got the jist of what you are saying. The sources I used did their homework and looked at rome critically. Thats my answer I hope to your question.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Well stated and Amen!

Much of your outlook on the history of the "church" has to do with your outlook of the very doctrine of ecclesiology itself. There is no denomination in the Bible, and I don't believe you can demonstrate there is. There is no "church" per se, although we keep referring to one. There is Christianity and Christendom. There are about five different meanings or so for the English word "church". But the Greek work that is translated "church" in the NT has only one meaning, and that is "assembly." The Greek word is ekklesia. It is used 115 times in the Bible; 3 times it is translated "assembly," all three in Acts 19; and all other 112 times it is translated "church." The reason for that was political correctness on the part of the Anglican Church in the 17th century. Translations such as Darby's consistently translate ekklesia as "assembly."

Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches; no one church; no denomination; no universal church; but only local independent churches. That is what history teaches. Read the NT. "To the church at Corinth," to the church at Philippi," to the church at Rome," etc. He writes to churches, and churches send their greetings. Read Romans chapter 16 for that evidence. They were independent churches, and none exercised any control over the other; not until corruption entered into the churches. During the Apostolic era there was nothing but "churches."

Very early into these churches doctrinal error began to enter. As always God raises up some who will speak against heresy. The movement of the Montanists was a movement against the corruption that had entered into many of the churches, not into "the church" or into a denomination, but into many autonomous churches that were present in that area. He convinced believers to follow him in a life of purity and holiness. That is what he emphasized. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far in some cases. It was a reaction to the corruption that had crept in among many of the churches. It doesn't mean that all the churches were corrupt. Neither does it necessarily mean that all the Montanists were absolutely uniform in their doctrine.

However, in every age there have been churches, independent of larger organizations and denominations that have been faithful to God's truth. These are the churches that have most often been the object of persecution by the RCC and by others as well.

There is no such thing as a "universal church." A church is an assembly. It is a contradiction of terms to have an unassembled assembly. How is that possible? The Bible speaks of assemblies not hierarchal organizations made by man. Thus when you read "church history" books that speak of the history of the "church" you know that you have picked up a biased book already. They need to get their ecclesiology straight before they can speak of the history of it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Enemy accusations versus accused statements

Throughout the history of Anabaptists there is a very self-evident contrast between what the enemies of Anabaptists accused them versus what they claimed to believe. What is evident is the nature of the charges were formed by how the enemies perceived the beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists in contrast to how they interpreted Roman Doctrine and practice instead of in light of how the Anabaptists interpreted their faith and practice.

We can see this clearly in regard to the Paulicians, Waldenses, Swiss Anabaptists, German Anabaptists and Particular Baptists in England and pre-revolutionary American Baptists and later 19th century Baptists.

I have shown from non-Anabaptist historians already that the Paulicians and Waldenses were falsely accused and painted to be what they openly claimed they were not. Yet in most history books that you buy from the local Christian book store the same Roman false accusations are repeated in parrot fashion as historical fact in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary to anyone willing to take the time and energy to investigate it.

One of the most grotesque false accusations still repeated in Roman and Protestant histories is that the Anabaptists originated with the Munster rebellion in Germany. The evidence is overwhelming that this charge is an absolute falsehood and historians of credibilty have provided the evidence clearly without any response from Roman biased historians. The Munster people were pedobaptists and the German Anabaptists condemned them peacefully as much as those who opposed them forcefully.

The origin of the Swiss Anabaptists is another debated issue where one single unsubstantiated document from a foreign source is used to overthrow the very words of those it accuses of administering baptism by pouring.

The origin of the particular Baptists of England is determined by most historians by the Gould manuscript and statements of their enemies in direct contradiction to how they say their churches were organized and started.

Opponents of Baptist have tried to give each of the above as the individual true origin of modern Baptists. However, if they originated in Swizterland it could not have been in Germany or England and it occurred in Germany it could have been Switzerland and England as the very dates and places of each do not coincide.

Cotton Mather and his crowd were persecutors of pre-revolutionary Baptists which they called "anabaptists." Even the Baptists in England were called "Anabaptists" before 1689. Early pre-revolutionary Baptists were publicly beaten and jailed in America for simply preaching the gospel, meeting to worship. They were persecuted by the Puritans, Church of England, and Presbyterians and other denominations here in America prior to the revolutionary war.

 

[BobRyan]

you have made a good point - it is senseless to go to the organization accused of doing the crime against humanity - for an accurate "character witness" regarding their victims. It would be like ignoring the Bible accounts of persecution of Christ and the early first century Christian evangelists - and only reading what the opposing Jewish leaders said about them - to get the supposedly objective historic truth.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Billy, do you believe that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of God? If so, then "theotokos" does not merely refer to Jesus but to Mary as well! Did the human nature of Christ come from God's Divine nature or from Mary's human nature? Which nature did Mary supply and which nature did God Supply? No question they were united in Christ's Person but "mother" and "Father" speaks of origin. What originated with the Mother versus the Father???? If the human nature is derived from God's nature than there is no need of Mary. If the divine nature is derived from Mary there is no need of God in this birth. Which is it Billy?

The other inconvenient detail here is that at no point does any Bible writer refer to Mary as "Mother of God". How odd that those who actually believe Mary to be sinless, mother of God, queen of heaven, co-redemptrix with Christ, assumed into heaven, a being to whom mankind should pray... are so explicit in stating those views (which you expect from someone that really believes those doctrines) - yet not one single word of it from NT authors!

The deafening silence from the NT on the very points most loudly proclaimed by those supporting mariolotry cannot simply be glossed over and ignored by the serious Bible student.

Surely this is a sign to someone.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[lori4dogs]

The other inconvenient detail here is that at no point does any Bible writer refer to Mary as "Mother of God". How odd that those who actually believe Mary to be sinless, mother of God, queen of heaven, co-redemptrix with Christ, assumed into heaven, a being to whom mankind should pray... are so explicit in stating those views (which you expect from someone that really believes those doctrines) - yet not one single word of it from NT authors!

The deafening silence from the NT on the very points most loudly proclaimed by those supporting mariolotry cannot simply be glossed over and ignored by the serious Bible student.

Surely this is a sign to someone.

in Christ,

Bob

Lets take a look at another silence in the bible and then ECF's give us more information. We have a possibility of bodily assumption before the Second Coming suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." What happened to all those Old Testament saints? Did they die and have to be buried all over again? We don't have any record of that, however the early Church writers say that they were assumed into heaven, or maybe into that temporary state of rest called Paradise. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6 and then brought into heaven.

And I guess by your reasoning the Trinity is a false belief as well. Just as 'mother of God' doesn't appear, neither does Trinity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Lori,

I fail to find any logical comparison in your argument. The Scriptures do speak about some being raised from the dead at the resurrection of Christ. The Scriptures speak plentifully of the nature of God in regard to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being a con-redemptrix? Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being sinless? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the "Queen of heaven"? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the Mother of the Church? Where do Scriptures speak at all about Mary being an eternal virgin? etc. etc. etc.?

If I followed your reasoning, then I would have to conclude we shouldn't speak at all about Mary in regard to any of these things because the Scripture doesn't.

Lets take a look at another silence in the bible and then ECF's give us more information. We have a possibility of bodily assumption before the Second Coming suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." What happened to all those Old Testament saints? Did they die and have to be buried all over again? We don't have any record of that, however the early Church writers say that they were assumed into heaven, or maybe into that temporary state of rest called Paradise. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6 and then brought into heaven.

And I guess by your reasoning the Trinity is a false belief as well. Just as 'mother of God' doesn't appear, neither does Trinity.

 

[BillySunday1935]

Billy, I cited official Roman Catholic Doctrine from their Catechism. I cited your favorite source of truth ECF. You are not opposing me but you are opposing the very things you claim as sources of truth.

Am I to understand that neither Catholic doctrine or ECF's or the Bible is your source of truth???? If that is the case, then it seems that YOU are your source of truth?

And you don't even understand the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the assumption of Mary? Right...

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

And you don't even undersdtand the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the assumption of Mary? Right...

Peace!

Billy, it is wonderful how you simply ignore problems put in your face by simply changing the subject. You don't answer my questions but I am supposed to answer yours? That seems a little one sided don't you think?

Now, I quoted directly from ECF and directly from the Roman Catholic Catechism and placed squarely in front of you the very language concerning Mary found in both and asked if you believed these things? You responded by denying ECF or the Roman Catholic catechism represented the view of the Catholic Church or you. You could not offer any Scripture because the scripture is completely silent about these specifics although not silen about condemning them in principle.

Again, my question for you is, if neither ECF or the official Roman Catholic Catechism, nor scripture is final authority for your own belief and practice than what is? Is it YOU?

Yes, I understand the differences.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Fox's Book of Martrys, The Reformers and the Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin, Martyrs Mirror by Van Braght, Baptist Perpetuity by W.A Jarrell, A Baptist History by J.T. Christian provide a slue of source materials that flatly contradict the Roman Catholic and modern Protestant interpretation of "church" history.

Now, as my professor of church history (who took your view) confessed, there are two models of interpretation of the source materials in history. There is the Roman Catholic/Protestant model and there is what he called the "free church movement" model. He likened it to two fruit trees that all historians pick from in order to present their own view of church history.

My plea to those who are truly born again children of God is why would you take the word of those whom we absolutely know for certain had such hatred for their opponents that they would MURDER them in the name of Christ, when there is more than sufficient evidence from their own writings they were biased and there is independent witnesses that those who were being so charged complained such characterizations were not true of them?????

 

[BillySunday1935]

You state Catholic doctrine on this board (post #77), you defend it.
Don't attribute your post to mine!

http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560762&postcount=77

The above link is your post, a post of the heretical Catholic doctrines that you say you believe in.

Did I say in that post that I believed in all of those doctrines? No! I was simply correcting the good doctor's misunderstanding of some basic doctrines that any third grade student in a Catholic school could easily regurgitate upon demand. If I know what they mean, then surely someone with a Doctorate in divinity (or whatever degree he holds) could invest enough time to learn for himself. This points out just how hypocritical it is for some individuals here to argue against something about which they know little to nothing. How utterly sad...

Now defend them with the Bible. If you don't care to do that then don't post here. Notice the title of the Forum: Other Christian Denominations

You know, DHK - it might helpful if you followed the link a little closer before you start blissfully flailing away at the keyboard. If you had, you would have noticed that I am not the one who posted those "heretical Catholic doctrines" to begin with - that would have been the good doctor - I simply corrected his errors. I mean, if you are going to write about "heretical Catholic doctrines", then you might as well get them right.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560740&postcount=67

Further it was HE who used sources outside of the Bible (I.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND the ECF's) not me. If you don't want to wade through this garbage to find out what he said, then here is where he admits to it!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560821&postcount=105

So don't start puffing up at me about Sola Scriptura if you are not going to enforce such an arbitrary rule equally.

Me thinks that DHK might be slightly hypocritical here as well.

Christians post here Billy, Christians! Christians use the Bible, and believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible. If you don't believe that then you don't belong here.

Ok, let's see if I meet your criteria:
Christians post here Billy, Christians: Check!
Christians use the Bible: Check!
[Christians] believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible: Check!

Well, it looks like I am where I belong! :thumbs:

Peace!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since you admit that I posted only ECF and Catholic Catechism, and merely pointed out the language used in those quotations, then, please explain to me how you corrected me or my undertanding, when, I simply pointed out the languague used in these sources????

Are you saying that ECF and the Roman Catholic Church only have the understanding of a "third grader" since it is their words and not mine concerning these subjects????

Billy, those words were simply taken from those quotations by ECF and The Catechism of Rome! They are not my words?

Instead of insulting me, as they are not my words, you are insulting the very sources you quote and use. Does not that reflect more on you than on me because they are not my sources?????

Did I say in that post that I believed in all of those doctrines? No! I was simply correcting the good doctor's misunderstanding of some basic doctrines that any third grade student in a Catholic school could easily regurgitate upon demand. If I know what they mean, then surely someone with a Doctorate in divinity (or whatever degree he holds) could invest enough time to learn for himself. This points out just how hypocritical it is for some individuals here to argue against something about which they know little to nothing. How utterly sad...



You know, DHK - it might helpful if you followed the link a little closer before you start blissfully flailing away at the keyboard. If you had, you would have noticed that I am not the one who posted those "heretical Catholic doctrines" to begin with - that would have been the good doctor - I simply corrected his errors. I mean, if you are going to write about "heretical Catholic doctrines", then you might as well get them right.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560740&postcount=67

Further it was HE who used sources outside of the Bible (I.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND the ECF's) not me. If you don't want to wade through this garbage to find out what he said, then here is where he admits to it!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560821&postcount=105

So don't start puffing up at me about Sola Scriptura if you are not going to enforce such an arbitrary rule equally.

Me thinks that DHK might be slightly hypocritical here as well.



Ok, let's see if I meet your criteria:
Christians post here Billy, Christians: Check!
Christians use the Bible: Check!
[Christians] believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible: Check!

Well, it looks like I am where I belong! :thumbs:

Peace!

 

[BillySunday1935]

Originally Posted by BillySunday1935
And you don't even undersdtand the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the assumption of Mary? Right...

Billy, it is wonderful how you simply ignore problems put in your face by simply changing the subject. You don't answer my questions but I am supposed to answer yours? That seems a little one sided don't you think?

In the event that you didn't notice doc, that was meant to be a rhetorical question. In other words, I was neither asking you a question nor was I changing the subject.

Now, I quoted directly from ECF and directly from the Roman Catholic Catechism and placed squarely in front of you the very language concerning Mary found in both and asked if you believed these things? You responded by denying ECF or the Roman Catholic catechism represented the view of the Catholic Church or you.

I did no such thing and I defy you to prove that I ever made such a statement. Misrepresenting people seems to have become regular habit with you.

You could not offer any Scripture because the scripture is completely silent about these specifics although not silen about condemning them in principle.

Upon what planet do you currently reside? I simply corrected your misunderstanding about a few Catholic doctrines, the validity of which, was never at issue (at least not with me) and you appear to be in a snit about it. Well, knock yourself on out there, doc.

Again, my question for you is, if neither ECF or the official Roman Catholic Catechism, nor scripture is final authority for your own belief and practice than what is? Is it YOU?

Well, isn't that the crux of the matter there, doc - for all of us? You hold to the man-made idea that scripture is the SOLE authority. Ok - fine! Now, how do you know that your interpretation of that scripture is fully correct? Are you infallible? If not, then you are necessarily putting yourself in the place of final authority, because it is YOUR opinions/interpretations about what scripture means that bolster your belief system. Do you see how intellectually vapid that position is?

Yes, I understand the differences.

Well, I'll bet you know now.

Peace!