Testimony

[Alive in Christ]

God the Holy Spirit is our companion, our comforter, even our conscience. Our teacher? I think not and those verses don't teach it.

John 16:13...

However, when He, the Holy Spirit has come, He will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak.

Just one verse among many of course.

You...

I stand on what I said and will leave you to fantasize over scripture. Rome does not enslave souls. Rome liberates souls to serve their living Lord.

Oh, my word.

You are deluded, my friend.

 

[DHK]

God the Holy Spirit is our companion, our comforter, even our conscience. Our teacher? I think not and those verses don't teach it. I stand on what I said and will leave you to fantasize over scripture. Rome does not enslave souls. Rome liberates souls to serve their living Lord.

Can you back your view up?
Did the Crusades liberate people? How about the Inquisitions? Have you read "Foxes Book of Martyr's" lately? You should. Rome liberates souls? How do you come to that conclusion?

When the Bible distinctly says that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, how do you say he isn't?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
--The verse is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

"Fantasize over Scripture"? Is this a euphemism that indicates that you just don't read your Bible?

 

[quantumfaith]

Can you back your view up?
Did the Crusades liberate people? How about the Inquisitions? Have you read "Foxes Book of Martyr's" lately? You should. Rome liberates souls? How do you come to that conclusion?

When the Bible distinctly says that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, how do you say he isn't?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
--The verse is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

"Fantasize over Scripture"? Is this a euphemism that indicates that you just don't read your Bible?

Two of the crudades did if fact liberate the citizens of Jerusalem from the rule of Muslims. 1st and 5th (if my memory serves me correctly). Liberated from the jizya and multitudes of other persecutions for simply claiming identity with Christ and the church.

 

[DHK]

Two of the crudades did if fact liberate the citizens of Jerusalem from the rule of Muslims. 1st and 5th (if my memory serves me correctly). Liberated from the jizya and multitudes of other persecutions for simply claiming identity with Christ and the church.

One of them decimated a peace-loving Bible-believing group known as the Albigenses.
Do you condone the spread of Christianity by the sword?
Is this the way you would preach the gospel?
The Crusades went forth in the name of Christ! What they did in the name of Christ was blasphemous--far more blasphemous than any doctor today praying over an infant and performing an abortion in the name of Christ. Would you agree with that as well? What kind of Christians advocate such murderous and barbaric methods of "spreading the gospel"?

 

[quantumfaith]

One of them decimated a peace-loving Bible-believing group known as the Albigenses.
Do you condone the spread of Christianity by the sword?
Is this the way you would preach the gospel?
The Crusades went forth in the name of Christ! What they did in the name of Christ was blasphemous--far more blasphemous than any doctor today praying over an infant and performing an abortion in the name of Christ. Would you agree with that as well? What kind of Christians advocate such murderous and barbaric methods of "spreading the gospel"?

No, I dont....and more importantly YOU KNOW I dont.
Was it not the Albigenses who practiced infanticide in order to use the ashes of those burned alive for religious practices?

 

[DHK]

No, I dont....and more importantly YOU KNOW I dont.
Was it not the Albigenses who practiced infanticide in order to use the ashes of those burned alive for religious practices?

No I don't believe so. Even if they were the J.W.'s of today does that give the RCC the right to exterminate them? Is Christianity spread by the sword no matter what a person believes? Whatever happened to soul liberty? Oh yeah, I forgot; The RCC does not believe in that Biblical concept, also one of the foundational principles that America was founded on called "freedom of religion" and "tolerance for others."

 

[quantumfaith]

No I don't believe so. Even if they were the J.W.'s of today does that give the RCC the right to exterminate them? Is Christianity spread by the sword no matter what a person believes? Whatever happened to soul liberty? Oh yeah, I forgot; The RCC does not believe in that Biblical concept, also one of the foundational principles that America was founded on called "freedom of religion" and "tolerance for others."

There is no right of anyone to spread any "faith" anywhere anytime by the sword. The Crusades, was as much about politics and world influence and power etc. The involvement of the "catholic church" took more than 400 years of Islamic persecution before Crusades were called.

 

[DHK]

There is no right of anyone to spread any "faith" anywhere anytime by the sword. The Crusades, was as much about politics and world influence and power etc. The involvement of the "catholic church" took more than 400 years of Islamic persecution before Crusades were called.

No. That is false. The Crusades were instituted at will whenever they deemed it necessary to do so. They were fully intended to spread Christianity by force. Let me give you an example:

The Inquisition Laws filled 230 pages and the palace where the Inquisition was conducted was known as the Big House and the Inquisition proceedings were always conducted behind closed shutters and closed doors. The screams of agony of men, women, and children could be heard in the streets, in the stillness of the night, as they were brutally interrogated, flogged, and slowly dismembered in front of their relatives. Eyelids were sliced off and extremities were amputated so carefully that a person could remain conscious, even though the only thing that remained was his torso and a head.
James Madison (American Statesman, 1751-1836, Co-Author Declaration of Independence) Christianity is full of superstition, bigotry, and persecution’.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), the American Statesman wrote: ‘What is it the Bible teaches us? — Rapine, cruelty and murder
President Thomas Jefferson–The Christian God is cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’
Charles Dickens.–‘Missionaries are perfect nuisances and leave every place worse than they found :–
‘His Majesty the King has ordered that there shall be no Brahmins in his land and that they should be banished.‘I order that no Hindu temples be erected in any of the territories of my king and that Hindu temples which already have been erected be not repaired and must be destroyed.
The Portuguese who ruled Goa from 1510 till 1960 recognized no religion other than Christianity as the legitimate means of communion with God. They imposed, a ruthless system of pillage disguised as trade and a cruel administration. Unless Hindus unless they embraced Christianity, they were nothing more than ‘supplicants’ to be crushed into submission or exiled into oblivion.
‘The horrors inflicted on Galileo Galilee by the Inquisition — the Vatican has only recently admitted that the Church was wrong and Galileo was right — so, are the horrors inflicted by the Goa Inquisition on Hindus.
Will Pope Benedict XVI, who talks so eloquently about the ‘carnage’ in Orissa today, dare to come forward to apologize for the Portuguese Inquisition against the Hindus in Goa and many other parts of India from 1510 to 1812?
Governor of Goa D Constantine de Braganca issued an order on April 2, 1560, instructing that Brahmins should be thrown out of Goa and other areas under Portuguese control. Another order was issued, this time by Governor Antonio Morez Barreto, on February 7, 1575, decreeing that the estates of Brahmins would be confiscated and used for ‘providing clothes to the New Christians’.
Hindus, who dared to oppose the religious persecution by the Portuguese administration or the Christian clergy, were punished, swiftly and mercilessly.
Dr. Alfredo DeMello (born in Goa in 1924) is a famous historian who today lives in Uruguay in Latin America. In his brilliant book titled ‘MEMOIRS OF GOA’ he has given a detailed and graphic account of the horrors of the Inquisition in Goa and in other parts of India from 1510 to 1812.:–
It was Francis Xavier who established the Inquisition in Goa, Spain and Portugal of which persecuting thousands and thousands of Jews and Hindus because they are Shame of the World.
Stalin was a tyrant, murderer, but at least he was not a hypocrite.
Big House, with two hundred cells.
All the persons above 15 years of age were compelled to listen to Christian preaching, failing which they were punished.The Hindus in Goa were shocked to see the God of Christianity being more cruel than that of Mohammad and therefore, deserted the territory of the Portuguese and went to the lands of the Muslims, and received enormous and incalculable evils.OUT OF THE FRYING PAN INTO THE FIRE.

http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/the-inquisition-francis-xavier-sonias-upa-government/

I can give you many references about the Crusade, rather the Inquisition that Xavier ordered at Goa, India. This is how he spread Christianity. It was be baptized by the sword, or die. They were forced conversions. The only reasons for the pain, sufferings, and death was that they would not be baptized, would not convert to the RCC brand of Christianity. This was Xavier's method of bringing "Christianity" to India, and sadly he was made a "saint" for it.

The native Indians lived peaceably with the Muslims. It was the RCC that was their enemy, so-called Christianity.

 

[Tom Butler]

I believe the above and I am not a Landmark Baptist.

I know of some Landmark Baptist Churches.
Some of them are secessionists. You must come from a "true" Baptist church that came from a "true" Baptist church, that came from a "true" Baptist church, etc. right back to the Apostles.
I was not permitted to speak in a church once because I was not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist who was Baptized by a Baptist who was Baptized by a Baptized by a Baptist etc. right back to John the Baptist.
Only the "true" Baptists will be part of the bride of Christ.

I don't believe the above, and I doubt if Dr. Walters does either. These beliefs are often characteristic of Landmark Baptist Churches.

I don't call myself a Landmarker, but I do admit to having some Landmark tendencies.

I hold to church perpetuity, but would not go to the mat over succession. Although the evidence is thin, I do think succession is possible. My former pastor said it this way:
"If you see wagon wheel tracks going into a pond, and tracks coming out of the pond, you can be pretty sure the wagon was in the pond."

Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, I believe that there have always been true New Testament churches, and Baptist can rightly claim kinship with them.

Baptists were around before the Reformation. Most others were not. That's why Baptists are not Protestants.

 

[DHK]

I don't call myself a Landmarker, but I do admit to having some Landmark tendencies.

I hold to church perpetuity, but would not go to the mat over succession. Although the evidence is thin, I do think succession is possible. My former pastor said it this way:
"If you see wagon wheel tracks going into a pond, and tracks coming out of the pond, you can be pretty sure the wagon was in the pond."

Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, I believe that there have always been true New Testament churches, and Baptist can rightly claim kinship with them.

Baptists were around before the Reformation. Most others were not. That's why Baptists are not Protestants.

I believe basically the same thing.
Carroll in his book "The Trail of Blood" says that God never left himself without a witness; that in every generation from the apostles onward there were believers that held to the same basic beliefs as Baptists do today, though they were called by other names.

That is the position of most IFB pastors that I know, and they aren't Landmarkist.

 

[Jim1999]

Guess I am a bad landmarkist........I came up through the Church of England, was baptized by the Plymouth Brethren and became a baptist by decree of the National Baptist Churches of England........

Maybe I can slip in.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Dr. Walter]

Guess I am a bad landmarkist........I came up through the Church of England, was baptized by the Plymouth Brethren and became a baptist by decree of the National Baptist Churches of England........

Maybe I can slip in.

Cheers,

Jim

Jim, it is a pretty dry cut simple position. I think you would agree that there are minimal essentials for a person to be recognized as a Christian by Baptists. A profession of an experience with God where there was true repentance and faith in the gospel manifested by a changed life. Pretty basic!

Likewise, there are some minimal essentials for saved persons to recognized as a New Testament assembly. Where there is no true gospel there is only an "accursed" church (Gal. 1:8-9). Where there is no true baptism there is no true church as there is no church in the New Testament consisting of unbaptized believers. Where there is no essential faith and order there is only a departure from "the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Who says we have to show YOU anything? Do we stand or fall before YOU? Do we stand or fall before ROME? Hogwash!

I have showed you the scriptures how the Scriptures claim that the true child of God need not that ANY MAN teach them as they have the indwelling Holy Spirit - the Author of the Bible - to teach them.

Ga 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

Rom. 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Rom. 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

1 Jn. 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

Eph 4:21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:


2 Tim. 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Isa. 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

1 Jn. 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error




Yes! You have affirmed the circular reasoning that Priscilla already pointed out. You have just added another claim by this old pathetic apostate spiritual whore which agains confirms by circuluar reasoning that the church is the infallible guide to truth.




Complete hogwash!! I took nothing out of context. Anyone who can read English can readily see the following article is a SUMMARY statement of what Rome believes in regard to baptism:
.
"Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers inher mission: 'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - 1213 - Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church

Nothing is taken out context. Search the catechism and you will find nothing that contradicts that "Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitai spiritaulis ianua) and the door which gives access to other sacraments."

Nothing is taken out of context. Search the catechism and you will find nothing that contradicts "Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God;"

Nothing is taken out of context. Search the catechism and you will find nothing that contradicts "Through Baptism we..... are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission"

Nothing is taken out of context. Search the catechism and you will find nothing that contradicts "'Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word'"






You speak of EXCEPTIONS to the rule. This catachismic summary is the general rule of Catholicism and YOU KNOW IT!!!! The only exceptions Rome provides are for those who are in IGNORANCE but out of sincerity serve God according to their own light. In this exception they include sincere Moslems, Hindu's as much as Protestants.

You are completely ignorant of the gospel of Jesus Christ and your fruits reveal where your heart is. You are more concerned in defending the old harlot and her heresies than you are of encouraging ex-Catholics like Priscilla for coming out of Rome and repudiating her teachings. No! Your love is Rome and on this forum you spend most of your time attacking EX-CATHOLICS who are trying to witness to Catholics on this forum. As far as I am concerned your nothing but a covert Catholic committed to defending the old Whore.

You have left the Catholic church but you have not left Catholic doctrine. The fruit of your mouth reveals your heart. You are more concerned in defending the old Harlots perverted gospel than you are defending Jesus Christ.

Doc, I left your entire post here quoted. It's clear that the the inablitity to answer my question reasonably (which in truth I expected better of you.) and your responce to my post has left me with one conclusion of your reply. Cop-out. You can niether explain to me how your interpretation of scripture is superior. You seem not to grasp the exception to the rule yet you don't hold Calvin to that standard for in fact he has no exception to the rule. Circular reasoning that Priccilla accused washed out because she starts with the Catholic Church rather than the apostles.
Unfortunately, unlike myself you can't seem to debate the catholic question honestly. I can even give an atheist a fair shake with out resulting in insults. Catholicism has its problems so that there is no need to invent problems that are only existant in the mind of the accusor rather than in reality. Choose the real issues before making others.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How do I know that my interpretation is valid? I don't know that my understanding is perfect; however, I have read God's Word from Genesis to Revelation a number of times. I can tell you what I do NOT find in the bible:

• The papacy/infallibillity
• Purgatory
• Indulgences
• Transubstantiation
• A sacramental system
• Confession to a priest
• Perpetual Virginity of Mary
• Immaculate Conception
• Assumption of Mary
• Prayers to the dead
• Prayers for the dead

I was a practicing Catholic for 38 years, so that experience is the basis of my knowledge of the Catholic Church.

What is the basis of your knowledge of the Catholic Church?

In order to discuss each of these issues you first need to understand what each is talking about. Once you've determine what is actually being said then you can speak against it in a reasonable fashion. Let me take the first one off the list.
Papal infalliblity. What is it really? Simple. First I will tell you what it is not. It doesn't mean 1) the pope is a good person or perfect 2) doesn't mean he doesn't make mistatakes. 3) Doesn't meant he won't say off the wall things. 4) Doesn't even mean he understands things perfectly. Now that is out of the way what is it saying? That when the pope teaches something or makes a statement of something regarding faith and morals that have been consistently taught over the centuries and he does so ex cathedra or from the chair that it is done so infallibly. What are the requirements? I've bolded them for you. Anyone of these failing the teaching does not meet the requirement of infallibility. In otherword the Pope is prohibited by what he can teach. He cannot teach anything apart from the deposit. What are the scripture verses Catholics use for this?

John 16:14: "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth"

Luke 10:16: "He who hears you, hears me"

Mt. 16:19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Matthew 23:1-3: Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, Then there was the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15. This Church council was held to determine whether or not Gentiles had to first be circumcised before becoming Christians. In the closing document, Peter says the following, from Acts 15:28:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things".

Now that was just the first doctrine imagine the rest. Transubstantiation is too easy. The rest can also be addressed.

Also I would say the majority of Catholics don't even know their own faith. In Fact my father was lamenting about this to me. He has been a life long catholic and has studied at Jesuit universities. Most Catholics are secular unfortunately and aren't even properly Catachized. So what is practiced and believed by most catholics are what I call the Myth of the Church rather than what the church actually teaches. This is why you have a gazillion catholics looking for Mary in oil slicks. The church teaches against this. This is why the majority of Catholic practice birth Control against the teachings of the church. This is why the majority of Catholics see no problem in supporting abortion and become incensed when a bishop prohibits them from recieving communion like Palosi, or Biden. The plain truth is the Majority of Catholics don't believe the Catholic Church and believe and do what they want carrying the vestiges of belief. But they are no more Christian than an atheist. If you want me to go in detail about each of these matters I will show you what the catholic church believes. Not what people think it means. Big difference.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When I read the New Testament, I do not see Catholicism. For example, how can one read and believe the Book of Romans and remain a Catholic?

Romans 10:9-11 says this:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."

I will never forget the first time I read those precious words! They changed my life forever and gave me an insatiable hunger for the Word of God.

In short, the bible focuses on salvation through Jesus Christ. In contrast, the Catholic Church focuses on salvation through the Catholic Church. Who are you trusting for your salvation: Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church? You cannot have it both ways. Chose Christ!

So you can confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is lord and then murder people and you're saved? Or have tons of illigitament children and your saved? Get drunk and drive and kill a family and are saved? I think this type of salvation is an affront to Christianity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is an absolute joke! The church founded by Christ has continued until today but it is not heretical persecuting Christian killing Rome. Like Saul before he was saved, Rome has been the persecuter of the true churches of God.

NONE of the tradition cited by Priscilla is found in the Bible but in the teachings of mystery babylonialism.

Everything about Rome's claim is circular reasoning. Rome has been the depository of demons and deception and false doctrine.

You obvously have no Idea about babylonian mystery religions. I do however. I 've read the ancient summerian text. I've read zoharatrian works. You have a lot of research to do before you can compare two things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How could you be a Catholic for 38 years and not know of this highly critical section of the Catechism? Maybe if you had been better schooled in your faith you would not have been seduced away from your faith so easily.

Unfortunatley, Most Catholics I know find themselves in this mess. They are just secular people kind of like back row baptist. No difference.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jim, it is a pretty dry cut simple position. I think you would agree that there are minimal essentials for a person to be recognized as a Christian by Baptists. A profession of an experience with God where there was true repentance and faith in the gospel manifested by a changed life. Pretty basic!

Likewise, there are some minimal essentials for saved persons to recognized as a New Testament assembly. Where there is no true gospel there is only an "accursed" church (Gal. 1:8-9). Where there is no true baptism there is no true church as there is no church in the New Testament consisting of unbaptized believers. Where there is no essential faith and order there is only a departure from "the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6).

See this is what happens when you ignore actual history you have to buy into a fantasy history. There is no evidence of a Landmarkist view of historical events.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Guess I am a bad landmarkist........I came up through the Church of England, was baptized by the Plymouth Brethren and became a baptist by decree of the National Baptist Churches of England........

Maybe I can slip in.

Cheers,

Jim

LOL Jim......has anyone called you a Catholic yet? Sure to happen eventually.... nudge; wink! :smilewinkgrin::laugh:

 

[quantumfaith]

See this is what happens when you ignore actual history you have to buy into a fantasy history. There is no evidence of a Landmarkist view of historical events.

Cmon Thinkingstuff, surely you have read "Trail of Blood".