Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

[seekingthetruth]

I really have a hard time with Luke and Fred's theory that God preserved His true church "within" the RCC. It doesn't make any sense.

If a group of believer's found the truth of the Gospel on their own, then why in the world would they stay "within" the RCC?

And, if they split away from the RCC and continued in the true faith of the NT church, then they have proven the point that I have benn making all along, that God preserved His church outside of and seperate from the RCC.

True NT believers would not stay in the RCC, it doesn't make sense. I don't believe the true NT church lived within the RCC, that's crazy.

John

 

[glfredrick]

The Roman Catholic Church has always been an apostate church. True, there have been true believers who have attended, that even happens today, but it does not change that the Harlot of Revelation has always been apostate.

Martin Luther was obedient to the call in Revelation to come out of her when he nailed his 95 Theses to the church door at Wittenberg.

It was not Luther's intent to come out of the RCC. Not at all. It was only years later when he felt that he had exhausted every possible means of reforming the RCC that he finally, and reluctantly, left the church. He understood what would happen once the split occured, and he was right.

And, by painting the entire RCC with such a broad brush -- something you vehemently object to when applied to certain sects of Baptists! -- you do a great disservice to both God and God's movement in His people.

Also, I believe it is yet to be discovered as to whether the RCC is indeed the Harlot of Revelation. While some certainly hold that interpretation, that event has not yet come to pass in a manner where we can be so completely sure to make such a bold statement. I recall that when Christ walked the earth, that the extremely educated Jews, who were literally professional lawyers of the Old Testament, failed to correctly interpret the very Scriptures that they were ever so familiar with and used in their courts every day. They completely missed "God with us" when He stood in their midst (and many Jews still do to this day) because of their flawed interpretation. That should be an example to the rest of us to stand on what is sure and proceed with caution with what is yet to be revealed fully lest we repeat the Jewish error.

 

[glfredrick]

I really have a hard time with Luke and Fred's theory that God preserved His true church "within" the RCC. It doesn't make any sense.

If a group of believer's found the truth of the Gospel on their own, then why in the world would they stay "within" the RCC?

And, if they split away from the RCC and continued in the true faith of the NT church, then they have proven the point that I have benn making all along, that God preserved His church outside of and seperate from the RCC.

True NT believers would not stay in the RCC, it doesn't make sense. I don't believe the true NT church lived within the RCC, that's crazy.

John

Okay, I'll bite... Who were they? (The ones who held a biblical theology and who were apart from the RCC)

Sounds good in a debate, but you present but another argument from silence. "Surely they are there, for 'we all know...' that the RCC is so vile and despicable that no good thing could come of or from it." Except that you would be wrong, and led that way by others who were/are wrong.

As an excursus, I am almost always facinated by those who literally spit venom at the RCC (no matter what is being discussed) yet just how much of the RCC is copied by them at the same time. From same/same doctrines (save the name), ecclesiolgical separation, thinking that they are the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, the doctrine of apostolic (or something akin) succession, legalisms not found in Scripture, imposing rule from the church leadership on the people, sacred tradition, etc., etc., etc.

 

[JesusFan]

It was not Luther's intent to come out of the RCC. Not at all. It was only years later when he felt that he had exhausted every possible means of reforming the RCC that he finally, and reluctantly, left the church. He understood what would happen once the split occured, and he was right.

And, by painting the entire RCC with such a broad brush -- something you vehemently object to when applied to certain sects of Baptists! -- you do a great disservice to both God and God's movement in His people.

Also, I believe it is yet to be discovered as to whether the RCC is indeed the Harlot of Revelation. While some certainly hold that interpretation, that event has not yet come to pass in a manner where we can be so completely sure to make such a bold statement. I recall that when Christ walked the earth, that the extremely educated Jews, who were literally professional lawyers of the Old Testament, failed to correctly interpret the very Scriptures that they were ever so familiar with and used in their courts every day. They completely missed "God with us" when He stood in their midst (and many Jews still do to this day) because of their flawed interpretation. That should be an example to the rest of us to stand on what is sure and proceed with caution with what is yet to be revealed fully lest we repeat the Jewish error.

I think the Harlot Church of end times will be all of apostate Christiandom, those here who profess Christianity, but deny jesus, and take Antichrist as their messiah instead..

have to ask just what does the RCC believe regarding the Gospel?
they reject saved by Grace alone, faith alone, and instead of a Gospel that states God applies Grace towards us in the sacraments, but up to us to "co assist/work" with God in order to become 'good enough" for God to actually save us?

think Apostle paul renders the verdict from God on that type of works based system as being "no good!"

 

[Amy.G]

It was not Luther's intent to come out of the RCC. Not at all. It was only years later when he felt that he had exhausted every possible means of reforming the RCC that he finally, and reluctantly, left the church. He understood what would happen once the split occured, and he was right.

And, by painting the entire RCC with such a broad brush -- something you vehemently object to when applied to certain sects of Baptists! -- you do a great disservice to both God and God's movement in His people.

Apparently so did Luther since he gave up trying to reform the RCC and left it.


I recall that when Christ walked the earth, that the extremely educated Jews, who were literally professional lawyers of the Old Testament, failed to correctly interpret the very Scriptures that they were ever so familiar with and used in their courts every day. They completely missed "God with us" when He stood in their midst (and many Jews still do to this day) because of their flawed interpretation. That should be an example to the rest of us to stand on what is sure and proceed with caution with what is yet to be revealed fully lest we repeat the Jewish error.
They're error wasn't that they interpreted the scriptures wrong. There error was their self righteousness. That is what Jesus rebuked and condemned them for.

 

[glfredrick]

Apparently so did Luther since he gave up trying to reform the RCC and left it.

They're error wasn't that they interpreted the scriptures wrong. There error was their self righteousness. That is what Jesus rebuked and condemned them for.

Yes, and they also utterly failed to interpret Scriptures that plainly spoke of Messiah.

I don't know how to respond to your issue with Luther. Makes no sense after what I wrote. Seems that you are just picking a fight, and for what?

 

[glfredrick]

I think the Harlot Church of end times will be all of apostate Christiandom, those here who profess Christianity, but deny jesus, and take Antichrist as their messiah instead..

have to ask just what does the RCC believe regarding the Gospel?
they reject saved by Grace alone, faith alone, and instead of a Gospel that states God applies Grace towards us in the sacraments, but up to us to "co assist/work" with God in order to become 'good enough" for God to actually save us?

think Apostle paul renders the verdict from God on that type of works based system as being "no good!"

They are "syncretistic". Sound familiar? So are a good many who lambast them at every turn. Ironic, huh! :laugh:

 

[JesusFan]

They are "syncretistic". Sound familiar? So are a good many who lambast them at every turn. Ironic, huh! :laugh:

You mean the Christians who would hold to us making our own personal faith as the means and basis which God can save us by?

 

[Luke2427]

Surely you know that the Council of Nicea (12 years after 313) only confirmed what the Holy Spirit had already taught the pastors and people. Surely. Human councils did not settle doctrine. The Holy Spirit did to His people.

Yea. Everybody knows that. What does that have to do with anything? You use the term trinity. You understand it as the council of Nicea defined it. No one thinks it wasn't in the bible beforehand. What is your point here? The council helped you and your people and all Christians to understand the doctrine- to speak of it intelligently.

I cannot fathom what your point could be here.

 

[John of Japan]

Yea. Everybody knows that. What does that have to do with anything? You use the term trinity. You understand it as the council of Nicea defined it. No one thinks it wasn't in the bible beforehand. What is your point here? The council helped you and your people and all Christians to understand the doctrine- to speak of it intelligently.

I cannot fathom what your point could be here.

And I cannot fathom why you can't understand my simple point.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Okay, I'll bite... Who were they? (The ones who held a biblical theology and who were apart from the RCC)

Sounds good in a debate, but you present but another argument from silence. "Surely they are there, for 'we all know...' that the RCC is so vile and despicable that no good thing could come of or from it." Except that you would be wrong, and led that way by others who were/are wrong.

As an excursus, I am almost always facinated by those who literally spit venom at the RCC (no matter what is being discussed) yet just how much of the RCC is copied by them at the same time. From same/same doctrines (save the name), ecclesiolgical separation, thinking that they are the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, the doctrine of apostolic (or something akin) succession, legalisms not found in Scripture, imposing rule from the church leadership on the people, sacred tradition, etc., etc., etc.

Waldensians (1170 A.D.)

This group certainly predates the Reformation. And it is likely that they evolved out of some of the heretic groups before them, some dating back to 150 AD.

And it is also likely that the Anabaptists evolved from the Waldensians, though there is no absolute documentation, the doctrines and beliefs are very similiar.

Here is a quote from a Catholic whose job was to investigate and prosecute non-catholic groups. Note that he was also one of the 3 papal presidents appointed to the Council of Trent.

Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579) was a Roman Catholic prelate who had as his life work the investigation and suppression of non-Catholic groups. By Pope Paul IV he was designated one of the three papal presidents of the famous Council of Trent. Hosius carried on vigorously the work of the counter-reformation. If anyone in post-reformation times knew the doctrines and history of nonCatholic groups, it was Hosius. Cardinal Hosius says, "Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past 1,200 years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers" (Letters Apud Opera, pp.112, 113). Note carefully that this knowledgeable Catholic scholar has spoken of the vicious persecution Baptists have endured, that he clearly distinguishes them from the Reformers, and that he dates them 1,200 years before the Protestant Reformation.


This guy was prosecuting reformers during the Reformation and even he says that baptists go back for 1200 years.

Now, let me clarify something, I don't for a second think he is talking about the denomination of Baptists. I think he means baptists with a little "b" to mean that he is talking about groups that baptise believers by immersion.

However, history is clear, that other churches were in existence before the Reformation. RCC wasn't the only one. Why would anyone stay in the RCC after having found the truth of the Gospel?

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

Okay, I'll bite... Who were they? (The ones who held a biblical theology and who were apart from the RCC)

Sounds good in a debate, but you present but another argument from silence. "Surely they are there, for 'we all know...' that the RCC is so vile and despicable that no good thing could come of or from it." Except that you would be wrong, and led that way by others who were/are wrong.

As an excursus, I am almost always facinated by those who literally spit venom at the RCC (no matter what is being discussed) yet just how much of the RCC is copied by them at the same time. From same/same doctrines (save the name), ecclesiolgical separation, thinking that they are the ONLY TRUE CHURCH, the doctrine of apostolic (or something akin) succession, legalisms not found in Scripture, imposing rule from the church leadership on the people, sacred tradition, etc., etc., etc.

And Fred

From the tone of your post, it is you, not I, that is spitting venom.

John

 

[Luke2427]

And I cannot fathom why you can't understand my simple point.

I don't think you have one. I think you may or may not THINK you have one. But I don't think you do. I think glfred has already settled the matter and you are not able to respond intelligibly any further. I think all this banter is here is you trying to insult me.

 

[seekingthetruth]

Yea. Everybody knows that. What does that have to do with anything? You use the term trinity. You understand it as the council of Nicea defined it. No one thinks it wasn't in the bible beforehand. What is your point here? The council helped you and your people and all Christians to understand the doctrine- to speak of it intelligently.

I cannot fathom what your point could be here.

Luke, just because a council confirms a belief of the church does not mean that the church did not already believe it.

Just because they confirmed it doesnt mean they were the ones that figured it all out. Lot's of churches today have a statement of faith that confirms what they already believed. There was nothing new put into it.

I would guess that Peter and Paul had a pretty good handle on this doctrine before it was ever put into scripture, and it would have been taught to all of the churches they planted.

John

 

[seekingthetruth]

I don't think you have one. I think you may or may not THINK you have one. But I don't think you do. I think glfred has already settled the matter and you are not able to respond intelligibly any further. I think all this banter is here is you trying to insult me.

What? Insult you? You started this thread to insult IFB, which means you insulted me.

Good grief.

John

 

[JesusFan]

The short answer is, a punch is a punch is a punch. And you practice the punch according to your religion. Japanese may do a little Buddhist meditation. Christians will pray before the class. And so on. My style of kung fu may well be the first ever formed by Christians on Christian principles and specifically for evangelism and church growth. We try to do all for the glory of God.

If you want a long and theological answer, check out my book on Asian monism and the Christian martial artist on my website.

I have friends in were in karate/Judo/Aikedo, and it just seemed by what they told me that some of the time were getting tinto TM and mantra chants, in order to go to an altered state of awareness for their training!

 

[matt wade]

I have friends in were in karate/Judo/Aikedo, and it just seemed by what they told me that some of the time were getting tinto TM and mantra chants, in order to go to an altered state of awareness for their training!

Maybe your friends should have put on their big boy pants and not done something they weren't comfortable with?

 

[Luke2427]

What? Insult you? You started this thread to insult IFB, which means you insulted me.

Good grief.

John

To condemn IFB thinking- at least the thinking of much of IFB. Not to insult IFB but to condemn the thinking of much of it.

 

[seekingthetruth]

To condemn IFB thinking- at least the thinking of much of IFB. Not to insult IFB but to condemn the thinking of much of it.

Same thing.

You can't insult the doctrine without insulting the believers in the doctrine.

You sure get mighty upset when someone on here says that Calvinism is unbiblical.

Isn't there a psychiatric word for someone that is sensitive to their own feelings but has has no regard for the feelings of others?

I know there is a word for it but I can't think of it now.

John

 

[Luke2427]

Luke, just because a council confirms a belief of the church does not mean that the church did not already believe it.

Just because they confirmed it doesnt mean they were the ones that figured it all out. Lot's of churches today have a statement of faith that confirms what they already believed. There was nothing new put into it.

I would guess that Peter and Paul had a pretty good handle on this doctrine before it was ever put into scripture, and it would have been taught to all of the churches they planted.

John

The church had no where near the understanding of the trinity before the fourth century as it did after athanasias. This is common knowledge.