Featured How To Get To Heaven When You Die

1. There is no such thing as a sacrament. Sacraments are not mentioned in the Bible. They are man-made.
2. Baptism is traditionally the door to the church. But scripturally baptism can ONLY be administered after one has put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior, which an infant cannot do.

Once baptized an infant becomes wet. That is all. Then the Catholic family proceeds to teach the infant how to go to hell, and that is the truth.

An obvious contradiction on your part:
--"and to baptize those who accept the message of the gospel"
Since when do infants accept the message of the gospel"?

Christ said nothing about baptism. I made that abundantly clear to you. Study the Scriptures.

An infant cannot have a new life in Christ. It cannot understand the gospel. In infant gets wet and then is put in the hands of its Catholic parents. They in turn teach it how to go to hell.

There is no such things.
You do err not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God.

"The Church" is a man-made apostate business organization that sends people to hell. That is what the RCC does. The baptism of desire is one example of that.

Notice how you don't have one iota of scripture for all of this.
Try the Hindu Vedas. Maybe they can help you. Your beliefs are just as pagan as theirs is. They both lead to hell.

No such thing--not found in the Bible.

In the early centuries of the "Church" it was the Catholic Church that killed true believers and made martyrs out of them.

And all died at the hands of the RCC. What do you mean "killed for the faith before they had a chance to be baptized. The RCC never had a faith to be killed for.
It was as pagan as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the other pagan religions that were sending people to hell.

 

Brother Lakeside,

None of the examples you cited above are of a parent having a faith, thus their child is baptized. This was never done in the New Testament, nor is there a single instruction to do so. The examples you gave only prove that if another has faith someone else can be physically healed. How is it you then extrapolate it to baptism? John 3:18 and many other verses are very clear, "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.", a baby unless the Spirit is already in him prior to baptism (like John the Baptist) lacks the mental capacity to believe.

Brother Joe

 

Elevating a man such as the Pope above another minister of the gospel is not Biblical Paul was an apostle and Apolos was not, but Paul said they were both nothing.. "5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase" (1 Corinthians 3:5 and 7)

Is the pope the one who plants or watereth? If he is either he is still nothing per this verse.

You left out the fact that Paul did not confer with Peter for three years after his direct revelation and vision from Jesus Christ. "17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.8 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." (Gal 1:17-18)

Brother Joe

 

Jesus Himself gave paul the revelation for Romans, NOT Peter, as peter himself thought the letters Paul had written were even for him hard to understand at times!

 

I have been trying to find a reputable history source that mentions anything about Baptists or other Protestant groups that defended the Holy Bible and Christianity from the Islamic onslaught back when Islam was on its conquest to rid the World of Christianity, nope not one Baptist, not one of anything but Catholics defending the Bible and Christianity. History proves more Catholics have died from defending the Christian faith than any man-made Protestant group. Please show me reputable, competent history documentation where I'm wrong. Also ,nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say that babies are not to be Baptize. If anywhere we see where Jesus tells us let the children come to Him. Whole families have always been Baptized as stated in bible, whole families have on the average young children , same back then as today. Not everything is in the Holy Bible, try reading {John 20: 30 } instead of avoiding that verse. As far as different names titles and so forth coin by the Church, it only occurred because of the advancement of grammar, the Trinity always existed but was later coined by the Catholic Church.

 

Nowhere in the Bible does it say a person shouldn't look at pornography either, do we thus conclude it is ok based on your logic?


It is claimed that if whole families were baptized, there must have been children among them. First in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that household. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared that Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his house," Acts 18:8. Next is the house of Stephanas, I Cor. 1:13. Here Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have been infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants. But observe that in I Cor. 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this family, calls them "the first fruits of Achaia," and says they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Next is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:29-34. In reading the account, observe that they spoke the word of the Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer - that the jailer rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. That is unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. Acts 16:14, 15-40. Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can be wrung from this case, several impossible propositions must be established: 1. That Lydia was married. 2. That she had children. 3. That any of these children were at that time infants. 4. That these infants were baptized.

Brother Lakeside, you claim that if whole families were baptized, there must have been children among them. First in the list is the family of Crispus. Paul baptized that household. It is enough to say that it is expressly declared that Crispus "believed in the Lord with all his house," Acts 18:8. Next is the house of Stephanas, I Cor. 1:13. Here Paul simply speaks of it as the baptism of a household. Must there not have been infants? Not unless it can be shown that there are no households without infants. But observe that in I Cor. 16:15, Paul, in alluding to this family, calls them "the first fruits of Achaia," and says they "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." Next is the household of the Philippian jailer. Acts 16:29-34. In reading the account, observe that they spoke the word of the Lord to all that were in the house of the jailer - that the jailer rejoiced, believed in God with all his house. That is unanswerably plain. Last in the list is the house of Lydia. Acts 16:14, 15-40. Before an argument in favor of Infant Baptism can be wrung from this case, several impossible propositions must be established: 1. That Lydia was married. 2. That she had children. 3. That any of these children were at that time infants. 4. That these infants were baptized. 5. That the term brethren in verse 40 is used independently of these children.

No Brother Lakeside not everything is in the Bible, but 2:Timothy 3 states of the scriptures, "15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

Thus the scriptures make us "wise unto salvation", but if baptism of infants was excluded from the Bible and it was necessary or crucial to salvation, then the scriptures could never be said to make one "wise unto salvation" if it left such a crucial detail out, could it? Also it says scripture makes us "thouroughly furnished" and "that the man of God may be perfect", but how could this be if it left out explicit commands to baptize infants to save souls from the eternal damnation of hell fire?

If past behavior is predictive of future behavior, I do not expect you will respond to this post. However, I once again request you reply to my post 246 so we can narrow our discussion to one scripture at a time.

Brother Joe

 

You just hate answering another person's post don't you.
First, realize that Islam did not come into existence until the 7th century. The Prophet Muhammad (sa) was born in 570 AD. He laid claim to Prophethood in 610 and died in 632. The Bible needed no defense from Islam. Islam was not the Bible's enemy. The Bible was always in the hands of the believers who treasured it. Throughout its history the RCC often tried to destroy the Bible, and if that wasn't the case they in the very least always kept it out of the hands of the common person. Never was the RCC the protector of the Bible. Never did the Bible need the RCC as its protector.

J.M Carroll describes the RCC's attitude towards those who were true believers in the early centuries before and during Islam.

No, God never needed the RCC. Nor did He use it. Rather the RCC became one of the greatest tools in the hand of Satan.

 

DHK, I don't answer posts you say, gee wiz, the questions are many, all at once. I have asked on numerous occasion to ask me "one" question at a time.
Having read J M Carroll I come the conclusion that he was wrong on much of his history as does some prominent Protestant writers.

Carroll identifies many divergent groups throughout history, claiming them as baptistic.
These groups are a montage of unrelated sects and heretics, including the Albigenses,
Cathari, Paulicians, Arnoldists, Henricians and more. The Cathari and Albigenses taught
that Christ was an angel with a phantom body whose death and resurrection were only
allegorical and the Incarnation impossible since the body was evil, created by evil. They
also rejected the resurrection of the body and the existence of hell. Since the Catholic
Church took the New Testament literally, the Church was viewed as corrupted and doing
the work of the devil.

The Paulicians, similarly believed that there were two fundamental principles: a good
God and an evil God; the first is the ruler of the world to come and the second the master
of the present world. By their reasoning, then, Christ could not have been the Son of God
because the good God could not take human form. They were basically dualists and
Gnostics. Other groups rejected the government of the Catholic Church but not her
dogma. What linked many of the groups was not a denial of Catholic dogma but a
common concern for rigorous spirituality, a demand for the return to apostolic poverty,
the refusal to take oaths, criticism of lax clergy, etc. many believed in the Real Presence,
the ever-virginity of the Blessed Virgin, regenerational baptism and the rest of Catholic
dogma. The Waldenses, started by Peter Waldo (c. 1150−1218) are an example of a
group Baptist successionists would consider baptistic, maintaining “Baptist churches” in
the midst of persecution during the medieval period.

Edward T. Hiscox, author of the classic Baptist handbook, Principles and Practices for
Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 1980) claims the
Waldenses and the above mentioned groups held to the principle points “which Baptists
have always emphasized”. Hiscox, however, doesn’t inform his readers that the
Waldenses for the most part believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, the effectiveness
of the sacraments, infant baptism, that “the Sacrifice [of the Mass], that is of the bread
and wine, after the consecration are the body and blood of Jesus Christ”, that good deeds
of the faithful may benefit the dead, to name just a few. That Baptist successionists can
claim the Waldenses as their ancestors-sharing a common belief and practice-is quite
untenable, if not disingenuous.

Baptist James Edward McGoldrick, professor of history at Cedarville College,
summarizes the situation well. “Perhaps no other major body of professing Christians has
had as much difficulty in discerning it historical roots as have the Baptists. A survey of
conflicting opinions might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists suffer
from an identity crisis. . . . Many Baptists object vehemently and argue that their history
can be traced across the centuries to New Testament times. Some Baptist deny
categorically that they are Protestants and that the history of their churches is related to
the success of the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. Those who reject the
Protestant character and Reformation origins of the Baptists usually maintain a view of
church history sometimes called ‘Baptist Successionism’ . . . enhanced enormously by a
booklet entitled The Trail of Blood.”

After acknowledging his initial advocacy of “successionism”, McGoldrick explains,
“Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however,
convinced [me] that the view once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified.
On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . .
. Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted
doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now
acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church.
Baptists arose in the seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants,
heirs of the Reformers” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History
[Metuchen, NJ: American Theological Library Assoc. and Scarecrow Press, 1994], 1−2).
Baptist Successionists frequently claim that they are not Protestants. To this, Leon
McBeth, professor of Church History at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
writes, “Are Baptists Protestants? One sometimes hears the question whether Baptists are
to be identified as Protestants. Whether one takes the shortcut answer, or goes into
lengthy explanation, the answer is the same: Yes. Such important Reformation doctrines
as justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of believers show
up prominently in Baptist theology. Further, the evidence shows that Baptists originated
out of English Separatism, certainly a part of the Protestant Reformation. Even if one
assumes Anabaptist influence, the Anabaptists themselves were a Reformation people.
The tendency to deny that Baptists are Protestants grows out of a faulty view of history,
namely that Baptist churches have existed in every century and thus antedate the
Reformation” (The Baptist Heritage [Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987], pg. 62).

 

I won't say that he got absolutely everything right. Very few historians do. The majority of what he wrote was true and accurate. Of what I posted I don't find anything I can disagree with. If you can, don't just state it as factual, back it up.

Carroll is right in his assessment. You are wrong. There are many other sources that agree with him: J.T. Christian, "A History of The Baptists," Armitage's Two Volume "Baptist History," Wylie, "History of the Baptists," and many others. I have a number of these sources and can quote from them. I have before. They are not tainted from RCC revisionist history as many history books are. They quote extensively from either source material or material written close to the age which these groups lived.
So I challenge you to back up your statements with actual facts and good sources.

Where do you get this from?

That is because Hiscox was a Baptist and knew better than to propagate lies.

He is entitled to his opinion. There are many that believe that Baptists originated in England. However, he is mistaken because he misconstrues Carrolls position. Carroll (nor I) believe in successionism. Let me explain. There are some extreme positions among Baptists, but they are in a very small minority.
I once attended a church that would not have accepted me as a member even if I wanted to be one (I didn't). The reason.
Though I had been scripturally baptized in a Baptist church by immersion after my salvation, I wasn't baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist who was baptized by a baptist, etc. right down to the apostles or even to John the Baptist. He found that about three "generations" back a link had been broken and therefore I was not a "true Baptist." Now that is successionism. And that is extreme and unbiblical. I do not believe that.

The other kind of successionism is through a Baptist church. I haven't come from a Baptist church that came from a Baptist church that came from another Baptist church that came from another Baptist church, etc. right down to the apostles. Same thing.

Another kind is Apostolic succession. Of course you know what that is, and Baptists have always opposed it. The RCC's hold to it, or at least a form of it.

Carroll believes that in every generation or age since the apostles there have been believers of like faith and order (separated from the RCC) who have held the same basic tenets of the Baptists. That doesn't mean that one came from the other. You listed some of those groups. It has nothing to do with successionism. He calls that "the spiritual kinship theory."
The Bible teaches that God has never left himself without a witness.
We don't believe that witness is the RCC.
Our belief therefore is a Biblical belief.
What you are doing is simply slandering our belief by falsely accusing them of heresy because the RCC has traditionally been the enemy of these groups and have charged them with heresy when there has been none.
After all, Innocent III, for no reason at all wiped out the Abigeneses who were a peace loving people who simply wanted to live out their lives in fear of God with godly living. But the RCC could not have that could they?

 

DHK, check out the Albigensians. Let us examine each of these groups...do not get angry DHK, I am concern... what happened, did the other Catholics get the boot ? Seeking the Truth can not be found with a closed mind. Truth that comes from Jesus can not contradict the Truth given by Jesus to His Church.

1. Montanists, denied all second marriages, even after the death of the spouse. They required all virgins wear veils in Church. They denied the forgiveness of sins, thus making a movement without hope.

2. Novatianists, taught that no sin was to be forgiven after Baptism. They too denied second marriages under any circumstances. Novatian covertly had himself declared a Bishop and was subsequently ex-communicated.

3. Donatists, taught that the true Church consisted only of the elect and that Baptisms were only valid when performed by a Donatist.

4. Paulicians, believed in the plurality of gods, held that all matter was bad, rejected the Old Testament, denied the incarnation, said Christ was an angel. They refused to honor the cross, by saying Christ had not been crucified.

5. Albigensians, believed in two gods, one good and the other evil. They rejected all sacraments, declared it was sinful to marry. This promoted sexual permissiveness. Pregnancy was to be avoided and abortion was promoted.

6. Catharists, followers of all the heresies of the Albigensians.

7. Waldenses, taught that the Church should have no property and condemned tithing. Interestingly, they accepted the Holy Eucharist as the Body of Christ.

8. Anabaptists, practiced polygamy and communism. They condemned oaths as unlawful. Anabaptists were founded by Thomas Munser in 1521. This fact alone refutes the Baptist claim to antiquity.
In recounting the 'deeds' of these heretical groups, why would anyone want to claim any of them as ancestral 'proof' of their origin?
Now since Jesus Christ promised His Church would last forever, "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it," Matt 16:18, what do you suppose He was doing with His Church during all of these centuries? Was He switching His Church to these heretical groups as they came along, 'zigging' to Montanists, and 'zagging' to Novatianists and so on? That notion is ridiculous. No, He did exactly what He said He would do. He was preserving and protecting His One Holy Catholic Church.

Now in dealing with Sola Scriptura believers as you Baptists are, I will insist on playing the Sola Scriptura game also in situations such as this one. The very meaning of the words Sola Scriptura is that everything believable must be found in the Bible, and if something is not in the Bible, then it simply does not exist or it never happened. At least that is what they tell Catholics. However, that same concept can be used by Catholics also for their beliefs of Baptist secessionism. I simply cannot find any verse which even hints that John the Baptist founded a church. Why can't I find it in the Bible? Is there a double standard here for SS believers, one for themselves and another one for Catholics?
Where is the evidence? If Evangelical Baptists existed since the time of John the Baptist, then the history books should have many references to them. The writings of the Early Church Fathers, the historians of their day, do not mention Evangelicals or Baptists at all. But what is very interesting is that the writings of scores of them mention the Catholic Church by name, hundreds of times. In the writings of Saint Augustine (354-430) alone, he mentions the Catholic Church, by name, over 300 times.

One example I will include here is Saint Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans, about 107 A.D..
It is to be noted that Saint Ignatius was an Apostolic Father, meaning that he knew at least some of the Apostles.

8. "You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ followed that of the Father; follow the presbytery as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God's commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid."

St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop, Letter to the Smyrneans, paragraph 8, 106 A.D..

A sampling of early Church writings, where in every case, the Catholic Church is Mentioned by Name. Note that the dates span from 106-512 AD

*Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 8:1-2. J65 106AD
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 16:2. J77,79,80a,81a, 155AD
*Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 7:17:107:3. J435 202AD
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 4-6. J555-557 251AD
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius 66:69:8. J587 254AD
*Lactantius, Divine Institutions 4:30:1. *J637 304AD
Alexander of Alexandria, Letters 12. J680 324AD
Athanasius, Letter on Council of Nicea 27. J757 350AD
*Athanasius, Letter to Serapion 1:28. J782 359AD
Athanasius, Letter to Council of Rimini 5. J785 361AD
*Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18:1. J836-*839
Damasus, Decree of Damasus 3. J910u 382AD
Serapion, The Sacramentary 13:1. J1239a 350AD
*Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian 1:4 J1243 375AD
*Augustine, Letter to Vincent the Rogatist 93:7:23. J1422
Augustine, Letter to Vitalis 217:5:16. J1456 427AD
*Augustine, Psalms 88:2:14, 90:2:1. J1478-1479 418AD
*Augustine, Sermons 2, 267:4. *J1492, *J1523 430AD
*Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 6:14. J1535
*Augustine, The True Religion 7:12+. *J1548, *J1562, J1564
**Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani 4:5. *J1580-1581
*Augustine, Christian Instruction 2:8:12+. *J1584, J1617
Augustine, Baptism 4:21:28+. J1629, J1714, J1860a, J1882
*Augustine, Against the Pelagians 2:3:5+. *J1892, *J1898
Innocent I, Letter to Probus 36. J2017
*Fulgence of Ruspe, Forgiveness of Sins 1:19:2, J2251-2252 512 AD

"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it".
Pope St. Felix III (483-492) "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant..."
A quote from a Catholic convert from the Anglican Church...
Cardinal John Newman
For those who wish to know the true story of the historical formation of the Baptist Church,
please [ sorry,does not print source ]

 

Brother Lakeside,

Wikipedia even admits the Anabaptists had forerunners before the Protestant Reformation
"Origins[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptists
Medieval forerunners[edit]

Although Anabaptists began with the Radical Reformers in the 16th century, certain people and groups may still legitimately be considered their forerunners due to a similar approach to the interpretation and application of the Bible. Petr Chelčický, a 15th-century Bohemian reformer, taught most of the beliefs considered integral to Anabaptist theology.[9] Medieval antecedents may include the Brethren of the Common Life, the Hussites, Dutch Sacramentists,[10][11] and some forms of monasticism. The Waldensians also represent a faith similar to the Anabaptists.[12]

In the following points Anabaptists who held to a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount resembled the medieval dissenters:They condemned oaths, and also the reference of disputes between believers to law-courts in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:1–11.
The believer must not bear arms or offer forcible resistance to wrongdoers, nor wield the sword. No Christian has the jus gladii (the right of the sword). Matthew 5:39
Civil government (i.e., "Caesar") belongs to the world. The believer, who belongs to God's kingdom, must not fill any office, nor hold any rank under government, which is to be passively obeyed. John 18:36 Romans 13:1–7
Sinners or unfaithful ones are to be excommunicated, and excluded from the sacraments and from intercourse with believers unless they repent, according to 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 and Matthew 18:15 seq. But no force is to be used towards them."

 

Let's start here.
The Montanists started as a protest to the corruption that was in mainstream Christianity, and it was a call to purity. One of the most prominent Montanists was Tertullian.

Armitage, in "A History of the Baptists" says:

Nothing of what they preached was heresy. They were Baptistic in doctrine. They were orthodox in doctrine. Their aim was purity. In their zeal for purity they took some extreme views, or what some would call extreme views.
Remarriage is hardly an extreme view compared to the RCC who demand celibacy and don't allow marriage at all among their priests and nuns. So they have nothing to condemn here.
Armitage notes that "they found it hard to forgive sins," not that they didn't. That is because of their high standard of purity or sanctification. It is wrong, but not heresy.
As far as wearing a veil, that is scriptural and should be done today.
Read 1Cor.11:1-15. It actually teaches that if you don't wear a headcovering (veil) then you should have your head shaved. That is how much of an insult it is to both your husband and to Christ. Read the passage and study it.

They were very conservative, demanded a holy lifestyle and denounced sin. Unfortunately their quest for purity was twisted by Catholics into strange doctrine--a common practice to cover up their own evil practices and heretical doctrines.

 

Suppose the Albigenses believed the same as the J.W.'s or the Mormons, or even the Wiccans--worshipers of Satan? What beliefs of theirs would warrant a complete and devastating genocide by Innocent III?
Can the atrocities committed by this "pope" be justified in any way. This action in and of itself shows the illegitimacy of the papal office.
(Also from Armitage)

And when they fled to Germany and to England:

Was there any reason for this brutality? Is this how the RCC treats Christians? let alone humans of any kind??

 

DHK, first, we have witnessed your writings from a twisted view of early Christian history of the Montanists and here is what they really believed:

The beliefs of Montanism contrasted with Orthodox Christianity in the following ways:
##The belief that the prophecies of the Montanists superseded and fulfilled the doctrines proclaimed by the Apostles.
##The encouragement of ecstatic prophesying, contrasting with the more sober and disciplined approach to theology dominant in Orthodox Christianity at the time and since.
##The view that Christians who fell from grace could not be redeemed, in contrast to the Orthodox Christian view that contrition could lead to a sinner's restoration to the church.
##The prophets of Montanism did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but rather described themselves as possessed by God, and spoke in his person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, De Trinitate, III, xli); This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I art like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Panarion", xlviii, 4).
##A stronger emphasis on the avoidance of sin and on church discipline than in Orthodox Christianity. They emphasized chastity, including forbidding remarriage.
##Some of the Montanists were also "Quartodeciman" ("fourteeners"), adhering to the celebration of Pascha on the Hebrew calendar date of 14 Nisan, regardless of what day of the week it landed on. The Orthodox held that Pascha should be commemorated on the Sunday following 14 Nisan. (Trevett 1996:202)

Jerome and other church leaders claimed that the Montanists of their own day held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, as opposed to the Orthodox view that the Trinity is one God of three persons which Tertullian also had held. There were some who were indeed modalistic monarchians (Sabellians) and some that were closer to the Trinitarian doctrine. It is reported that these modalists baptized mentioning the name of Jesus Christ as opposed to mentioning the Trinity. Most of the later Montanists were of the modalistic camp.

 

DHK, ATTITUDE OF THE CHURCH.—Properly speaking, Albigensianism was not a Christian heresy but an extra-Christian religion. Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess. Simon of Montfort intended well at first, but later used the pretext of religion to usurp the territory of the Counts of Toulouse. The death-penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses, but it must be remembered that the penal code of the time was considerably more rigorous than ours, and the excesses were sometimes provoked. Raymond VI and his successor, Raymond VII, were, when in distress, ever ready to promise, but never to earnestly amend. Pope Innocent III was justified in saying that the Albigenses were "worse than the Saracens"; and still he counselled moderation and disapproved of the selfish policy adopted by Simon of Montfort. What the Church combated was principles that led directly not only to the ruin of Christianity, but to the very extinction of the human race.

 

This is a false allegation brought upon them by their enemies and cannot be proven.

This again is an exaggerated and despicable accusation brought upon them because of a misunderstanding of the pneumatology. How would the RCC know anything about that, just as you know nothing about it?

Tell me: Does the spirit that dwells within you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?
If you say "yes," then how does that spirit bear witness?
If you can't understand the working of the Holy Spirit how would you expect the apostate RCC to?

It was a learning process just as it was in the Corinthian church. They also had the same problem. Shall I take you through the process. The man that committed incest in 1Cor.5:1-5 was a believer. He was excommunicated out of the church and "delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh." But the ultimate goal was repentance. He did ultimately repent. However the church had a hard time "forgiving" him and bringing him back into the assembly. Not without Paul's assistance would they have brought this man back into the assembly. The same problem was happening within the Montanists, only they did not have an "Apostle Paul" to help them.

If you understood the Scripture properly, every believer is indwelt with the Holy Spirit of God and should speak as the messenger of God, his message being from God Himself.
This belief is probably being exaggerated by his enemies.

This is a point of discipline and purity, not of doctrine. Compared to the RCC practice of celibacy you have nothing to complain about. Talk about calling the kettle black.
The RCC practices celibacy and ends up with pedophiles, homosexuals and scandals of all types. Why are you pointing the finger?

And this is a problem to you why? The RCC are liturgical. This is why it bothers you.

But that can be proven to be a false allegation.

To mention the name of Jesus Christ instead of the Trinity is not sin. They did so in the book of Acts. There are certainly needless false accusations here, unverified, and put there by their enemies, the RCC.

Note carefully:

 

DHK, all you can always state is the following: "This is a false allegation brought upon them by their enemies and cannot be proven."
DHK, can't you do better than just saying it's always a false accusation. How about some competent documentation for a change.

And again the same old lame excuse from you DHK as you say again :
"This again is an exaggerated and despicable accusation brought upon them because of a misunderstanding of the pneumatology. How would the RCC know anything about that, just as you know nothing about it?"

Tell me: Does the spirit that dwells within you bear witness with your spirit that you are a child of God?
If you say "yes," then how does that spirit bear witness?
If you can't understand the working of the Holy Spirit how would you expect the apostate RCC to?


DHK. you can talk, you say the Holy Spirit guides you but does not guide anybody else with the exception of the few that belong to your particular religious group. We all know that it is not the Holy Spirit that is confused, so it must be all those later days non-Catholic churches that are confused. At least all real Apostolic Churches have always been guided by the Holy Spirit and believe in basically the same doctrine for the past Two Thousand years.

 

I thought that the quotes from Armitage would have been enough. It would take up too much space to quote extensively. If you like me to quote other sources I can.
They were orthodox in their doctrine.
They were persecuted by the RCC, by whom also they were slandered.
Those are the facts and they are repeated over and over again by various sources.

Well this is true. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit involves quite a bit.
The indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the filling of the Holy Spirit, the power of the Holy Spirit, being guided by the Holy Spirit, quenching the Holy Spirit, being sealed by the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit bearing witness, grieving the Holy Spirit, the fruit of the Spirit, the gifts of the Spirit, and much more. I don't expect that the unsaved of the RCC would understand the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer today according to the Word of God.
Do you?
Thus my question which comes right out of Romans 8:16
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

But again you have no idea to answer that question, and no idea of what the ministry of the Holy Spirit is, and that is true of most of the RCC. Thus the false allegations against the Montantists which I can see right through but you have no idea of what they are talking about.

The RCC has always been confused such as you are today.
They have always persecuted true believers such as the Montanists, the Waldenses, the Albigenses and even true believers today. The RCC is ecumenical, but it will not tolerate those who will not be ecumenical with them.

 

First of all, an honest conversation cannot be had with one who twists the truth and misrepresents history. The Anabaptists were not started by Thomas Munzer. That is a blatant falsehood.

 

Rebel, you wrote: " The Anabaptists were not started by Thomas Munzer. That is a blatant falsehood. "

Don't stop there, show documentation please.