Featured Reformed Pastor Shares Emotional Hug with the Pope

Yes, we know full well of those terrible days from the past when Catholic Christians killed Protestant Christians and we do not forget that Protestant Christians killed their share of Catholic Christians as well either. Thankfully today neither side does such things.

As for Vatican II, those that oppose it are an extreme minority within the Church and the have no validity with their protestations as far as I, and the Church as a whole, are concerned.

Regarding Pope Benedict, as the head Bishop he certainly had the power to retire if he so desired. He was a conservative man and I liked him a lot. God bless him is all I can really say.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have we forgotten Northern Ireland? Also, Bloody Mary Queen of Scots is not exactly ancient history.
There was a lot of blood let by the Jesuits and the followers of Henry VIII.

Some would contend that there is a group of Christians who have never persecuted anyone ever. They have never been part of Rome or the Daughters of Rome. These are the ones preserved by God in every generation, as Jesus promised that He would never leave them nor forsake them.

Jesus kept His promise--we are still here in spite of the Gates of Hell.

Where will we spend eternity?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus

Bro. James

 

Church of Rome wouldbe lik the one from below, who always perdecuted the one from above, just as Paul contrasted the children of Sara and Hagger.

 

Lets not also forget when OUR CATHOLIC JUDAS betrayed Jesus Christ on the cross and OUR CATHOLIC PAUL's genocidal murder of Christians. And how through the entire old testament we seem to continuously fail God over and over again.

It seems unlikely Jesus would side with sinner rather then saints. Or would he?

Luke 5
30The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and sinners?” 31And Jesus answered and said to them, “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. 32“I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

I could start a religion today with a track record of no murder, thievery ect.


Isn't it funny Bro James, For someone who swears on FAITH ALONE.

Are you wagging your finger saying a church is suppose to do thing right?

Are you saying I have to do the "good works" of seeking out the most qualified of God's churches?
The good works of obedience?

We've been saying that for 2000 years.


What happen to faith alone? In fact according to you I can't pick nor can you aid my choice these things involve good works like having to read or listen.


Would I BETTER my chances of salvation if I engaged in the "GOOD WORKS" of leaving the catholic faith?


The fact the other religions JUMPED SHIP, means their principle of "FAITH ALONE" is a false one.

 

There were NO catholics at time of Christ, no papacy, no cardinals, no Gospel according to Rome, was Baptist more than anything else!
That claim is as bogus as Muslim claimingAbraham as a Muslim!

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not sure what the above has to do with Christians??? killing Christians.

No, cannot waggle fingers much anymore--too much arthritis. Can still type without too many corrections.

Have you considered the ones who were never on The Ship? Consider going outside the box of New Advent. Read about the heretics who would not baptize their infants. Although a protestant, Henry Lea has a wealth of historical data which is irrefutable to many inquiring minds. Look at the preponderance of evidence rather than the double-speak put out by the holy see.

Getting back to the OP: a protestant hugging the head papist( anti-pope??). This is typical of the ecumenical activity which has been going on for several generations. The daughters are trying to get back to their mother. They are being accepted provided they comply with the Council of Trent. The Anglicans do not have to change much liturgy. Henry VIII did little more than snub the authority of Rome. His religion is not much different. Council of Trent still applies.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Jesus was Catholic, First one and started the catholic church.

You didn't say NO BISHOPS did you ? Well why don't you point out who are the first bishops then?

Because they held catholic beliefs. You think you got it together in 40 or so years, You don't even give the APOSTLES with the holy spirit credit for 5 minutes.

===
St. Clement was the third successor of Peter as Bishop of Rome; otherwise known as the third Pope.
Clement, the third bishop of Rome flourished around 96 AD. He was a disciple of both Peter and Paul. Paul refers to him in his letter to Philippians (4:3) as one of his fellow workers. His first and second epistles to the Corinthians are included in the Orthodox Canon of the Bible. The first was widely known and read in the early Church One of the contributions of this book to the present day Church is that it refers to the threefold hierarchy of the Church: the bishop (Episcopos) the priest (Presbyteros) and the deacon (Diakonos). Again, the book bears the same character and flavor of any other book of the New Testament He was drowned in the waters of the Black Sea at the time of emperor Trajan in about AD 100.
===
"Since then these things are manifest to us, and we have looked into the depths of the divine knowledge, we ought to do in order all things which the Master commanded us to perform at appointed times. He commanded us to celebrate sacrifices and services, and that it should not be thoughtlessly or disorderly, but at fixed times and hours. He has Himself fixed by His supreme will the places and persons whom He desires for these celebrations, in order that all things may be done piously according to His good pleasure, and be acceptable to His will. So then those who offer their oblations at the appointed seasons are acceptable and blessed, but they follow the laws of the Master and do not sin. For to the high priest his proper ministrations are allotted, and to the priests the proper place has been appointed, and on Levites their proper services have been imposed. The layman is bound by the ordinances for the laity."
Source: St. Clement, bishop of Rome, 80 A.D., to the Corinthians

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its Sacrifices."
Source: Letter to the Corinthians, [44,4]
=======


St Ignatius of Antioch
He was the third bishop of Antioch and the first was St. Peter himself. He was a disciple of Peter, Paul, John and other Apostles who were in Antioch. He had another name Theophorus which has two meanings, "God-bearer" and "God-borne".
The second meaning is derived from the tradition that Ignatius when he was a small child was carried in the hands of Jesus (Mk. 9:36). He was martyred during the reign of emperor Trajan. To carry out the execution, he was taken to Rome under a guard of ten soldiers. On his way he passed through Laodicea, Philadelphia, Sardis and Smyrna and, for him it was an opportunity to meet the believers in those places and to strengthen them. At Smyrna ,the representatives of the Churches of Tralles, Magnesia and Ephesus came out to meet him. He encouraged them and their churches to be steadfast in their faith. Ignatius himself did not fear death. The way he saw and faced his martyrdom made the deepest impression on the believers. When he writes to the Church Rome from Smyrna on his way to Rome, he says:
"This favor only I beg of you: suffering to be a libation poured out to God, while there is still an altar ready for me". Again, he writes in the same Epistle: "Pray leave me to be a meal for the beasts for it is they who can provide my way to God. I am His wheat, ground fine by the lion's teeth to be made purest bread for Christ".
In Rome he was thrown to wild beasts in 107 Al). And thus lgnatius won the crown of martyrdom.

========



"Consider how contrary to the mind of God are the heterodox in regard to the grace of God which has come to us. They have no regard for charity, none for the widow, the orphan, the oppressed, none for the man in prison, the hungry or the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead."
"Letter to the Smyrnaeans", paragraph 6. circa 80-110 A.D.

"Come together in common, one and all without exception in charity, in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, who is of the race of David according to the flesh, the son of man, and the Son of God, so that with undivided mind you may obey the bishop and the priests, and break one Bread which is the medicine of immortality and the antidote against death, enabling us to live forever in Jesus Christ."
-"Letter to the Ephesians", paragraph 20, c. 80-110 A.D.

"I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed."
-"Letter to the Romans", paragraph 7, circa 80-110 A.D.

"Take care, then who belong to God and to Jesus Christ - they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church - they too shall be of God, and will be living according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. If any man walk about with strange doctrine, he cannot lie down with the passion. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons."
-Epistle to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1, 110 A.D.
==========


Name a Baptist bishop from 100ad to 300ad. Where are they?


The beauty of all this is how the enemies of the church POINT to the church.

Romans accused Christians of cannibalism on grounds of real presence.

The heretics themselves did not believe in the body and blood of Jesus.


Names people, NAMES! name one person where the got your beliefs.

 

Names: Jesus, The Christ, The Son of the Living God; Paul, The Apostle, given 13 epistles, all God breathed; John, The Apostle, given The Gospel and The Revelation of Jesus Christ, aka: The Apocalypse (The Unveiling).

This is not an exhaustive list; however they all must harmonize to be the Word of God. God does not author confusion. However, the god of this world is expert at confusion and convolution.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Could not name one person. Claiming biblical System of bishops didn't not work even with original generation.

No names given 100 ad- 300ad.


Not one of them adhere to a sola scriptura system. And the bible canon has not been established.

 

I know that you have to make these outrageous claims to justify your Baptist faith's existence, but as a Christian who seeks the truth you should not be afraid of the truth. The truth as regards the Baptist faith tradition is that it was started by a man from England, a man known as John Smyth who himself was a minister of the Church of England. This happened in 1608/1609 when Mr. Smyth drew upon the supposed "reformers" ideas of years past and came up with this new Baptist theology.

One of the main tenants of the Baptist faith tradition is the good old Sola Scriptura idea. Your attempt to bring into your claim the idea that St. Paul and others of that era were Baptists is laughable. First of all, as our brother in utilyan pointed out there was no Canon of the New Testament at that time. Secondly, those men of that era were actually in the process of bringing the NT Canon into being by their words, actions, and deeds - so how in heaven's name could they look to it for guidance? Such a thing is a complete impossibility!

A case in point would be the issue of circumcision that they were arguing about back then. Yes, the OT made circumcision a requirement, but St. Peter argued otherwise and as we know, his argument won the day. Circumcision was no longer a requirement for the believer to be saved. They came to this decision by consulting WITH EACH OTHER as leaders of the new Christian faith, not by finding it in the NT Scripture (which of course did not exist at that time).

Those early men of the church made the rules and all the other Christians followed what they said, including all those other Christians whose churches were located far away from where they were. No believer of that day who were members of those churches located far away practiced their faith alone, nor did they make their own interpretations of the faith either. They were led and they took those things they were taught to heart, and each succeeding generation of Christians did the same.

What actually existed was but one Universal Christian Church that was most assuredly NOT Baptist in belief, thought, or deed.

 

We are just pointing out "where is this legit church"?

100ad - 300 where is the church? name one person who has it right. The early church fathers which are in the church or not. There is no quoting Augustine he's a catholic. There is no clement or Ignatius they are catholic.

A protestant and reformation is protesting and reforming what? The view was an apostasy transpired, ok when did it happen?

A new view is it was never the church at all fine who is the real one.

You say the church has a bad track record, The blood of the saints in every generation still cries out.

Well where is the record? If I say your grandfather was a rapist with tons of records proving so would it be unreasonable on your part to say "ok then present those records or even one"

The date we are looking for is between 100ad - 300ad show us record of Baptist being killed for not believing in infant baptism, give us one name, show us that Baptist canon of scripture.


All you doing is making false accusations based on hearsay, Present those records, EVEN ONE. Last week means nothing we are looking at 100ad-300ad immediately after the apostles.


Are you a LIAR? Are you a liar when you claim someone commits a crime and present NOTHING?

 

Jesus was NOT a Catholic, as Roman chuch was not in history as of yet, and James ptresided over fist Baptist of Jerusalem., and ovseers/pastors/bishops samething, NONE of thm as Catholic church views it being!

Church of Rome is whore of Babylon....

 

We seem to be having trouble with the software on this site.

Apostasy when? Try Book of Jude, memorize verse 3. The mystery of iniquity was already working even as the Holy Writ was being written--canon or not. God's Word does not need the canonization of depraved man to be declared Holy and sola. The Word is Truth whether we believe it or not.

Paul the Apostle, told the Galatians they had been bewitched to another gospel. They were also keeping days, times and seasons--Paul said he was afraid of them. The seven churches of Asia, Apocalypse 2,3 were having problems with false doctrine, circa 95AD, some worse than others. The deeds of the Nicolaitans is an interesting study.

The Book of Revelation takes The Bride all the way to eternity and a new heaven and new earth.
There are no gaps in the continuity of Jesus' promise to keep Her even through the gates of hell.
To be sure, Satan has tried to destroy the record. If one takes The New Testament Church in the Book of Acts and follows their Faith and Practice through two thousand years, that same Faith and Practice can still be found, as promised by the Lord Jesus, The Christ.

Here is the bone of contention: The Bride never went through Rome, Constantinople, Wittenburg or Geneva. This is not about a denomination or a name. New Testament Churches have never been connected with Rome nor the failed Reformation of Rome

Filling in the gaps that are not there with extra-biblical writings of so-called holy fathers is an exercise ending in confusion. Those gentlemen cannot agree on the nature of baptism. This is still a major doctrinal dilemma. Many Christians have been killed refusing to bow to the authority of Rome.

 

Still having trouble with software--cannot edit.

One last point regarding apparent gaps in ecclesiastical continuity: there is some real serious stretching to get a succession of papal authority from Peter to the 4th century circa Council of Nicea, which was called at the behest of the pagan emperor, Constantine, The Great. It is also difficult to corroborate The Apostle Peter was ever in Rome. Much of this information is speculation of making the data fit the curve. I wonder if Benedict Emeritus knows what happened? Is it possible he is on the list of antipopes?

Re: track record, see list of apologies by Pope John Paul II. He is also quoted as saying: "An excuse is worse and more terrible than a lie, for an excuse is a lie guarded." Interesting.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

There we go, sooner or later the "whore of Babylon" phrase rears it's ugly head. Your mind has been warped by the those who propagate such rhetoric of hate and divisiveness, quite unlike the path Jesus would really like you to take. I will pray for you.

 

More track record: for some of what John Paul II may have been apologizing see-- cx.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.html#_135810587

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

The church of rome does not teach the gospel according to Jesus...