Roman Catholicism , cult or not? Part II

The obvious difference is that the Ark is recorded in Scripture; your phantom groups of 'true believers' are not - nowhere in Scripture are these groups prophesied.

Those who live by sola Scripture may find their arguments defeated by sola Scriptura...

Now what?

 

My point is: the Flood of Noah is a fact in scripture; whether secular history corroborates this or not is irrelevant. Have you heard about the evidence of the hydro-cataclyism which many scientists have been unearthing lately?

Jesus's tomb is still empty--some say He swooned and lived some more. Some say the disciples moved the body and claimed a resurrection. The scripture says He died and was resurrected by the power of God. Whom shall we believe? That the tomb is empty is a fact--how it became empty is a matter of faith.

Then there are the hundreds who say they saw Him resurrected.

These things are spiritually discerned--we cannot see until the Spirit of God shows us through The Word. That is why Sola Scriptura is so important--it is completely dependable. The writings of men are not always reliable--they are corrupted by man's depraved nature.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

(Brackets mine)

AMEN and AMEN!!!
In Christ,
Nathan

"Eccere nullus-a-um salus-utis externus Christus!" [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Nate, thanks for your point. I do understand your words. What I pointed out was where they are mostly familiar with, because they mention about the earthly father so often, Holy Mother so often, then they pay little attention to the Real Father who never dies!
As one cannot serve 2 masters, we cannot focus on too many things

 

Yes, but my earlier point was that Scripture is silent as to whether there were all these proto-Baptist groups lurking around at the margins of history; so is the historical record itself. Given that both Scripture and history agree on that point, I am driven to the inevitable conclusion that these groups did not exist...unless of course you have contemporary primary documentary evidence to the contrary, in which case let's see it

[ETA - reply to Bro James]

 

Thats great but Scripture is rather silent on History after 90 AD. So it isn't exactly the first source we should be going to in order to prove the existance of groups after 90 AD.

 

Yes mindless repetition for the purposes of indoctrinating in baptist teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]I truly hope you are only kidding, as Awana has children memorize Bible verses, not any specific denomination doctrinal statement.

In Him,
WW2er

 

Yes mindless repetition for the purposes of indoctrinating in baptist teaching. </font>[/QUOTE]I truly hope you are only kidding, as Awana has children memorize Bible verses, not any specific denomination doctrinal statement.

In Him,
WW2er </font>[/QUOTE]You are right in regard to memorizing scripture, but the stories behind each verse memorized is a Baptist distinctive, so in that regard they are memorizing not only scripture, but doctrinal distinctive pertained to Baptist theology.

 

The Book of Acts is an excellent history of the early churchES, from the first one in Jerusalem, then Judea, Samaria and to the uttermost parts of the globe--the fulfillment of which is still underway. See Acts 1:8. There were at least seven in Turkey--See Rev. Ch. 2. The rest of the story is recorded is secular history, yea even in the Library at the Vatican, in the Catholic Encyclodedia. If one looks for the ones called heretics, one will find some of them who were still following the faith and practice just like the churches in the Book of Acts. The practices which got them the most persecution were: refusal to baptize their infants and baptizing converts having already had infant baptism, which NT Churches regarded as no baptism at all.(unscriptural authority)

These "phantom" groups were recipients of the wrath of Rome and later Wittenburg and Geneva etal. Many anti-paedobaptists were slaughtered rather than recant their faith. This is the fulfillment of many scriptures, particularly the one about Mother of Harlots, drunk with the blood of the saints, in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Yes, the Bride has been assailed. She remains undefiled, the pillar and ground of the Truth. She is waiting for the Bridegroom while carrying out His commission.

If they are in the Book of Acts, The Dark Ages and The so-called Reformation, is it unreasonable to believe that they are here in 2006? Jesus said He would never leave them nor forsake them.

Praise God, He is faithful to keep a remnant.

Re: RCC cult or not? This group still claims to be the largest Christian group--it still has all the markings of the Cult of Nimrod, which still has a profound effect on the religions of this world. Lest we forget, Joseph Smith Jr. "Reformed" Christendom in the 1830's--or so millions of Mormons say. Some say they are a cult.

True religion is not of this world.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Not very good proof for your position for I see the history of a church that would not deny the grace of God from little children by excluding them from Baptism, so I don't see any protobaptist when I read the book of Acts.

 

How did the grace of God get to be a work of man? See Eph. 2:8-10. Righteous works, baptism included, cannot save. How does an infant exercise faith?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

But sadly not after 90AD which is the period Chemnitz was asking about

Give me a URL to these documents then.

Which ones prior to the 1520s? Yes many heretical groups were - and I'll state this again - wrongly slaughtered, but none of them for being anti-paedobaptist.

 

What works of Man? Baptism is a work of God for only God can fulfill the promise af joining us to Christ in His death and resurrection. (Rm 6:3-5

An infant exercises faith the same way a grown man does by the trust built up by the fulfilled promises of God.

I, like Matt, am waiting for this proof of protobaptist groups.

 

Here Matt,

This is probably one of those sources proving the existance of a proto-baptist

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm
If they are early Baptists, it must mean Baptists do not believe in the resurrection of the flesh.

 

Propaganda has been around for many generations.

Your source is the same one which says Baptists are Protestants. This is false. True Baptists have never had a connection with the so-called Protestant Reformation. In fact they were persecuted by Luther, and Calvin; but not as badly as the 1200 years of persecution at the hands of the holy see.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

_Midnight reading: Mosheim--"the true origin of the Baptist denomination, who espoused the Mennonite views, and who acquired the stigma of Anabaptists, by administering anew the rite of baptism to those who come over to their community, is hid in the remote depths of antiquity." Ecc. Hist., vol.iii.,p.320. See also Wall's Hist., 2, 270.

More references: "A concise History of Baptists, by G.H. Orchard, London, 1838. Try this website: This may not work. Try just the title and author.www.reformedreader.org.history/_orchardch02s11.

Selah,

Bro. James

[ April 07, 2006, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Err - umm - "NO" Actually" they don't.

If you look in the Prebyterian, and Lutheran, and Methodist and Baptist statements of faith -- you will NOT find what you DO find in the RCC dogmas - which is a claim to infallibility!

This is a matter of record - you can not simply "make stuff up" because your argument "needs it".

Again you are deliberately turning a blind eye to the gross fallacy of equivocation that your argument seeks to employ.

As even Benedict observs "25 Million" slain by the RCC in the dark ages - as compared to ???

(And then of course admitting that as much as 2/3 of the records are lost while the remaining few show us the 25 million number).

The point is that the RCC dominated Europe -- ALL of Euorope for many centuries prior to the rise of small localized groups of protesting-Catholics.

Are you trying out for the poster-boy for the term "equivocation"?? If so you are certainly making great strides.

In the end it does not serve you to have to admit that an appeal to the fallacy of equivocation is the only defense for the atrocities of the RCC in the dark ages.

I know of no non-Catholic Christian church today claiming infallible "correctness" in any persecution it conducted (no matter how "local") against Catholic Christians.

As compared to the MANY CENTURIES of crimes against humanity and the invention of the Inquisition to boot.

(Pointing out that while defending the arguments FOR extermination made by the RCC these would be apologists can not bring themselves to recommend it today)

 

Posted on page Six of this thread --

 

Ok - so there is "some light" here. You claim to "see" that the slaughter of these innocent women chilren and even men - was a crime. Extermination -- a crime against humanity!!

But you also claim to have some "Character witnesses" against the victims in this case. Character witnesses that ARE NOT the word of the perpetrators - not the word of the criminal taken against the victim -- but of an objective independant reviewer -- who also are not using the testimony of the criminal to condemn the victim... right?

 

There is no argument there at all. That verse doesn't even come close to teaching baptismal regeneration.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
--Speaking of "the like figure" means that it is symblolic (a figure), and that it refers to the picture in the verses that precede it.
In the verses that precede Peter speaks of Noah and the "eight souls were saved by water.} (vs. 20). But they weren't saved by water. Everything was destroyed by water. Water was the agent of destruction not salvation. What saved them was the ark, the symbol of Christ, the only way of salvation, the only way to heaven. One cannot be saved by water; cannot be saved by baptism. Water is a destroying agent in this picutre.
So what does verse 21 mean.

What does the rest of the verse say; the part that you guys never quote?

"(not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
--Baptism represents the putting away of the flesh. It is symbolic of our old life that is dead to sin. Baptism doesn't save. What saves? The answer of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is what saves a person. Baptism is completely out of the picture here. What saves is the answer of a good conscience toward God, which can only come through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When one believes on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (the gospel), and conscientiously acts upon by praying to Christ and giving answer to God accordingly he shall be saved. Baptism is symbolic of that salvation, but it cannot and is unable to save any one.

Well glory be! Ireneaus for example believed that Jesus lived to the ripe old age of 80. Are we to believe all the strange doctrines of these men. That is why we have a Bible, which is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Hyppolytus:
There is a lot of heresy in that above quote. Can I trust you to find it for yourself, or need I point it out to you?
Did Jesus become an infant for infants? I think not!
Was he dipped 7 times in the Jordan for Naaman?
Was Namaan baptized?
I think not.
The entire post is so allegorical it is ridiculous.

There is no precedent for this in Scripture. Where is there any precedent in Scripture for:
1. Children to be baptized, and
2. Parents to speak for children that are being baptized. These are man-made doctrines. that go against what the Bible teaches.

and Cyprian of Carthage:

More heresy. No where does it teach infant baptism in the Bible. It teaches believe and be baptized. An infant cannot be baptized. The above teaching is heresy. The advice here is not to follow the teachings of the early church fathers.

Again here is the advocacy of infant baptism, a heresy of the early church, not found in the Bible, not taught by the Apostles.
These are all well before Constantine's Edict of

Even John 2:19 indicates that there were heresies among the church at the time of his writing. He also said there were antichrists at that time. Jesus and all of the apostles warned against false prophets and fales teachers. There were false teachers in the Church at Corinth and in Galatia that were leading those believers quicly astray.

Believer's baptism was taught all through the Bible. Take the Ethiopian eunuch. They both went down into the water and they both came up out of the water. They were baptized in that particular spot because there was much water there. The very Greek word, "baptidzo" means "immerse." Most church historians readily admit that immersion was the mode of baptism practiced by all churches until just recently. Even the Catholic Church practices immersion in many places.
DHK

 

Bob, I am quite prepared to call a spade a spade here: the crimes of the Inquisition were crimes, in some cases eg: the Albigenses arguably genocide (the Tolosanian Troubadour culture was exterminated as part and parcel of the 13th century 'crusade'; plus there was a lot of politics involved - the Capetian monarchs of France wanted to extend their power to cover what is now south-west France and they jumped on the crusading bandwagon for that cynical purpose).

But all of the above does not turn the Cathars into some kind of Christian group. To argue so would be tantamount to saying that because Saladin had the Third Crusade launched against him by those nasty Catholics he and his followers were some kind of Christian group likewise.

You ask about character witnesses. Yes, I agree that history was largely 'written by the victors' ie: the Catholic Church wrt the Cathars, but the Cathars did leave behind some of their own evidence, which supports Chemnitz' post ie: that they were in reality gnostic dualists. Mioque is far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am and I will defer to her superior wisdom; both she and rsr in the History forum refer to the Ritual Cathare de Lyon , for example.

Finally, it is not correct that the Catholic Church dominated all of Europe in the period under examination here. For a start, what is now Spain and Portugal were ruled by Muslims; and of course you ignore the Orthodox Church, which was established in Russia and the Balkans.

Bro James - none of the works to which you linked or quoted are contemporary to the period under consideration: they all post-date this period by several centuries and as such the suspicion is that they represent a form of historical revisionism prompted by theological need....