What's with all these Baptist-bashing threads here?!

I dont bash Catholics. Just the false religion from Rome. As far as the bashing is concerned, I guess we Baptists are just passionate about what we believe. But all you Catholics love it here dont you? Are you not having alot of fun? Can you have this much fun and entertainment on a Catholic board? Obviously you all spend (or waste) an awful lot of time on this board. Arent we Baptists alot of fun to be around? I dont know where you all find time for anything else. Do you have jobs? Are you all just a bunch of professional students? What would you do without us?

 

Three very similar questions that I hope come from hearts earnestly desiring to know. The answer is very simple: You study your Bible. That is the truth. The church is the defender and propogator of the truth. The truth is found in God's word.

There is only one truth. When a church or organization contradicts Scripture, they have contradicted the truth.

 

You equate God's word with scripture. Can you show me where in scripture that God indicates that his word is exclusively scripture? By the way, with regard to you point on another thread about me thinking that you can't get it without the RCC, you can't. God cannot be extracted from a book. (John 5:35). "What you have heard from me in the prescence of many witnesses teach to trustwothy men who will teach them to others.". Don't see any mechanism for getting these teachings any other way then from who they have been passed on to. 2 Thes 2:15 is a good one also. "Hold Fast to the Traditions you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in epistle form us." Once again he doen't say he is going to write them down. John at the end of his third letter says he has many other things to teach but that he is going to deliver them in person. If you can find them I would sure like to know where. They were obvioiusly important. Yet I doudt that God let them be lost. It is painfully obvious that even if you have read the Catechims you don't understand it. That it doesn't fit what is in your head that scripture says is not more surprizing than when I lived with the Mormons it contradicted what they said. Once again God cannot be extracted from a book. "flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my father in heaven". It is the grace of God, not a mental excercise. Back to you Larr.

Blessings

 

No, I didn't. God's word is not exclusively Scripture. In times of special revelation, God spoke in many ways and various portions (Heb 1:1). God's word for today is Scripture because he is no longer giving special revelation.

Sure you can. The word has gone many places in history without the RCC.

I think you are absolutely right in principle. But you have mistaken the RCC as one who is passing on the truth. They have, in fact, contradicted the truth. The mechanism for gbetting these teachings is passing them on, which is what i said previously. But the teachings are passed on by those who pass on the teachings. The RCC is, in many cases, passing on teachings other than the teachings of Scripture. That is the problem.

But those "traditions" are found for us in the word of God. That is God's all sufficient revelation to us (2 Peter 1:3; 2 Tim 3:16).

Obviously not. If God had deemed them important, he would have preserved them for us in Scripture.

What you mean is that since I disagree with you, that I don't understand it. The words means what they say ... at least that is the basis of all communication. You are not in the place that your church has been, historically. Reading history will show you that.

This doesn't make sense to me. What is in my head about what Scripture says??? Scripture says what it does. The RCC contradicts it. It is not hard. That is one reason why they have an authoritative magesterium. Were you to sit down with God's word and the Holy Spirit you would never believe what the RCC believes. To protect their interests, they have to tell you what to believe.

But God cannot be known apart from the revelation of himself in his book. He does not work apart from Scripture. Again, this is a waste of time because you do not accept that basic teaching. You have subscribed to an authority that God never set up. Thus, all your conclusions are painted by that authority.

 

No, I said what I meant. There are certian things in SCripture so explicitly clear that no interpretation can legitimately be offered against them. That is what you do not realize. It is not about interpretation (though there are some legitimate interpretive issues). Many people have the very limited view that you do and in most cases, it is because they have never really thought much about it. It is easy to cry "That's just your interpretation." It is a far different matter to actually stand up to the test. So, in short, I am not referring to matters about which there is great interpretive debate. I am referring to the explicit teachings of Scripture.

But again, as I said above, Scripture is today the entire word of God. God is no longer giving special revelation in this age. He has given us everything we need in Scripture for this age.

 

thessolians,

The verse you quote says "traditions you have received..."

It says nothing of "traditions" invented by man hundreds of years in the future.And the teaching of Rome that "faith" comes by Mary cannot be found in the Scriptures nor can it be found in the writings of the earliest believers:

Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation - of Mary who brought the "author of faith" into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called "blessed." "O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee"(ADIUTRICEM,Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated on September 5, 1895).

"First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord's Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us."(IUCUNDA SEMPER EXPECTATIONE,Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1894).

If this is a truth of God,then we would expect to see that teaching in the Holy Scriptures.But it is not there.If this is a truth of God,then due to its importance we would expect to see it mentioned at least once by the earliest believers,but their writings will be searched in vain for any mention of it.

This "tradition" of Rome cannot be found in any of the writings of believers until hundreds and hundreds of years after the last Apostle died.

But yet Rome teaches it as if it is a "tradition" that was given to the Apolostic church despite the fact that it was not a tradition that was given to the Apolostic church.

I challenge you to provide even one mention of this "tradition of Rome" that was taught within three hundred years of the founding of the church.

In His grace,--Jerry

 

Jerry Shugart,

You said, 'I challenge you to provide even one mention of this "tradition of Rome" that was taught within three hundred years of the founding of the church.'

You are correct. The Church preys on Christians who are not willing to look up the facts. Masticate and swallow is the behavior of most Catholics. Trust the leg work of the Magisterium; they are ordained by God to know all the truth. This human philosophy is what encourages most Catholics to trust their superiors rather than studying the Word for themselves.

The idea of Catholicism going back to the Apostle Peter is 'a straw house' that is blown down with one puff, even by the understanding of weak Christians.

 

Jerrys,

" 2 Thes 2:15 is a good one also. "Hold Fast to the Traditions you have recieved, whether BY WORD OF MOUTH or in epistle form us."[/QUOTE]
thessolians,

The verse you quote says "traditions you have received...""

What traditions are you recieving by WORD OF MOUTH????? That's the point.

"It says nothing of "traditions" invented by man hundreds of years in the future."

Like Sola Scriptura, symbolic Eucharist, Baptism as non-regenerative, Sola Fide, the pre-trib ratpure, and Mary was not a perpetual virgin. I challenge you to trace these through history. I will only require you one quote for every 5 I have to come up with on these in the first 800 years of Church history. You go first.


"And the teaching of Rome that "faith" comes by Mary cannot be found in the Scriptures nor can it be found in the writings of the earliest believers":


First of all these are your words and in the context you state them you are quite right (if I can be allowed to read your mind for a bit.). You are separating Mary from Christ and raising her to the level of the Godhead, then saying this is never taught in the Early Church. You are right but that is not what Leo is saying.

Since faith is the foundation, the source, of the gifts of God by which man is raised above the order of nature and is endowed with the dispositions requisite for life eternal, we are in justice bound to recognize the hidden influence of Mary in obtaining the gift of faith and its salutary cultivation - of Mary who brought the "author of faith" into this world and who, because of her own great faith, was called "blessed."

Mary's faith was in Jesus Christ her son. Her influence is that she said yes to God. Yet this was his work in and trhough her so it was by HIS grace that it happened. Do you deny that she brought the author of faith in to the world. I have a book with much Marian thought in the early Church. I would try to round it up but there isn't much point as you will just go back to the Mary you have set in your mind and the distortion of Pope Leo's words that you have in your mind.

"
"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, attains salvation except through thee; none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee"(ADIUTRICEM,Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, promulgated on September 5, 1895)."

Mary brought the grace of Christ in to the world by saying yes to the Father in bearing his son. This she did by the grace of God himself. That is the background behind Leo's words. God chose to work through her. Tell me. Did Moses lead the Israelites to the promised land (even though he didn't enter it himself). Or did God. It's not an or question. God did it through Moses. God works through men. He worked through Mary. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with how God works.

"First, as is meet and right, comes the Lord's Prayer, addressed to Our Father in Heaven: and having, with the elect petitions dictated by Our Divine Master, called upon the Father, from the throne of His Majesty we turn our prayerful voices to Mary. Thus is confirmed that law of merciful meditation of which We have spoken, and which St. Bernardine of Siena thus expresses: "Every grace granted to man has three degrees in order; for by God it is communicated to Christ, from Christ it passes to the Virgin, and from the Virgin it descends to us."(IUCUNDA SEMPER EXPECTATIONE,Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1894)."

Mary still interceeds for us in heaven before the throne of God. She can do nothing for us except to attain the grace of God for our lives. The grace is the grace her son earned for us on the Cross. The son honors his mother.

"If this is a truth of God,then we would expect to see that teaching in the Holy Scriptures."

We do. It comes in the OT when the queen mothers of the davidic kings request favors for the people.

"But it is not there.If this is a truth of God,then due to its importance we would expect to see it mentioned at least once by the earliest believers,"

Are you willing to grant me the things about Mary that are found in the ECF. Not likely. Was Mary a perpetual virgin. I bet I can make a much better case than you from the ECF. How do you feel about the Council of Ephuses.

"but their writings will be searched in vain for any mention of it."

May not find the explicit statements you quote but you won't find any that properly understood are contrary to them. And you can find elements that point to exactly what he says in the ECF. When you prove me wrong on the issues I presented above with regard to the ECF that will be enough evidence that you are a man of good will and not a typical anti-catholic. Then I will go head to head with you on Mary. Ever heard of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant? Ever compare 2 Sam 6 with Luke 1? How do you feel about calling Mary blessed?

"This "tradition" of Rome cannot be found in any of the writings of believers until hundreds and hundreds of years after the last Apostle died.

But yet Rome teaches it as if it is a "tradition" that was given to the Apolostic church despite the fact that it was not a tradition that was given to the Apolostic church.
I challenge you to provide even one mention of this "tradition of Rome" that was taught within three hundred years of the founding of the church."


Like I said I will be glad to when you show me that the 5 or so protestant traditions I mentioned are found in the ECF. I will also be glad to show Christ's real prescense in the ECF, baptismal regeneration, baptismal regeneration, and the supremacy of Rome is so overwhelmingly found in the Church fathers that it needs no real defense.

 

Ray,


"The idea of Catholicism going back to the Apostle Peter is 'a straw house' that is blown down with one puff, even by the understanding of weak Christians. "

Hmmm. It's lasted 2000 years now. Hardly a straw house. More like a house built on a rock.


47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Ray I find little substance in your posts and much rhetoric. God bless though.
Blessings Ray.

 

Read the Apostolic writings of the N.T. and the Church Fathers right after the last apostle died and you will not find all of the add-on theology that Catholicism floats into the lives of their clientele. The popes who came on later in Church history took great, great liberties in perpetuating new doctrines backed neither by the Biblical, manuscripts, the apostles or the earliest of Church Fathers. Read and you will be enlightened.

 

Ray
I have read all of the Apostolic Fathers and I mostly came to the conclusion that they were often concerned about stuff that seems downright alien to all forms of modernday Christianity.

I especially liked the whole don't try to save me I want to die a martyr's death thing.

 

Because that is a bad form of argumentation and an irrelevant question. It would have been to prejudice the conversation, something I was not willing to do.

The points that I made are historical realities carried out by the "holy mother church." "Beating your mother" may not be. That is an issue that must be dealt with. My point was not disgust that it happened (although it was wrong). My point was to remind us that the RCC has not been so generous historically as many here would like to pretend. This "brotherhood" idea with dissenters was not a doctrine of the church. It was grounds for separation and persecution in many instances. Don't rewrite history simply because you don't like it. Let's deal with the past. </font>[/QUOTE]OK, this is what you said (in response to what MikeS said):

And I would certainly agree that what I suggest was a bad argumentive approach. And it was an approach you made, since the assumptions of your statement was, the Catholic Church is assumed in your statement as doing those things as fact.

They are not fact, unless proven.

Show me one decree or papal bull where your "ancestors" were to be killed. Show me one document that shows that the Church condemned anyone to hell, which anathama decrees do not do.

That is not to say that members of the clergy were not envolved doing those things that resulted in the death of others, as members of the clergy sin as well as you and I, sir. The Catholic Church is a very old church, and certainly the "skeletons in it's closet" are rather well documented. But no where does the Church advocate the killing of heretics or even the burning at the state, a practice of the state and civil authorities, including those of the Protestant persuasion.

Matthew 18:17 indicates what the Church must do in the case of an unrepentant brother whose scandal continues. Today, we call that excommunication. That is equivilant to anathmas.

Here is some good reading for you:

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/blacklegend.htm

http://www.catholicleague.org/research/inquisition.html

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

They are fact. STudy history and you will see this.

This is revisionism.

Of all the things we should not be ignorant of, history is perhaps second behind theology. Unfortunately, the RCC has made her followers ignorant of both.

 

Yes, I always feel a good, solid ad hominem seals the deal. Good for you, Larry.

 

Yes, I always feel a good, solid ad hominem seals the deal. Good for you, Larry. </font>[/QUOTE]There was nothing ad hominem about what I said. Truth is not ad hominem. As we have shown in different instances in this forum, many Catholics are revisionists about both truth and history. To state the truth does not mean one engages in ad hominem attacks. You know that ...