RC became apostate?-when?

I don't have any good Scriptural authority for this, but I would say that when they changed Baptism in the time of Constantine and went around with Romans forcing folks to "convert" and sprinkling them and declaring them Christians might be a good time to start.

I have heard from Messianic Jews that "Christianity did fairly well until it became a state religion."

I'm sure others will have different opinions from mine.

Yours in Christ,
CalvinG

 

Matt,

I agree. The Roman Catholic Church of today has much to say to Baptists, just as we have much to say to them. Talking and interacting will lead to more truth on both sides. Viva Tradition!

What in Cyprian's stances do you take issue with? Ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or the primacy of Rome? To me he has both good and bad things to say--maybe coresponding to the good and the bad that further developed in the tradition.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

You two obviously have a better understanding of the early history of the RCC than I do.

What is your take on the Catholic doctrines that belief in the ascension of the virgin Mary is necessary to salvation? Or the Catholic belief that salvation is so much more difficult as to be extraordinary outside their denomination? Do these qualify for apostacy?

 

The departure from Scripture on the part of the Church of Rome was a slow process.

The one obvious and very serious departure was when the Church married the State under Constantine (~400AD).

Later the bad marriage resulted in the "Holy" Roman Empire via Charlemagne (~800AD).

Their doom was sealed when they murdered the first Christian for not bowing the knee to the Pope (~800AD-1000AD).

Then followed the various blood baths of dissenting anabaptists, Huegenots, Waldenses, martyrs, etc (as well as Jews and muslims) who would not bow to Rome.

HankD

 

Like this?

Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces:
Mary the Co-Redemptrix with Christ

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/articl10.html

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/pontmag1.htm

Somehow these titles are justified even after :

1 Timothy 2
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Acts 4
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Not all the Romish apologetics and double-think/double-speak of the Magisterium of Rome can change the simple teaching of the Scriptures above.

All the children of God honor and love Mary, none should give her these titles because they are not found in the Scripture, indeed these titles oppose the Scripture.

HankD

 

The Catholic church has much to say to Baptists?
Before I go off on this can you explain what you mean a bit more?

Bryan
SDG

 

What does the Bible say?

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Roman Catholicism has been a false cult ever since it's very beginning in the 4th century A.D.

 

I don’t know when it started, but we can see that it is steadily getting worse.

According to the Catholic Catechism #841 the Muslims are included in the plan of salvation. Muslims do not believe in Jesus. In order to be in the plan of salvation, you must believe that Jesus died for your sins. So how can a Muslims be saved without Christ? But according to the Catholic's the Muslims can be saved without Christ.


Catholic Catechism;

#841. "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'[

Catechism at;

http://www.christusrex.org/www2/kerygma/ccc/searchcat.html

 

What I meant above when I said that we have much to learn from them is the importance they place on the traditions of the church. Most baptists seem all to happy to replace the wider tradition of the church for a very local or personal set of traditions. The use of tradition in our theology is insuperable. We do not (cannot!) interpret scripture without it.

Case in point, Psalm 145 3's quotation of Romans reflects what he has been taught. I would say that given the right tradition, a Catholic would say that it is you who are under such a curse.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

But the verse determines who causes hte division by relating it to being contrary to the truth you have learned. That truth is passed down to us in Scripture. It is the RCC that has departed from Scripture, not us. Therefore, it is they who have caused the divisions, not us.

 

Pastor Larry,

And it is your tradition that tells you that the truth, thus described, is found in scripture. Tradition is unescapable!

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

There is the truth of history as well as our tradition.

Baptist have never burned people alive for not being Baptists.

HankD

 

Matt,

We may be attempting to find that early tradition, but the traditions and culture within which we now live only allow that to a certain extent. We need to recognize the impact of our placement in history. In order to do justice to the early tradition, we must at least take into account the recent tradition--whether it is fully accepted or not another story.

Furthermore, many of the earliest interpretations of scripture would simply not fly in a postmodern mileu or would be read in such a skewed way that their voice would only serve the purposes of contemporary problems and assertions.

I think that believing that we can somehow leap over the majority of the Church's history (both good and bad) to reestablish something we see (I emphasize that it comes from our end) at best should be approached with an eye to the interviening time--at worst it is simply arrogance.

BTW, Hank--don't forget that it we have, as Protestants, persecuted our share fair.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

But Danny, technically Baptists are not Protestants. They preceded both the Protestant and Reformation movements.

When I went into the US Air Force we had "Catholic", "Protestant" or "Baptist" stamped on our dogtags.

But you are correct, the Protestant Church of England did persecute other Christians, among them Baptists.

HankD

 

Hank,

I'm sure you are aware that I along with all respectable historians believe that baptist successionism is a farce. We are Protestants!

Grace and Peace, Danny