• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Former Protestant Pastor Helps Shepherd Catholic Converts

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Ray -

According to Bokenkotters "Concise History of the Catholic Church" the same cardinals that elect Urban claim that the "mob" altered the elections and so they elected another Pope - free of the mob. And thus began the great schism pg 166-168.

Before the schism - when Gregory XI died the Romans feared a French Pope "might" be elected. As Bokenkotter states (pg 166)
"dismay soon gave way to panic as the sixteen cardinals assembled on April 7 1378. Some of them were assaulted in the street and warned by the bullies to elect (Urban vi) an Italian... The cardinals quickly elected an Italian, the archbishop of Bari, Bartholomew Prignano, who was not even of their number. In the meantime, a mob in ugly mood had seized the papal wine cellars and invaded the Vatican; while waiting for Prignano to arrive, the cardinals dressed up one of their colleagues and presented him in papal robes to pacify the crowd.

Whether the cardinals were really overpowered by fear and hence unfree when they elected Prignano - as they later charged - will, it seems, remain forever one of the tantalizing but insoluble questions of RC history...

The schism began when the cardinals - whose original misgivings were greatly exacerbated by Urban's behavior - decided they had had enough. Abandoning Rome, they took refuge at Fondi, and then elaborated an encyclical in which they declared Prignano's election invalid and denounced him has antichrist, demon, apostate, and tyrant...on September 20 1378 they unanimously elected a new Pope, Rober of Geneva, who took the name Clement VII.

..both Popes received support from civil governments - splitting western Christendom into two camps. The holy Roman emperor, England, the Netherlands, Castille, Hungary, Poland and Portugal stood behind Urban, while France rallied to Clement VII, who returned to Avignon in 1379 and was soon joined by Scottland, Luxembourg and Austria...(Italy itself was too confused for either side to count on)...

Urban proclaimed a crusade against clement and hired the sanguinary Charles of Durazzo to oust the renegade queen Joan from Naples. The English invaded France in order to break it's allegiance with Clement
.
Both Popes found military operations to be expensive, and the papal tax collectors where forced to use ever harsher methods to squeeze every penny out of the constituents...Urban turned more violent and savage. Suspecting his own cardinals of plotting against him, he put them to torture, and five of them died shortly thereafter, probably thrown overboard from the Pope's warship … Urban returned to Rome where he died in 1389. His fourteen cardinals immediately elected a successor..Boniface ix...

This rupture of the church's unity was a terrible trial for believing Catholics."
finally they came across the solution "the resignation of both Popes". A solution they would try when opportunity was present.

"hopes were stirred when the Avignon Pope, clement vii, died in 1394 and each of the candidates to succeed him swore an oath that if elected he would resign his office. But the one elected Benedict XIII...soon showed that he had no intention of honoring his pre-election oath"

at this point war breaks out between France and the French Pope!! "they even laid siege to his palace, but all in vain...France totally capitulated and returned to his (the French Pope benedict) obedience"...

Hopes were once again renewed in 1406 with the election of a new Roman Pope, Gregory XIi who had sworn to resign if "his rival at Avignon would do the same...so finally realistic negotiations seemed about to begin; both Popes agreed to meet to discuss their joint resignations. But then the insincerity of both men surfaced".

At this point a concilar solution was sought whereby a council would meet without approval of either Pope to solve the problem. March 25 1409 ".

.after a brief pause, the Popes were then declared contumacious and schismatical, notorious heretics, guilty of scandalizing the universal church and therefore deposed. The townspeople reacted with wild joy... A new Pope was elected Alexander v.

The miracle was premature. By their haste in electing a Pope the cardinals only aggravated the sickness.. The new Pope Alexandar V, did not even manage to reach his see of Rome before dying at bologna may 3 1410. His successor took the name John XXIII."

eventually Sigismund of Luxembourg was elected holy Roman emperor and called a council that pronounced itself in superiority to all Popes.

"great indeed now was the humiliation of the papacy in all three of it's clamants."
all three successors to the three Pope system were deposed.

At this time they also burned John Huss at the stake!! (err - I mean "exterminated" him) What a fitting crime.

On November 11, 1417 the used a new system - the cardinals were joined by six delegates of each RC nation - thirty in all - . That group then selected the next Pope - a complete break from all three papal lines !!!!


In Christ,

Bob
 

thessalonian

New Member
Who cares about the three pope years. They were short. There was some confussion perhaps but that does not mean that the Church was any thing less than the Church. We don't claim a continuous line of Popes. You see, Apostolic succession is fully contained in the college of the bishops also. Our authority is not dependent upon their being a Pope every single year, though certainly it is an office that has been filled as quickly as possible throughout time. I believe there is one gap of about 3 years if I remember right. Not sure what the cirucmstances were. Likely world traveling conditions didn't allow the Bishops to come together to elect a new one.

Bob Ryan can point out all the difficulties of history he wants but he was not there so he cannot adequately judge them. Only God can do that. He can point out sins of Popes and Bishops. We say YES they were sinners. Every single Pope has been. It proves nothing more that that they were sinners. For Paul sinned and we don't rip the pages of his writings out. He said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do.". I have not seen one person rip the writings of Peter out of his bible yet because Peter denied the Lord three times either. Heck, the Lord called him satan. It just goes on and on. Most of what Bob posts is lies and distortions (bearing false witness, a commandment he seems to care little about in spite of his great "love" for the third (his "fourth" commandment). It's just bitter nonsense from his disfunctional childhood I suspect. There's disfunction in all of our childhoods Bob. It's okay. Let go.

Blessings
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Why is it that when I quote Catholic sources - catholics say it is "all lies and distortions"??

Is it because our RC bretheren have come to expect "lies and distortions" from Catholic sources?

I find that amazing!

This thread is on some kind of non-Catholic pastors converting to Catholicism. The question is asked (and never answered) "how many of them were Bible-believing informed fundamentalist pastors" --

To which the catholic response is "dead silence".

Then we point out FROM CATHOLIC sources - what the RC history has actually BEEN. (Which then leads us to ask what history those non-catholic pastors were impressed by).

But in all this - the catholic response is "oouch! you are saying something yada-yada-yada negative about catholics".

Instead of following the point and responding intelligently and with a compelling argument - we get "rant after rant".

Surely "that" was not the "compelling" case for those non-Catholic pastors!

Where was the "attraction"!

Where was the "intelligent" decision?

In Christ,

Bob
 

JFS

New Member
This thread is on some kind of non-Catholic pastors converting to Catholicism. The question is asked (and never answered) "how many of them were Bible-believing informed fundamentalist pastors" --
I know of one person but I don't know if he was a pastor. He was definitly a Fundamentalist and his father was a pastor his name is David Currie
The question I have for you Bob is you are so willing to condem the Catholic church based on the sins of individuals. Do we as Catholics get any marks from you based on all the good works that were done by Catholics in the name of Jesus?


God Bless You
John
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
David Currie, as far as I know, has preached from the pulpit at many Fundamentalist churches. I'm not sure if he's ever been a "pastor" though.
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
I remember reading about a certain number of vagabond Jews casting out demons in the name of Jesus. They were doing a good work, right? The demons said, Jesus we know and Paul we know, you we don't know.

We also know that when we do all that is required of us as servants, still we must say we are unprofitable servants.

Bro. Dallas
 

CatholicConvert

New Member
Bob Ryan --

Intelligent decision comes from intelligent people. Intelligent people are smart enough to realize certain things regarding the Church. They realize that Jesus described the Church as a net which would catch both good and bad fish, and as a field which would bring forth both wheat and tares.

Neither the net nor the field is changed by the fact that in them there are worthless things which are only fit for destruction. Intelligent people realize this and concern themselves only with the teachings of the Church, not the failures of Her people, which are legion (for we are ALL sinners --except you, I guess).

However, it is certainly less than intelligent to let one's personal animus blind him to the teachings of Jesus Himself and how they apply to the Church. It is certainly less than intelligent to continue to dredge up scum off the pond and act as if the scum is the whole pond. It is certainly less than intelligent to ignore the testimony of those who lived and died holy lives before mankind. It is certainly less than intelligent to bring up moral failure and act as if the personal failures of a few constitute sin on the part of the whole body.

When are YOU going to start acting a little intelligent....?

I think that even some of the gracious Protestants on this board are getting more than a little tired of flinging dung around and acting as if that makes your point. Why don't you stick to doctrinal issues and put the dung up?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by JFS:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This thread is on some kind of non-Catholic pastors converting to Catholicism. The question is asked (and never answered) "how many of them were Bible-believing informed fundamentalist pastors" --
I know of one person but I don't know if he was a pastor. He was definitly a Fundamentalist and his father was a pastor his name is David Currie


The question I have for you Bob is you are so willing to condem the Catholic church based on the sins of individuals. Do we as Catholics get any marks from you based on all the good works that were done by Catholics in the name of Jesus?


God Bless You
John
</font>[/QUOTE]No question!

The point is not "yada-yada-something bad about catholics".

The point is that the organization - the Catholic denomination through its doctrines and practices in the dark ages - went into some errors that the Bible even predicts.

However that does not mean that individuals were not serving God as faithful Christians - selfless service for the good of mankind done by many saved and God-fearing Catholics in all ages.

No question.

We applaud their self-sacrifice and faithful service!

Oh - and by the way - thank you for being focused enough to actually answer the question with some information. You are the first!

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Carson Weber:
David Currie, as far as I know, has preached from the pulpit at many Fundamentalist churches. I'm not sure if he's ever been a "pastor" though.
The question is whether he himself was a Bible-believing fundamentalist. Someone that actually took the gospel, the creation account, the fall of man, the totally depravity of all mankind, the priesthood of all believers, the inspiration of ALL the 66 books -- Literally Just as the Bible teaches it?

If so, then it would make a fascinating read to see how he was convinced against that view. If you have a link with his statements showing his positions formerly and then the change - I would be happy to read it.

My point is that I don't find it particularly surprising that a non-fundamentalist who already doubts some parts of scripture - could be persuaded over time to join in the RCC form of that same set of beliefs. In fact, I am surprised more don't do that.

If you are saying that he never actually was fundamentalist (Bible believing) then I understand.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Bob Ryan --

...
When are YOU going to start acting a little intelligent....?

I think that even some of the gracious Protestants on this board are getting more than a little tired of flinging dung around and acting as if that makes your point. Why don't you stick to doctrinal issues and put the dung up?
Let me guess.


All you can hear is "yada-yada-yada-something-bad-about-Catholics"!!

Why does that not surpise me!

In Christ,

Bob
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Why does that not surpise me!

Because that is, in essence, the unwavering and consistent content of your posts.. a fruit of your SDA Anti-Catholic tradition.
 

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Frogman:
that is the point of this discussion of Peter/the Pope and/Mary. The Apostolic age is ended.

The Apostolic age has ended.

The Apostolic age has ended.

can you hear that? The Apostles were inspired in their writing, so too Luke, Jude, etc. Now, the Apostolic age is ended. Peter never claimed a headship of any kind over the church, because Christ never gave him a headship of any kind different than any one of the other Apostles.

Bro. Dallas
Froggie,

First of all I agree. The Apostolic age has ended. Amen.

Secondly it is not scripture that we get from the Popes. But a lesser charism (as oppossed to divine revelatoin). We get infallible interprutation. Remember Joseph in the Old Testament. He was an infallible interpruter of dreams. Well we think that God's truth is so important that he would like us to know the fullness his commands of it. Mt. 28 commands the Apostles to go and teach ALLLLLLLL the truth to the whole world. Mark 16 tells us that salvation is bound to all that salvation depends on those things that are to be taught. Therefore they must be without error.

I haven't heard President Bush say "I am the president of the united states" in a long time. In fact I don't believe I have ever heard him utter those words so I guess it must not be true. The evidence is clear with Peter. He is the rock on which the Church is to be built. He is spoken of as a shepherd in John 21. This goes well with Jer 3:15 - I will give you shepherds after my own heart who will give you knowledge and understanding. Peter alone in Luke 22 around v. 30 is solely responsible for strengthening the Apostles after the resurrection. Peter is mentioned far more than any other of the 12. Around 190 times to about 30 for John as the next hightest. Peter is always mentioned first in lists of the apostles. Interestingly I go on Protestant websites and the head pastor is always mentioned first and the most on those sites. Peter walks on water. The only one other than Jesus to ever accomplish this feat. Jesus speaks from Peter's boat. (the bark of Peter, funny that is an age old name for the Papacy). But most important of all, every single time the Apostles are addressed as a whole it is Peter who responds. It is all scripture Dallas. I see nothing but denials from you with little scriptural support in all of this.

And historically your position is even less creditable. Every single time there was an issue in the Church from the earliest of times, the issue was raised to the Roman See and the Pope. I can present countless quotes that prove this. And Protestants claim that Constantine established the Catholic Church but the antipopes, Hippolatus and Novation actually prove this to be a lie. They, by their claiming the Roman Papacy show that the Bishop of Rome was a highly sought position of authority in the Church. We have lists of the Bishops of Rome back to Peter. Funny thing is there are no lists that I know of of other Sees. Only a few anti-bishops or anti-patriarchs. Baptistmal Regenerantion, salvation, infant baptist, the Eucharist and much much more. The evidence is overwhelming if you look at it objectively rather than in fear that Rome may be right and you may have to follow the truth.

Blessings
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Did men nominate, elect and consecrate your first pope? Why have you broken the tradition Christ first set in the church if this is his intention? Why is this a 'highly sought after position'? Is it because of the 'highly'?

You are wrong also concerning history and the seeking counsel from Rome. The precedent was set in Jerusalem found in Acts 15. In that ch. Peter declares there is they (Jewish Christians) beleive they shall be saved through the grace that is in Christ Jesus even as they (Gentiles), showing there is a move away from any kind of observance of the OT religion. Why can't you guys see this? It is basic to scripture. Is it because you are looking to man instead of depending on the Spirit? I don't know. I just don't understand how anyone can possess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth and then will let men put burdens upon them as such.

Bro. Dallas
 

Carson Weber

<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Dallas

Did men nominate, elect and consecrate your first pope?

No, he was appointed by the King. And, when I say "the King", I mean "THE King".

The precedent was set in Jerusalem found in Acts 15.

The decision in Acts 15 was that the Pagan Gentiles do not need to become Jews before they become Christians, and the decision regarding Church discipline as well as Church dogma was made by the men at the council: Apostles as well as other leaders. I'm witnessing a precedent for human authority over the Church - one of humble service.
 

thessalonian

New Member
Originally posted by Frogman:
Did men nominate, elect and consecrate your first pope? Why have you broken the tradition Christ first set in the church if this is his intention? Why is this a 'highly sought after position'? Is it because of the 'highly'?

You are wrong also concerning history and the seeking counsel from Rome. The precedent was set in Jerusalem found in Acts 15. In that ch. Peter declares there is they (Jewish Christians) beleive they shall be saved through the grace that is in Christ Jesus even as they (Gentiles), showing there is a move away from any kind of observance of the OT religion. Why can't you guys see this? It is basic to scripture. Is it because you are looking to man instead of depending on the Spirit? I don't know. I just don't understand how anyone can possess the indwelling of the Holy Spirit the Spirit of truth and then will let men put burdens upon them as such.

Bro. Dallas
Dallas

Once again I give you scripture and you give me denials.

Was it the Holy Spirit that set the canon of the NT in stone in the late 4th century, no it was men, no it was a council, no it was men. Don't you believe that God guides men's actions through the Holy Spirit. Have you know faith in what he laid down. The Gospel is grace! AMEN!

The Council of Jerusalem reflects exactly what happens in the Catholic Church. Popes make infallible statements. Peter settled the issue of circumcision of Gentiles. Then the council itself decided to send out a letter regarding meat sacrificed to idols. That is what our councils and Popes do. Notice nowhere in scripture before the council does it say that "circumcision is done". Find me the verse. Paul didn't settle the issue though as an apostle he sided on the correct side and that is to be expected from guidance of the holy spirit. I have no doudt that every other Apostle was on the correct side. But Peter was the one that Spoke for the Church in declaring it not neccessary and of no value in salvation.

Your history ends at the end of the NT and starts up again when you were in your diapers. You need to check the writings of Irenaus, Jerome, Augustine, Cyprian, Cyril, Ambrose, and the great Athanasius. Even of the heretics Pelgius, Celestius, Arius, etc. etc. And of the councils.

Salvation is by grace. Guidance as to what the Gospel fully entails is through the Church which is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".


Blessings
 

thessalonian

New Member
Dallas,

I just had a look at your website. Looks like you have big plans. I look forward to seeing your historical layout of the Church between say 90 AD and today. I am sure you should easily be able to show us where there were Landmark Baptists in the years 100, 200, 400, 8000, 1600 and of course today we know there are. My guess is you can trace them back to a name and a date (though I don't know the history of your Church) as can easily be done with the Lutherans (Martin Luther) and Presbyterians (calvinism), Assembly of God (1900's), Baptists (Zwingli), Mormons (Joseph Smith), Jehoviah's Witnesses, Islam (Muhomed of course) and Hindu's. I have not had anyone show me one legitimate name name (Constantine? Ya right, Ignatius called the Church Catholic a few hundred years before him and taught the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession and Baptismal regeneration) that was responsible for the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Oh wait, there is one name. Jesus.

When you do do this historical expose' of Landmark Baptists throughout time you might want to leave groups like the Paulicians who believe in a dual God concept and rejected most of scripture, and the Albegisians who twisted the scriptures so that sex within marriage was evil and sex outside marriage was good out of you historical analysis. Besides the Southern Baptists and Church of Christ alread claim them for their groups.

I look forward to your site.

Blessings
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Salvation is by grace. Guidance as to what the Gospel fully entails is through the Church which is the "pillar and foundation of the truth".
I could and would heartily Amen this but you don't mean the last sentence. The church is not the Pope. The church is not only made up of the ruling presbytery. The church is local and visible and is made up of local and visible immersed believers.

I give you scripture:
Acts 15:1  ¶ And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

See the requirement of the OC yet enforced upon those who by grace through faith have been saved? Where is the liberty found in Christ? These are of the 'certain men' See how they are trying to lord it over the local visible church in Antioch.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

See how that Paul and Barnabas withstood these, not because of themselves, but because of their teaching?


3  And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

Note how the church first received them and then the Apostles and elders.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

This question came up concerning vs. 3, the declaring of the conversion of the Gentiles. For it is the same report given here in Jerusalem that was given in Antioch. Then here it is that we see a number among them of the sect of the Pharisees, note they are a believers, but note they are incorrectly upholding the law along with the grace.

6 ¶And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.

Did the apostles and elders come together in a counsel? Yes. Is this error? No. The error is not found in considering these things, nor is it found in making a statement of what the scriptures teach. The error is found in lording over the local visible church of Antioch or any other locale. This local body only can determine what is found in scripture, this body has only Christ as its head. How are they to subvert this head and bow to a man? Do they not possess the leading of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth?

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8  And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9  And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10  Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11  But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.


Did Peter rise up to speak? Yes. Did he alone settle the case? No. Did the multitude keep silent? Yes. Does this denote any special authority granted unto Peter? No. Why was the floor given to Paul and Barnabas?

12  Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.


13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

If Peter has settled the case, why is it needful for James to speak? What did he say?

14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

Simeon hath declared, no more than what the scripture has declared from the beginning. Does this make Peter infallible? No. Peter is seen fearing the Jews and separating from believers [Gentiles] on the account of the Jews. Peter is a great Apostle and a greater man than myself, but he is not the vicar of Christ on this earth and neither is any one man alive today.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,


16  After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17  That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18  Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19  Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:


20  But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21  For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
22  ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
23  And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
24  Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:
25  It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
26  Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
27  We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.
28  For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
29  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
30  So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:
31  Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation.
32  And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them.
33  And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles.
34  Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.
35  Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.
36  ¶And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do.
37  And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.
38  But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work.
39  And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus;
40  And Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.
41  And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
If you will not take scripture what will you take?

Bro. Dallas
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
Originally posted by thessalonian:
Dallas,

I just had a look at your website. Looks like you have big plans. I look forward to seeing your historical layout of the Church between say 90 AD and today. I am sure you should easily be able to show us where there were Landmark Baptists in the years 100, 200, 400, 8000, 1600 and of course today we know there are. My guess is you can trace them back to a name and a date (though I don't know the history of your Church) as can easily be done with the Lutherans (Martin Luther) and Presbyterians (calvinism), Assembly of God (1900's), Baptists (Zwingli), Mormons (Joseph Smith), Jehoviah's Witnesses, Islam (Muhomed of course) and Hindu's. I have not had anyone show me one legitimate name name (Constantine? Ya right, Ignatius called the Church Catholic a few hundred years before him and taught the Eucharist and Apostolic Succession and Baptismal regeneration) that was responsible for the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Oh wait, there is one name. Jesus.

When you do do this historical expose' of Landmark Baptists throughout time you might want to leave groups like the Paulicians who believe in a dual God concept and rejected most of scripture, and the Albegisians who twisted the scriptures so that sex within marriage was evil and sex outside marriage was good out of you historical analysis. Besides the Southern Baptists and Church of Christ alread claim them for their groups.

I look forward to your site.

Blessings
It is there my friend. The Bible teaches that God is the builder of it in eternity:

Heb. 3:
4  For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all things is God.


It is there because Christ said that it would be. It is there because it is local and visible and can be found. Will everyone be in full agreement with me? Perhaps not, but they will certainly be found to hold to the ordinances which Christ set in the church. The will certainly not make the ordinance of baptism their salvation because their salvation is what leads them to baptism. This are they whom the Catholic church under the headship of man hunted and plagued throughout the valley of the piedmont. They were there of that as truth I am confident.

Thanks for the encouragement. I appreciate it. I have wanted to get back to that work, but have not had opportunity to do so lately. I will return to it in time as the Lord wills and not the Pope. You must appreciate the fact that I am careful to read all histories I can find and access as this is an important subject and I agree should not be painted by a doctrinal brush of which I am even capable of wielding.

I simply ask your prayers on my behalf. Are these to be such that I would awaken and see the error of my belief, then so be it, shall I pass beyond the bounds the Lord has set for me? What is that bound? Infallibility is a part and portion of it, but not the whole of it. Am I sometimes moved by the Spirit of God, yes, does this mean that the baptists ought to hold me as their head? No, for they have one head only and this is Christ Jesus the Lamb of God. How shall they remove him and install me?

Bro. Dallas
 

Frogman

<img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
The following is taken from: http://users.aol.com/libcfl2/walden.htm#chap8

This link is chapter 8 of the article cited in the link in my last post.

Thus the Baptistic policy of the Waldenses, in requiring baptism as a prerequisite for membership, appears to be well-documented. It is remarkable that the Waldenses maintained such a policy, in an age when rebaptizing was often punished by death. The steadfastness of the Waldenses in insisting on an immersed membership should be a lesson and encouragement to Baptists today. Baptist churches should continue that noble policy, and the free flow of members from Baptist churches to interdenominational churches that do not require baptism for membership should be discouraged. Such churches, with their easygoing membership standards (if they have membership rolls at all,) are not of like faith and practice with true Baptist churches, and thus Baptist churches should not agree to grant letters of good and regular standing to churches with "open membership." All born-again believers are part of the same family of God, but this does not mean that the interdenominational religious societies must be recognized as true churches in the New Testament sense of the term.
 
Top