Historical Objectivity of Rome

[ReformedBaptist]

I like that quote. I think I'll use :laugh:

I thought that was an interesting look at the raputist Point of view. the ones that seemed scarry were those that wanted to make war on the Muslims. How is that any different from the crusades? Though I laughed at the rabbi who believed that Jesus wouldn't make it back a second time. Boy is he going to be disappointed!

My impression wasn't that they wanted to actually go fight, but were speaking spiritually. I could be wrong though. That Rabbi was rather anti-christian.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is utterly amazing to me, that anyone who REALLY IS a true child of God can even think that Roman Catholicism from the time of Constantine to the present can even be compared to basic N.T. Christianity 101 in regard to essential truths.

Rome is a paganized worldly religious institutuion that has more in common with Satan than Christ BY A LONG SHOT.

To say this a "true" church only in error makes me wonder what in the world do you imagine to be the essential truths that divide a cult from a Christian church?????????????

1. They distort the nature of God - in mother God - Mary.
2. They have never preached the truth gospel between Constantine and the present
3. Their ordinances are more akin to the occult
4. They believe in church salvation.
5. Their clerical order has always been corrupt

One book that Catholics loath but is so well documented that NO ONE has been able to disprove it ONLY SLANDER IT is "Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. He presents the true picture of the Roman Catholic Religious institution - pagan bablyonism.

Only spiritual blinded eyes would regard this spiritual harlot the claim of being "Christian."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You didn't understand me did you.
Do you think that "Christianity Today" would dare report anything that Xavier did? Not a chance. They didn't even mention him. What they talked about was the contribution that the Catholic Church made in evangelization of India, though in very general terms. The Catholic Church did not make any contributions in the evangelization of India. They don't know what the gospel is, as I just demonstrated to you by relating to you the history of "their so-called evangelization of Goa."
"Christianity Today" is not being honest in their portrayal of the RCC in picturing them in such a positive light along with other evangelicals such as Pandita Ramabai and Amy Carmichael. .

I don't think its not being honest because they didn't spin it the way you wanted. Also it seems they didn't give full disclosure. However, the area was christianized So they did tell the truth.

I said: "I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine.
And you disagree with me. Do you call me a liar? What is this supposed to mean?

I don't know why you think I'm calling you a liar. I disagree with your "critical analysis" I don't know about Canada but in the United States you can still disagree with people.

I also said I read with a critical mind. But you don't believe I have that ability either. You are a sad case.

I would hope that you do. However, I don't believe I've seen it displayed in our discussions. I honestly believe that you have a world view and that you judge everything based on it. If something is out of kilter with your view then you immediately disbelieve it whether or not it has merit. If that makes me a sad case. Then I'm a sad case though I have a lot to be joyful about.

 

[Dr. Walter]

For me the real test of geniune new birth is the witness of the Spirit. The Word of God is the witness of the Spirit and the Spirit gives witness within all born again children of God of the truth.

If a person claims to be born again and knows the doctrines and history of Rome and can defend Rome to be a "true" Christian church that is a witness of "the spirit of error" not the Spirit of truth." It is the witness of the "spirit of error" becuase this church is immersed in and wallows in spiritual filth. It breathes and digest spiritual filth and the only ones who can defend the mother of spiritual filth are children of spiritual filth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To apostates EVERY scripture that condemns them is open to debate and EVERY historical evidence that condemns them is questionable.

Tell me, who among us here on this forum will use Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 to prove that in the act of baptism one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit AS THEIR own position?

Tell me, who among us here on this forum will defend infant baptism AS THEIR OWN position?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It is utterly amazing to me, that anyone who REALLY IS a true child of God can even think that Roman Catholicism from the time of Constantine to the present can even be compared to basic N.T. Christianity 101 in regard to essential truths.

Rome is a paganized worldly religious institutuion that has more in common with Satan than Christ BY A LONG SHOT.

To say this a "true" church only in error makes me wonder what in the world do you imagine to be the essential truths that divide a cult from a Christian church?????????????

1. They distort the nature of God - in mother God - Mary.
2. They have never preached the truth gospel between Constantine and the present
3. Their ordinances are more akin to the occult
4. They believe in church salvation.
5. Their clerical order has always been corrupt

One book that Catholics loath but is so well documented that NO ONE has been able to disprove it ONLY SLANDER IT is "Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. He presents the true picture of the Roman Catholic Religious institution - pagan bablyonism.

Only spiritual blinded eyes would regard this spiritual harlot the claim of being "Christian."

You show your ignorance about these historical consepts
1) theotokos is about Christ nature not marys - error 1
2) They converted Europe and very many special men such as St. Patrick and St. Bede. These men were indeed Christian - error 2
3) You have no Idea of their ordencances or the occult you should read occultic observance and then christian comparisons you won't find but a few similarities. Try reading Pliny the younger. - error 3
4) they believed in salvation through Jesus Christ all you have to do is read the ECF to understand this. - error 4
5) Their clerical order derived from the apostles and how they established the churches - error 5

Error 6 - Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch 200 years before constantine refers to the Catholic Church. Constantine along with Licinius created religious tollerance in the empire called the edict of milan I will incert here the full document for your parousal. You'll hardly find it a charter creating a new church. Thus your bias and rejection of actual history is displayed.

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the obserance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts, may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formally given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wishes to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion.

Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.

 

[Dr. Walter]

To remotely suggest that the Papal office is not "antichrist" (I Jn. 2:17-19) and not the office of a "false prophet" as well, is simply ignorance of the scriptures.

1. There are valid Bibical tests that define a false prophet - Deut. 13; 18;

2. There are many "antichrists"

Roman Catholicism is supremely ANTI-CHRIST as it replaces Christ by its sacraments, papal office, preisthood and in its doctrine of salvation.

 

[Dr. Walter]

And YOU my Roman Catholic friend are a deceiver and not a Baptist by any confession of faith existent in the history of Baptists.

You give Rome's interpretation and defense of Mary proving your a Roman Catholic in doctrine.

I have the writings of Saint Patrick (what little remains) and he NEVER claimed to be a Roman Catholic and his doctrine proves he NEVER was a Roman Catholic.

You are child of the harlot for your speak her language and defend her filth.

Your complete ignorance of history is manifested in every statement you list below claiming I am in error. I have the church fathers next to me, I have studied them for years and though some of the apostolic Father's may be more pure in this regard the vast majority are nothing but water regenerationists.

You show your ignorance about these historical consepts
1) theotokos is about Christ nature not marys - error 1
2) They converted Europe and very many special men such as St. Patrick and St. Bede. These men were indeed Christian - error 2
3) You have no Idea of their ordencances or the occult you should read occultic observance and then christian comparisons you won't find but a few similarities. Try reading Pliny the younger. - error 3
4) they believed in salvation through Jesus Christ all you have to do is read the ECF to understand this. - error 4
5) Their clerical order derived from the apostles and how they established the churches - error 5

Error 6 - Constantine did not create the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch 200 years before constantine refers to the Catholic Church. Constantine along with Licinius created religious tollerance in the empire called the edict of milan I will incert here the full document for your parousal. You'll hardly find it a charter creating a new church. Thus your bias and rejection of actual history is displayed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

To remotely suggest that the Papal office is not "antichrist" (I Jn. 2:17-19) and not the office of a "false prophet" as well, is simply ignorance of the scriptures.

1. There are valid Bibical tests that define a false prophet - Deut. 13; 18;

2. There are many "antichrists"

Roman Catholicism is supremely ANTI-CHRIST as it replaces Christ by its sacraments, papal office, preisthood and in its doctrine of salvation.

I believe you're believing a fantasy. I've heard every one from Obama to JFK is the Anti- Christ. The anti- christ and his methods are very much on display in the bible He will have the characteristics of Antiochus Ephanies, and Caligula, and Nero. He will be a secular ruler who will propegate paganism once gain. The false prophet will be a pagan and niether will have nothing to do with Christ. They will want to establish their order in contrast to that of Christ. But whats really revealing is the bible discusses what characteristics these people will have but doesn't point them out. You much like those who tell us the date of Christ return (which no one knows save the Father) attempt to draw ignorant conclusion as though you have full understanding of what God is doing.
Luther was wrong the pope of his day was not the Anti Christ. Maybe an anti-christ but thats not what luther said. He was wrong. As you are wrong. Dispite your credentials I'm supprised at how little you understand Christian History and what it was the early debates were really about. I'm amazed to be honest. Especially the number of history classes you took and still didn't understand the Nestorian issue.

 

[DHK]

You show your ignorance about these historical consepts

Try these concepts instead:
1. The ECF did not understand nor write in English; their writings were primarily in Greek. If not they were in other languages, but not in English! The point is; they had to be translated.
What we have today is translations of the writings of the ECF.

2. The word "catholic" is simply a word meaning "universal" which it often did back then, and even sometimes today.

3. The Catholic Church began in the fourth century with the advent of Constantine when Constantine made it a state-church. During that time one might say that he paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism. He introduced idolatry into the Catholic Church, or the Church that he made into a state-church. Outside of "his church" there were always churches that totally opposed what he was doing and remained faithful to the Word of God. This was the beginning of the RCC.

4. The RCC has always been a state-church. Now its state is the Vatican of course. But throughout history it has been the state-church of England, France, Canada--especially in Quebec, and in many other nations. Wherever it has been the state-church persecution was sure to follow. So much for tolerance.

5. Its doctrines are not Christian doctrines. They are pagan. It has just as much similarity to Hinduism as it does to Christianity.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And YOU my Roman Catholic friend are a deceiver and not a Baptist by any confession of faith existent in the history of Baptists.

You give Rome's interpretation and defense of Mary proving your a Roman Catholic in doctrine.

I have the writings of Saint Patrick (what little remains) and he NEVER claimed to be a Roman Catholic and his doctrine proves he NEVER was a Roman Catholic.

You are child of the harlot for your speak her language and defend her filth.

Your complete ignorance of history is manifested in every statement you list below claiming I am in error. I have the church fathers next to me, I have studied them for years and though some of the apostolic Father's may be more pure in this regard the vast majority are nothing but water regenerationists.

You have shown your wonderful ignorance of history. Many baptist and other evangelicals are in disagreement with your historical analysis and will point out the very same things I just did such as your view of Theotokos. Or the ECF. You can claim I'm a deciever but when you ignore history and the development of Christianity for a fictionalized account by erronious pastors like Carrol, who is the real liar? Just walk down to the nearest christian book store and pick up a history of Christianity and see what is says. Zondervan publishes a historical guide as does Rose. I've used these again and again. And you know what they hold to what I just told you. Even John Fox has my view of the history of the Church. Have you read his book of martyrs? It says exactly as I have. I am a baptist. I go to a baptist church. I pay my tithes and participate where I can.

You have called me a liar! And a Deciever! and further you call me filth! Sir I would through down my gauntlet at your feet in challenge! Your paper is above you. Shame on you!

 

[Dr. Walter]

I never ever said that Roman Catholicism began with Constantine. What I said was that from the time of Constantine to the present Rome has been a spiritual harlot.

I started with Constantine because that is CLOSE to the date the Apostate Roman Church committed fornication with the secular state.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

I believe you're believing a fantasy. I've heard every one from Obama to JFK is the Anti- Christ. The anti- christ and his methods are very much on display in the bible He will have the characteristics of Antiochus Ephanies, and Caligula, and Nero. He will be a secular ruler who will propegate paganism once gain. The false prophet will be a pagan and niether will have nothing to do with Christ. They will want to establish their order in contrast to that of Christ. But whats really revealing is the bible discusses what characteristics these people will have but doesn't point them out. You much like those who tell us the date of Christ return (which no one knows save the Father) attempt to draw ignorant conclusion as though you have full understanding of what God is doing.
Luther was wrong the pope of his day was not the Anti Christ. Maybe an anti-christ but thats not what luther said. He was wrong. As you are wrong. Dispite your credentials I'm supprised at how little you understand Christian History and what it was the early debates were really about. I'm amazed to be honest. Especially the number of history classes you took and still didn't understand the Nestorian issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist

Irenaeus (2nd century AD - c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation.[31][32]

He identified the Antichrist with Paul's Man of Sin, Daniel's Little Horn, and John's Beast of Revelation 13.[33] He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.[34][35]

Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of "Dan," in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist's tribe.[36] He also speculated that it was “very probable” the Antichrist might be called Lateinos, which is Greek for “Latin Man”.[37]

Tertullian (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) held that the Roman Empire was the restraining force written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. The fall of Rome and the disintegration of the ten provinces of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms were to make way for the Antichrist.

'For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,' he [Paul] means indeed of this present empire, 'and that man of sin be revealed,' that is to say, Antichrist, 'the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.' What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.'[38]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.[39]

This certainly is not exhaustive, but quite revealing...and quite different from more modern eschatology. I shared these because you seem to give weight to the ECFs. Will you here?

Will you agree with Tertullian that what was restraining Antichrist was the Roman Empire? And that upon its fall that Man of Sin would appear? Pray tell...what did appear as one like the Son of God and as king...that may also be called the Latin Man?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You have a wonderful way to construe what another person says to what you want them to say.

I referred to fox, not because of his ecclesiology, but for his evidence, in spite of ecclesiological error that Rome is a KILLER of Christians and there has been Christians OUTSIDE the walls that enclose her filth.

If you deny that the bulk of Ante-Nicene Fathers are water regenerationists then you are truly ignorant of the history you presume to defend.

For the record, I have never claimed to be a follower of Carrol. I have never cited his work. I have never defended all his historical assertions although I believe for the most he is right.

In regard to Mary, the technical explanation is that since Jesus is both divine and human then in regard to the incarnation she is "the mother of God." However, that is THEOLOGICALLY incorrect as she is LITERALLY the mother of Jesus the HUMAN BEING.

Furthermore, Rome attributes to her the attributes of God - worship, prayer and omniscience (because she can receive millions of prayer). They REPLACE Jesus Christ as the redemptrix and mediator between God and men and don't bother giving me the Roman Catholic hogwash they use to defend this error. Therefore, over all they do believe her to be "God" by their actions toward her and what they attribute to her.

And you are a deceiver in my book.

You have shown your wonderful ignorance of history. Many baptist and other evangelicals are in disagreement with your historical analysis and will point out the very same things I just did such as your view of Theotokos. Or the ECF. You can claim I'm a deciever but when you ignore history and the development of Christianity for a fictionalized account by erronious pastors like Carrol, who is the real liar? Just walk down to the nearest christian book store and pick up a history of Christianity and see what is says. Zondervan publishes a historical guide as does Rose. I've used these again and again. And you know what they hold to what I just told you. Even John Fox has my view of the history of the Church. Have you read his book of martyrs? It says exactly as I have. I am a baptist. I go to a baptist church. I pay my tithes and participate where I can.

You have called me a liar! And a Deciever! and further you call me filth! Sir I would through down my gauntlet at your feet in challenge! Your paper is above you. Shame on you!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antichrist

Irenaeus (2nd century AD - c. 202) held that Rome, the fourth prophetic kingdom, would end in a tenfold partition. The ten divisions of the empire are the "ten horns" of Daniel 7 and the "ten horns" in Revelation 17. A "little horn," which is to supplant three of Rome's ten divisions, is also the still future "eighth" in Revelation.[31][32]

He identified the Antichrist with Paul's Man of Sin, Daniel's Little Horn, and John's Beast of Revelation 13.[33] He sought to apply other expressions to Antichrist, such as "the abomination of desolation," mentioned by Christ (Matt. 24:15) and the "king of a most fierce countenance," in Gabriel's explanation of the Little Horn of Daniel 8.[34][35]

Under the notion that the Antichrist, as a single individual, might be of Jewish origin, he fancies that the mention of "Dan," in Jeremiah 8:16, and the omission of that name from those tribes listed in Revelation 7, might indicate Antichrist's tribe.[36] He also speculated that it was “very probable” the Antichrist might be called Lateinos, which is Greek for “Latin Man”.[37]

Tertullian (ca.160 – ca.220 AD) held that the Roman Empire was the restraining force written about by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8. The fall of Rome and the disintegration of the ten provinces of the Roman Empire into ten kingdoms were to make way for the Antichrist.

'For that day shall not come, unless indeed there first come a falling away,' he [Paul] means indeed of this present empire, 'and that man of sin be revealed,' that is to say, Antichrist, 'the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or religion; so that he sitteth in the temple of God, affirming that he is God. Remember ye not, that when I was with you, I used to tell you these things? And now ye know what detaineth, that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now hinders must hinder, until he be taken out of the way.' What obstacles is there but the Roman state, the falling away of which, by being scattered into the ten kingdoms, shall introduce Antichrist upon (its own ruins)? And then shall be revealed the wicked one, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: even him whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish.'[38]

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236) held that the Antichrist would come from the tribe of Dan and would rebuild the Jewish temple in order to reign from it. He identified the Antichrist with the Beast out of the Earth from the book of Revelation.

By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of Antichrist; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.[39]

This certainly is not exhaustive, but quite revealing...and quite different from more modern eschatology. I shared these because you seem to give weight to the ECFs. Will you here?

Will you agree with Tertullian that what was restraining Antichrist was the Roman Empire? And that upon its fall that Man of Sin would appear? Pray tell...what did appear as one like the Son of God and as king...that may also be called the Latin Man?

Sure, they were guessing just as we are now about the meaning of all these things. And my position has always been that the AntiChrist could be just about anyone in any position and we will not really know until it happens. The Pope just happens to be a modern favorite since the reformation. And note He doesn't live in rome but he Vatican maybe the Anti-Christ really is Giorgio Napolitano.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You don't read very well or you intentionally distort my words! Which is it?

I NEVER said the pope was "THE" antichrist. I said he was "a" antichrist and "a" false prophet. Do you deny that???

Do you believe regeneration occurs in baptism? Do You? If you do, you are a hypocrit parading as a "Baptist" when the SBC confession of faith denies that doctrine. Every Baptist Confession in existence denies that doctrine. If you embrace that doctrine you are no more a Baptist than the Pope is.

I believe you're believing a fantasy. I've heard every one from Obama to JFK is the Anti- Christ. The anti- christ and his methods are very much on display in the bible He will have the characteristics of Antiochus Ephanies, and Caligula, and Nero. He will be a secular ruler who will propegate paganism once gain. The false prophet will be a pagan and niether will have nothing to do with Christ. They will want to establish their order in contrast to that of Christ. But whats really revealing is the bible discusses what characteristics these people will have but doesn't point them out. You much like those who tell us the date of Christ return (which no one knows save the Father) attempt to draw ignorant conclusion as though you have full understanding of what God is doing.
Luther was wrong the pope of his day was not the Anti Christ. Maybe an anti-christ but thats not what luther said. He was wrong. As you are wrong. Dispite your credentials I'm supprised at how little you understand Christian History and what it was the early debates were really about. I'm amazed to be honest. Especially the number of history classes you took and still didn't understand the Nestorian issue.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

You have a wonderful way to construe what another person says to what you want them to say.

I referred to fox, not because of his ecclesiology, but for his evidence, in spite of ecclesiological error that Rome is a KILLER of Christians and there has been Christians OUTSIDE the walls that enclose her filth.

If you deny that the bulk of Ante-Nicene Fathers are water regenerationists then you are truly ignorant of the history you presume to defend.

For the record, I have never claimed to be a follower of Carrol. I have never cited his work. I have never defended all his historical assertions although I believe for the most he is right.

In regard to Mary, the technical explanation is that since Jesus is both divine and human then in regard to the incarnation she is "the mother of God." However, that is THEOLOGICALLY incorrect as she is LITERALLY the mother of Jesus the HUMAN BEING.

Furthermore, Rome attributes to her the attributes of God - worship, prayer and omniscience (because she can receive millions of prayer). They REPLACE Jesus Christ as the redemptrix and mediator between God and men and don't bother giving me the Roman Catholic hogwash they use to defend this error. Therefore, over all they do believe her to be "God" by their actions toward her and what they attribute to her.

And you are a deceiver in my book.

I could not agree more. I am not sure how folks can't see this unless they are deluded. The popes are called:

Vicar of Christ (aside from it meaning Antichrist, literally) it usurps the place of God the Holy Spirit.

Holy Father usurps the only One to whom this title should be given, God the Father.

Head of the Church usurps the only Head of the Church, Jesus Christ.

How people can see a man, standing in the temple of GOd, and in this manner claiming the place of God, showing that he is GOd, is not Antichrist, I don't know. If the papacy is not THE Antichrist I cannot imagine what could be.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Sure, they were guessing just as we are now about the meaning of all these things. And my position has always been that the AntiChrist could be just about anyone in any position and we will not really know until it happens. The Pope just happens to be a modern favorite since the reformation. And note He doesn't live in rome but he Vatican maybe the Anti-Christ really is Giorgio Napolitano.

Then your view is that there is no way to know. Where, both the ECFs and bible-believers from the very rise of Antichrist were not in doubt, but you are. These ECFs were looking forward...and they are rather correct.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have a wonderful way to construe what another person says to what you want them to say.

I referred to fox, not because of his ecclesiology, but for his evidence, in spite of ecclesiological error that Rome is a KILLER of Christians and there has been Christians OUTSIDE the walls that enclose her filth.

If you deny that the bulk of Ante-Nicene Fathers are water regenerationists then you are truly ignorant of the history you presume to defend.

For the record, I have never claimed to be a follower of Carrol. I have never cited his work. I have never defended all his historical assertions although I believe for the most he is right.

In regard to Mary, the technical explanation is that since Jesus is both divine and human then in regard to the incarnation she is "the mother of God." However, that is THEOLOGICALLY incorrect as she is LITERALLY the mother of Jesus the HUMAN BEING.

Furthermore, Rome attributes to her the attributes of God - worship, prayer and omniscience (because she can receive millions of prayer). They REPLACE Jesus Christ as the redemptrix and mediator between God and men and don't bother giving me the Roman Catholic hogwash they use to defend this error. Therefore, over all they do believe her to be "God" by their actions toward her and what they attribute to her.

And you are a deceiver in my book.

As are you in mine. Since you call me a liar, a deciever, and filth. I will no longer address you until you apologize and we can debate these things without hurling insults.

I referred to Fox because his view is one of a changing church as well and he lived during the reformation. And his book is a good guide.

I'm glad to see that you finally stopped playing coy with Theotokos and shown it was about the nature of Christ rahter than what you first stated.

And I don't support prayers to Mary or anyother saint. I've never told you that was ok. So you misrepresent me again.

End.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

THen you views is that there is no way to know. Where, both the ECFs and bible-believers from the very rise of Antichrist were not in doubt, but you are. These ECFs were looking forward...and they are rather correct.

but wrong about other things? is that your position? Where hey agree with you they are correct where they don't they aren't? Ok if thats the way you take them.

My view is there is no way of knowing until it happens and then it will be obvious. Jesus wants us to live like he's coming today and to be vigilant and ready. Thats the point. Are you ready to lay down your life for Christ? is the ultimate question when regarding these issues. I believe they were guessing because ultimatley Revelation is Apocalyptic literature and just like the Jews missed out on Jesus eventhoug Daniel spoke of him we can be endanger of doing the same thing (well sort of becuase actually it will be the consumation of all things.)