Not the first time I've heard Thinkingstuff accused of being a Catholic, but this is the first time I've heard him accused of being 'ignorant of history'.
-
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!
Historical Objectivity of Rome
- Thread starter Dr. Walter
- Start date
- Status
Not the first time I've heard Thinkingstuff accused of being a Catholic, but this is the first time I've heard him accused of being 'ignorant of history'.
Dr. Walter
New Member
I did not take back one iota or one tittle of what I said concerning the false doctrine "mother of God." I never mentioned the Greek term or its explanation by Rome. You are the one that did. I merely pointed out "Mary mother of God" is theological heresy any way you want to explain the Greek term or the Roman application. It is heresy and the absolute proof is the WORSHIP of Mary given to her AS GOD, as a Redemptrix, as OMNISCIENT. So don't kid yourself into thinking I was being "coy" or that I take back a single syllable in the charge I made. Not on your life!
You are a deceiver and it is clear as crystal to anyone who has eyes in their head. You make the hypocritical claim to be a "Baptist" and yet embrace the very doctrines that Baptist have repudiated for centuries. Find me any Baptist Confession of faith that embraces regeneration in baptism but that is exactly what the vast majority of so-called "church fathers" embraced in the Ante-Nicene Fathers.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IN BAPTISM ONE IS REGENERATED??????? If so, you are not a Baptists but a deceiver and hypocrit.
If you will read what I said, I never charged you with any of those things you claim. What I did was qualify the charge by saying "IF" a person claims to be born again, and knows the history and doctrine of Rome but defends the Mother of filth by her own explanations to be a "true" church then it is because the defenders are the children of filth. If it fits wear it and if it doesn't fit then you have nothing to be offended about.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Here is the first mistake. I am not basing the correct view that the papacy is that Man of Sin on the ECFs. They appear to be right about that. At the least, it shows the idea is not some weird new invention like the rapture!
No, the final authority rests with Scripture. We should study the book of Revelation for a multitude of reasons, but in the main because it is the Word of God for us. We should love it, obey it, study it.
I have looked the main views today...futurism, preterism, Amillenialism, and historicism. I agree with what your saying too...that when those things come to pass, it will be obvious. In other words, these propehcies are pre-written history. Well, we both know Rev was written in the latter part of the 1st century.
So, our historical look must begin there. And look through history to see if anything fits. And from what I can best tell, there is much history that fits. Not everythign in Rev is future. And when I compare the prophesies of Antichrist, what it would be, look like, do, where it would be, even when it would be, then I look at the papacy...well, the shoe fits.
There is a way of knowing. That is why sola scriptura is so important a doctrine and not a reliance on fallible men such as ECF. Our final authority in all matters of faith and practice is the Word of God. The command given to us throughout the Bible, whether it be by the Prophets of the OT, or by Jesus or the Apostles of the NT is to study the Scriptures and find out the truth for ourselves. That which is condemned in the Scriptures is to rely upon man. Over and over again we are exhorted to study the Scriptures, read them, memorize them, meditate upon them. It is our duty to study them and apply them to our own lives; not to study those fallible men's opinion's who have preceded us. The onus is on us to study the Scripture.
Dr. Walter
New Member
He is completely ignorant of history as he knows only the PERVERTED Roman revisionist view of history.
I have asked him more than once IF he has ever investigated his sources to see if they merely assume Rome's materials. No response
I have asked him more than once has he ever critically investigated Rome's source materials critically? No response.
He is very knowledgable of what Rome has spoon fed him. He is very knowledgable about historians who assume the Roman views as credible.
However, NO BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH in existence uses Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38 in their defense of baptism as the act wherein regeneration occurs because EVERY BAPTIST CONFESSION OF FAITH repudiates that as heresy. He claims to be a "Baptist" but that is the POLAR OPPOSITE of the essence of being a Baptist doctrinally and historically.
No "Baptist" with an ounce of common sense that has a working knowledge of the Ante-Nicene Church Father's would embrace them as faithful to the gospel of Jesus Christ as the VAST MAJORITY believed not merely that in baptism regeneration occurred but in water regeneration.
No "Baptist" with a working knowledge of the period of Rome's history and doctrine between Constantine to the present would claim it is a "true" church of Christ as EVERY DOCTRINAL ESSENTIAL to be a "true" church is repudiated by their doctrine and history.
No "Baptist" who is knowledgable of Papal claims and Papal practices would ever deny that is the office of "A" antichrist and "A" false prophet. Only someone brain dead or a deceiver would defend the Papal office here.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
More...this doesn't make it authoritative..but wow..
Dr. Walter
New Member
Mary "the Mother of God" Deceit
Rome plays a game of deception with the epitaph "Mary the Mother of God." They argue that "God" or "theotokos" has reference only to the person of Christ and not the person of Mary. To the simple minded they have won the argument but only to the "simple" minded.
The Scriptures NEVER attribute this to Mary in any way shape or form and for good reason. She is the "mother" of Jesus, the human being but in no sense can the term "mother" be ascribed to Mary in relationship to Jesus as God. Rome attributes to Mary the epitaph "mother of God."
However, their definition game with the word "theotokos" is just that, a game. They attribute to Mary NON-HUMAN characteristics found only in God. She is considered to be born SINLESS and an ETERNAL virgin. Her body is incorruptible and she ascends to heaven. She is the divine REDEMPTRIX and MEDIATOR between God and man. She is OMNISICIENT in that she is capable of hearing millions of prayers and answering them. She is WORSHIPPED and PRAYED unto.
The so-called "church fathers" (heretics) ascribed to her the very characteristics the Father ascribed to His Son and give you a bird's eye view of their view of Mary:
"As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary........And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, threfore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"
Rome plays a game of deception with the epitaph "Mary the Mother of God." They argue that "God" or "theotokos" has reference only to the person of Christ and not the person of Mary. To the simple minded they have won the argument but only to the "simple" minded.
The Scriptures NEVER attribute this to Mary in any way shape or form and for good reason. She is the "mother" of Jesus, the human being but in no sense can the term "mother" be ascribed to Mary in relationship to Jesus as God. Rome attributes to Mary the epitaph "mother of God."
However, their definition game with the word "theotokos" is just that, a game. They attribute to Mary NON-HUMAN characteristics found only in God. She is considered to be born SINLESS and an ETERNAL virgin. Her body is incorruptible and she ascends to heaven. She is the divine REDEMPTRIX and MEDIATOR between God and man. She is OMNISICIENT in that she is capable of hearing millions of prayers and answering them. She is WORSHIPPED and PRAYED unto.
The so-called "church fathers" (heretics) ascribed to her the very characteristics the Father ascribed to His Son and give you a bird's eye view of their view of Mary:
"As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary........And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, threfore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"
BillySunday1935
New Member
Let me help you out there, doc.
1. Mary is a creature
2. Jesus is both fully God and fully man
3. Mary is the Mother of Jesus
4. Thus, Mary is the Mother of God
Peace!
Dr. Walter
New Member
Mary the Mother of the Church
"'The Virgin Mary....is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer...She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ'....since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.' 'Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 251
Note the langauge! New birth is acheived through Mary's "charity" and made members of Christ, who are members of its head.
What about you gentleman? Were you birthed by Mary's charity and made members of His body? She is called not only the "Mother of God" but in addition "Mother...of the Redeemer.....Mother of the church" in the sense of new birth.
The catechism goes on to demand that Mary is inseparable from "spiritual union" with the Son in the work of redemption:
"Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from he union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is mande manifest from teh time of Christ's virginal concpetion up to his death.....Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved from from all sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things...." Ibid., pp. 251,252
Most of this is being directly quoted from the so-called early church father's.
Friends, you have to be brain dead to see this languague is not ascribing to Mary all the qualities of God that are ascribed to the Son of God. She is the QUEEN of heaven over all things.
Any "Baptist" that can defend this inseperable Maryoltry doctrine from salvation doctrine of the Roman Catholic is simply not a genuine Christian.
THIS IS THE GOSPEL OF ROMAN CATHOLCISM FROM THE TIME OF THE SO-CALLED CHURCH FATHERS.- A FALSE GOSPEL EQUALS A FALSE CHURCH.
"'The Virgin Mary....is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer...She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ'....since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.' 'Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 251
Note the langauge! New birth is acheived through Mary's "charity" and made members of Christ, who are members of its head.
What about you gentleman? Were you birthed by Mary's charity and made members of His body? She is called not only the "Mother of God" but in addition "Mother...of the Redeemer.....Mother of the church" in the sense of new birth.
The catechism goes on to demand that Mary is inseparable from "spiritual union" with the Son in the work of redemption:
"Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from he union with Christ and flows directly from it. 'This union of Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is mande manifest from teh time of Christ's virginal concpetion up to his death.....Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved from from all sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things...." Ibid., pp. 251,252
Most of this is being directly quoted from the so-called early church father's.
Friends, you have to be brain dead to see this languague is not ascribing to Mary all the qualities of God that are ascribed to the Son of God. She is the QUEEN of heaven over all things.
Any "Baptist" that can defend this inseperable Maryoltry doctrine from salvation doctrine of the Roman Catholic is simply not a genuine Christian.
THIS IS THE GOSPEL OF ROMAN CATHOLCISM FROM THE TIME OF THE SO-CALLED CHURCH FATHERS.- A FALSE GOSPEL EQUALS A FALSE CHURCH.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Sacrament - By Rome's definition
"SACRAMENT: An efficasious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit (774, 1131). The sacraments (called 'mysteries' in the Eastern Churches) are seven in number...." - Catechism for the Catholic Church, 2nd edition
IF this represents your view of salvation it is because you are not a child of God because this clearly teaches that "divine life" comes through sacraments. However, the Scriptures teach that divine life is inseparable from justification by faith in the gospel of Christ BEFORE administration of baptism and other ordinances (Heb. 4:9-12; I Pet. 3:21)
"SACRAMENT: An efficasious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit (774, 1131). The sacraments (called 'mysteries' in the Eastern Churches) are seven in number...." - Catechism for the Catholic Church, 2nd edition
IF this represents your view of salvation it is because you are not a child of God because this clearly teaches that "divine life" comes through sacraments. However, the Scriptures teach that divine life is inseparable from justification by faith in the gospel of Christ BEFORE administration of baptism and other ordinances (Heb. 4:9-12; I Pet. 3:21)
Dr. Walter
New Member
Let me help you out Billy.
1. Mary is a creature
2. Jesus is God by non-birth but man by birth
3. Mary is only the "mother" of what she birthed - the man
4. Thus Mary is not the "mother OF GOD"
1. Mary is a creature
2. Jesus is God by non-birth but man by birth
3. Mary is only the "mother" of what she birthed - the man
4. Thus Mary is not the "mother OF GOD"
Dr. Walter
New Member
Billy, do you attribute your salvation by Christ through Mary as your co-redemptrix?
Dr. Walter
New Member
Billy, do you pray to Mary as your "QUEEN OF HEAVEN" who reigns over all things now and in the future?
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Hi Lori,
Let me show you the Lie of Dr. Walter. His claim is as follows:
This he says on post 65
Is this true? Lets look
Just a few post before I said
Is Fox a Roman source? No. Yet He agrees with my analysis. Attend Lori, Is this all I said? Lets look some more in Post 11 I said
Are both of these Catholic sources? No they have no allegience to rome as they are both Evangelical sources. Wait...is there more Lori? Quite possibly
Now does that sound like no responce? Of course it isn't. Let me add another source thats not Roman Minnisotal Apologetics and the Christian History institute's Dr. Murphey. Funny how they hold my perspective.
Now if he said I had no responce and clearly I've shown I have responded. What does that make him? LIAR. Yet I am called such. I even threw down the guantlet and he did not pick it up. I would gladly meet him at my church with my pastor to prove to him I am indeed a baptist. He just doesn't want to admit baptist did not exist very long prior to the reformation. Nor the historical evidence that Christianity has evolved and changed as every scholar University professors both christian and not agree save for the few radicals that he adheres to.
But further Lori what else did the vile Dr Walter do? By Dr. Walter
1) He claims that I am not born again which means saved and is against the forum rules.
2)Saying that Catholicism once carried the true church is "spirit of error" When I can show NON CATHOLIC TEXT after TEXT that this is exactly the supposition.
3) that I am ... lets see how he put it
in other words filth. He is claiming I am filth a children of filth for believing this! His Character shows. Wait further he says.
4)
I am Catholic! Which would suprise my pastor. and a deceiver and not a baptist by any confession! I'm Southern Baptist and I would love him to meet the whole congregation so they can give testimony of who I am. But wait even further he argues I am catholic because what?
because I mention Theotokos. Which is Greek for something he brought up "Mother of God" You and everyone with education knows this is a techinical term. But how do I know it? Because I'm educated. So his claim for me being catholic is that my education shows therefore logicaly if I had no education about church history I would be baptist!!! How ludicrous!!!!
So in summation. Who has been shown to be a liar? Will he take up my challenge we can even go through a moderator so that no ones personal information gets out until we meet that way he can be safe.
Dr. Walter
New Member
Mary given the Titles of the Holy Spirit and Christ
"Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles, Advocate, Helper, Benfactress, and Mediatrix"- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, p. 252
All of these titles are attributed to God the Holy Spirit and God the Son in the Scriptures but NONE of these titles are attributed to any creature in the Scriptures. However, Rome has elevated her to "Queen of Heaven" and Mother of God" the object of worship and prayer.
"Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles, Advocate, Helper, Benfactress, and Mediatrix"- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition, p. 252
All of these titles are attributed to God the Holy Spirit and God the Son in the Scriptures but NONE of these titles are attributed to any creature in the Scriptures. However, Rome has elevated her to "Queen of Heaven" and Mother of God" the object of worship and prayer.
BillySunday1935
New Member
Born SINLESS= Immaculate Conception. This is a gift of God through Christ (yes – there is no time in heaven, toto)
ETERNAL virgin: Well, she led a chaste life. Soooo, if she died a virgin, then she would necessarily be a virgin for all eternity. Before you give the old “until” argument, please look at the Greek (the Aorist tense)
incorruptible body: I don’t think that is Church doctrine, but perhaps someone else knows more about this.
she ascends to heaven: She did not ascend into heaven (under her own power) – she was assumed into heaven (by the power of God)
divine REDEMPTRIX: Again, I don’t think this is Catholic dogma.
MEDIATOR between God and man: Wrong again there, doc. Jesus is the Mediator between God and man. He does, however, allow us to share in that. He is the head of the Church and we are part of the body. A body can do nothing without the head.
OMNISICIENT in that she is capable of hearing millions of prayers and answering them: Again – she can do nothing without God – just as the saints and angels can do nothing without God’s power. Through him all things are possible.
She is WORSHIPPED: Nope. She is venerated (hyper dulia) – and deservedly so, since she is the Mother of God.
and PRAYED unto:Well, yes - as praying is often a request and is NOT synonymous with worship. Remember that the prayer of a righteous man (or woman) is powerful and effective. And who is more righteous than those in heaven?
It is clear that you know virtually nothing about which you speak.
Peace!
BillySunday1935
New Member
Mary does not reign over all things now and in the future and I don't know any Catholics who believe that. Look - you are clearly ignorant about this subject. Let me help - see post #77.
Peace!
BillySunday1935
New Member
BillySunday1935
New Member
Hmmm... It sounds as though you don't believe in the hypostatic union there, doc. Notice the word "union". I believe that there was a group labeled as heritics who held to just that idea. Can we say Nestorius?
Nestorianism: (named for Netstorius) Belief that God was not in Christ and that Mary gave birth only to the human Jesus.
Peace!
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status