• 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!

Howdy Board...

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DeclareHim:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
There was also that major split that culminated around 1054. As well as a few major ones in 431 and 451.
</font>[/QUOTE]Weren't the 431 and 451 splits heretics? </font>[/QUOTE]The splits were over heresies but the resulting churches were not heretics.

The 431 split over Nestorianism resulted in the Assyrian Church of the East who are not Nestorian but offered protection to Nestorius.

The 451 split resulted in the Oriental Orthodox communion. While they were accused of the heresy of Monophysitism because of their refusal to affirm the Chalcedonian Creed, they did not consider themselves to be Monophysites. JPII and the patriarchs of the Oriental Orthodox communion announced a declaration of reconciliation in 1984 considering their historical differences to be a misunderstanding of terminology.
 

Claudia_T

New Member
Jesus Himself never purchased peace by compromise. His heart overflowed with love for the whole human race, but He was never indulgent to their sins. He was too much their friend to remain silent while they were pursuing a course that would ruin their souls,--the souls He had purchased with His own blood. He labored that man should be true to himself, true to his higher and eternal interest. The servants of Christ are called to the same work, and they should beware lest, in seeking to prevent discord, they surrender the truth. They are to "follow after the things which make for peace" (Rom. 14:19); but real peace can never be secured by compromising principle. And no man can be true to principle without exciting opposition. A Christianity that is spiritual will be opposed by the children of disobedience. But Jesus bade His disciples, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." Those who are true to God need not fear the power of men nor the enmity of Satan. In Christ their eternal life is secure. Their only fear should be lest they surrender the truth, and thus betray the trust with which God has honored them.


An Era of Spiritual Darkness

Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3.


Satan well knew that the Holy Scriptures would enable men to discern his deceptions and withstand his power. It was by the word that even the Saviour of the world had resisted his attacks. At every assault, Christ presented the shield of eternal truth, saying, "It is written." To every suggestion of the adversary, He opposed the wisdom and power of the word. In order for Satan to maintain his sway over men, and establish the authority of the papal usurper, he must keep them in ignorance of the Scriptures. The Bible would exalt God and place finite men in their true position; therefore its sacred truths must be concealed and suppressed. This logic was adopted by the Roman Church. For hundreds of years the circulation of the Bible was prohibited. The people were forbidden to read it or to have it in their houses, and unprincipled priests and prelates interpreted its teachings to sustain their pretensions. Thus the pope came to be almost universally acknowledged as the vicegerent of God on earth, endowed with authority over church and state.

The detector of error having been removed, Satan worked according to his will. Prophecy had declared that the papacy was to "think to change times and laws." Daniel 7:25. This work it was not slow to attempt. To afford converts from heathenism a substitute for the worship of idols, and thus to promote their nominal acceptance of Christianity, the adoration of images and relics was gradually introduced into the Christian worship. The decree of a general council finally established this system of idolatry. To complete the sacrilegious work, Rome presumed to expunge from the law of God the second commandment, forbidding image worship, and to divide the tenth commandment, in order to preserve the number.

The spirit of concession to paganism opened the way for a still further disregard of Heaven's authority. Satan, working through unconsecrated leaders of the church, tampered with the fourth commandment also, and essayed to set aside the ancient Sabbath, the day which God had blessed and sanctified (Genesis 2:2, 3), and in its stead to exalt the festival observed by the heathen as "the venerable day of the sun." This change was not at first attempted openly. In the first centuries the true Sabbath had been kept by all Christians. They were jealous for the honor of God, and, believing that His law is immutable, they zealously guarded the sacredness of its precepts. But with great subtlety Satan worked through his agents to bring about his object. That the attention of the people might be called to the Sunday, it was made a festival in honor of the resurrection of Christ. Religious services were held upon it; yet it was regarded as a day of recreation, the Sabbath being still sacredly observed.

In the early part of the fourth century the emperor Constantine issued a decree making Sunday a public festival throughout the Roman Empire. The day of the sun was reverenced by his pagan subjects and was honored by Christians; it was the emperor's policy to unite the conflicting interests of heathenism and Christianity. He was urged to do this by the bishops of the church, who, inspired by ambition and thirst for power, perceived that if the same day was observed by both Christians and heathen, it would promote the nominal acceptance of Christianity by pagans and thus advance the power and glory of the church. But while many God-fearing Christians were gradually led to regard Sunday as possessing a degree of sacredness, they still held the true Sabbath as the holy of the Lord and observed it in obedience to the fourth commandment.

The archdeceiver had not completed his work. He was resolved to gather the Christian world under his banner and to exercise his power through his vicegerent, the proud pontiff who claimed to be the representative of Christ. Through half-converted pagans, ambitious prelates, and world-loving churchmen he accomplished his purpose. Vast councils were held from time to time, in which the dignitaries of the church were convened from all the world. In nearly every council the Sabbath which God had instituted was pressed down a little lower, while the Sunday was correspondingly exalted. Thus the pagan festival came finally to be honored as a divine institution, while the Bible Sabbath was pronounced a relic of Judaism, and its observers were declared to be accursed.

The great apostate had succeeded in exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." 2 Thessalonians 2:4. He had dared to change the only precept of the divine law that unmistakably points all mankind to the true and living God. In the fourth commandment, God is revealed as the Creator of the heavens and the earth, and is thereby distinguished from all false gods. It was as a memorial of the work of creation that the seventh day was sanctified as a rest day for man. It was designed to keep the living God ever before the minds of men as the source of being and the object of reverence and worship. Satan strives to turn men from their allegiance to God, and from rendering obedience to His law; therefore he directs his efforts especially against that commandment which points to God as the Creator.

Protestants now urge that the resurrection of Christ on Sunday made it the Christian Sabbath. But Scripture evidence is lacking. No such honor was given to the day by Christ or His apostles. The observance of Sunday as a Christian institution had its origin in that "mystery of lawlessness" (2 Thessalonians 2:7, R.V.) which, even in Paul's day, had begun its work. Where and when did the Lord adopt this child of the papacy? What valid reason can be given for a change which the Scriptures do not sanction?

In the sixth century the papacy had become firmly established. Its seat of power was fixed in the imperial city, and the bishop of Rome was declared to be the head over the entire church. Paganism had given place to the papacy. The dragon had given to the beast "his power, and his seat, and great authority." Revelation 13:2. And now began the 1260 years of papal oppression foretold in the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. Daniel 7:25; Revelation 13:5-7. Christians were forced to choose either to yield their integrity and accept the papal ceremonies and worship, or to wear away their lives in dungeons or suffer death by the rack, the fagot, or the headsman's ax. Now were fulfilled the words of Jesus: "Ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for My name's sake." Luke 21:16, 17. Persecution opened upon the faithful with greater fury than ever before, and the world became a vast battlefield. For hundreds of years the church of Christ found refuge in seclusion and obscurity. Thus says the prophet: "The woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and three-score days." Revelation 12:6.

The accession of the Roman Church to power marked the beginning of the Dark Ages. As her power increased, the darkness deepened. Faith was transferred from Christ, the true foundation, to the pope of Rome. Instead of trusting in the Son of God for forgiveness of sins and for eternal salvation, the people looked to the pope, and to the priests and prelates to whom he delegated authority. They were taught that the pope was their earthly mediator and that none could approach God except through him; and, further, that he stood in the place of God to them and was therefore to be implicitly obeyed. A deviation from his requirements was sufficient cause for the severest punishment to be visited upon the bodies and souls of the offenders. Thus the minds of the people were turned away from God to fallible, erring, and cruel men, nay, more, to the prince of darkness himself, who exercised his power through them. Sin was disguised in a garb of sanctity. When the Scriptures are suppressed, and man comes to regard himself as supreme, we need look only for fraud, deception, and debasing iniquity. With the elevation of human laws and traditions was manifest the corruption that ever results from setting aside the law of God.

------------

So you tell me now, how can we have UNITY? The only way to have true Biblical unity would be for Protestants and Catholics alike to come back to the BIBLE and to start doing what it says. Then there would be true unity, and anything else would be a farce.


Claudia
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The RCC itself is the largest "split" from Christianity known to mankind. And IT has resulted in the largest NUMBER of splits as its own members seek to RETURN to the Christian teachings of the NT fathers - authors of the NT text.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century
"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grew of paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"
So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church
and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;
the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection,
devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians
began to face the east while praying
which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."

pg 43
for a long time the celebrant was left considerable freedom to improvise in conducting the liturgy. Even wording of the canon was left to his
discretion.
Who finally stopped Rome’s persecution of the Christians?

The struggle for the soul of the Empire raged on a vast scale for though only a sprinkling in the West, Christians in the East numbered around 10 percent of the population, and in some cities even formed the majority. And it was mainly in the East that the blood flowed under Galerius (Diocletian’s successor) and Maximinus Daia.

It all came to a halt suddenly when Galerius by decree of 311 permitted Christians to resume their religious assemblies.. But a cruel reversal occurred when Galerius died and Maximinus Daia once more called for Christian blood.. But then as suddenly he ordered the whole business to cease again…. Pressure to stop persecuting had been put on Maximinus by the new conqueror of Italy and Africa, Constantine. (Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 37)

When Constantine finally emerged victorious (over Maxentius) in 312, he attributed his victory to the help of the Christian God. According to the Christian writer Lactantius (d. 320) on the eve of Constantine’s fateful battle with Maxentius, Constantine had a vision of Christ, who told him to ornament the shields of his soldiers with the Savior’s monogram – the Greek letters chi and rho[/b]. Constantine obeyed and in the ensuing battle was victorious as promised Writing somewhat later Eusebius, in his Life of Constantine, gave a more sensational account. Constantine and his whole army saw a luminous cross appear in the afternoon sky with the message “in this conquer” (Ibid 38)
How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life. It carried many advantages, but it also entailed
some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39
 

following-Him

Active Member
Hello Living_stone,

It's good to have you here with us. Greetings from Enland.

Blessings

Followinghim
wave.gif
 

Living_stone

New Member
So you tell me now, how can we have UNITY? The only way to have true Biblical unity would be for Protestants and Catholics alike to come back to the BIBLE and to start doing what it says. Then there would be true unity, and anything else would be a farce.
First off, where does the bible say it's our only source of instruction?

"And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. (Eph 4)"

One thing I have noticed - and I mean no offence to my Protestant brothers and sisters per se - is that this appeal to "the bible only" is a man-made tradition not supported in scripture, and from this ill-gotten fruit has come such factioning and division in 500 years that it may take treble the length to heal the wound.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear
Bokenkotter is NOT a respected Catholic theologian. Even his amazon reviews make him look liberal and biased.
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Bokenkotter IS a "Best selling RC Author" far more "well received" than the nay-sayers that "object to the facts HE reveals about the RCC".

This is NOT an "obscure RC historian that nobody ever heard of!!"

The fact that you have to attack YOUR OWN RC historians when they point to facts you don't "prefer" shows how steeped you are in blinders-on methods to believe in the RCC "anyway".

I am not quoting "Jack Chick" or anti-Catholic source - and STILL you attack them!!
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I was introduced to Bokenkotter's book "A Concise History of the Roman Catholic Church" by a Roman Catholic co-worker who wanted to explain the history of his faith to me. He told me I would have to go to a Roman Catholic bookstore and buy a Roman Catholic historian's work on the history of the RCC INSTEAD of going to MY OWN denomination's bookstore and simply reading MY OWN denomination's history sources as THEY spoke to the real facts about the history of the RCC in the dark ages.

I "suppose" I could have responded the way the RC members do here "I will only go to MY OWN church bookstore and listen to MY OWN denomination's historians" - but I did not.

I went to HIS bookstore and read the book HE told me to read instead of blindly sticking to my own pro-Adventist sources.

The thing that really "amazes me" is that THERE IS NO LIMIT to the blinders-on head-in-sand approach of some in the RCC -- such that EVEN IN THIS case - they just "turn on their own" when "inconvenient facts" surface FROM THEIR OWN sources!!

You have to really "LOVE" darkness rather than light to do such things!!

In Christ,

Bob
 

KellyWhite

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
The RCC itself is the largest "split" from Christianity known to mankind. And IT has resulted in the largest NUMBER of splits as its own members seek to RETURN to the Christian teachings of the NT fathers - authors of the NT text.
You lost me. Are you saying that the RCC "split" from Judaism? If not, what Christian religion did they split from?
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by nate:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Living_stone:
I don't think that Christainity was ever meant to be split into factions.
I agree with this statement. The Church was meant to be one entity. </font>[/QUOTE]Agreed also - and it was up until 1054 - even the splits resulting from Ephesus and Chalecedon, as Gold Dragon has pointed out, did not result in any loss of doctrinal unity
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Originally posted by KellyWhite:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
The RCC itself is the largest "split" from Christianity known to mankind. And IT has resulted in the largest NUMBER of splits as its own members seek to RETURN to the Christian teachings of the NT fathers - authors of the NT text.
You lost me. Are you saying that the RCC "split" from Judaism? If not, what Christian religion did they split from? </font>[/QUOTE]I can only presume he means the 1054 split; that's the only split that can have been deemed to have created the RCC
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There are some who would say the RCC is Roman paganism with a Christian facade. This implies that this system is without authority since inception--Constantine and the Pontifex Maximus.

True Christianity was never pagan even though it has been regarded as cultic by the powers that be--until 325 A.D. anyway. True believers never had anything to do with Rome outside the Circus Maximus where they were fed to wild beasts as a form of entertainment for the Senatus Romanus Populus que. Many also entertained the Inquisitors--during the "Holy" Roman Empire.

One can make similar authority analogy to Mormonism. It stands or falls based on the authority of its founder. The RCC is either given authority or not in Matthew 16. If she has divine authority, all others are usurpers. If she is without authority, so are her daughters. Joseph Smith's followers have a similar dilemma.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bro. James:
True believers never had anything to do with Rome outside the Circus Maximus where they were fed to wild beasts as a form of entertainment for the Senatus Romanus Populus que.
Paul wrote a pretty significant book in the bible to some Romans. I got no indication from that book that he didn't think they were true believers. In fact, they seemed like a pretty significant group of true believers at that time, quite possibly the largest one.

NASB - Romans 1:7

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Sorry for the ambiguity--I should have said: true believers never had anything to do with the unholy marriage of a "church?" and the State, the epicenter of which was at Rome, which occurred in the 4th century.

That the church at Rome which received the Pauline letter was a participant in this marriage is highly speculative.

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ah, so what are all these Baptists doing voting Republican and trying to change the law of the land to suit their ends, then?
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bro. James:
Sorry for the ambiguity--I should have said: true believers never had anything to do with the unholy marriage of a "church?" and the State, the epicenter of which was at Rome, which occurred in the 4th century.
Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican churches all held state status in Europe since the 1500s, and for the church of England, still do. I guess there are no true believers in those denominations either.

Edit: A few other existing state churches include:
Eastern Orthodox : Cyprus, Georgia, Greece
Lutheran : Denmark, Iceland, Norway
Presbyterian : Scotland
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's; unto God that which is God's", certainly seems to draw a line between State and Divinity.

Ruling by Divine fiat was promulgated by those ruling.

"State status" religion in Europe to be sure,and the tyranny thereof are what the Pilgrims and many others were fleeing when they arrived in the New World.

Dumb question: From whence does a State Religion, reformed or otherwise, derive the authority to baptize?

Selah,

Bro. James
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, so what are all these Baptists doing voting Republican and trying to change the law of the land to suit their ends, then?
I think for some, the state controlling the church is bad, but the church controlling the state is ok.

Which would make the Holy Roman Empire (800-1600s) or First Reich of the middle ages ok since it was the Pope as the leader of the most powerful institution of that time who crowned emperors while emperors rarely had the influence to decide Popes.
 

Gold Dragon

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Bro. James:
"Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's; unto God that which is God's", certainly seems to draw a line between State and Divinity.
As a baptist, I agree with separation of church and state. However, I don't add to scripture to say that this doctrine is a requirement for being a TrueChristian&trade;

Originally posted by Bro. James:
"State status" religion in Europe to be sure,and the tyranny thereof are what the Pilgrims and many others were fleeing when they arrived in the New World.
I agree that state churches result in tyranny for minorities, which also occurs in democracies when Christians form the majority. Again, I will not add to scripture to say that agreement with me on this is a requirement for salvation.

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Dumb question: From whence does a State Religion, reformed or otherwise, derive the authority to baptize?
The same place non-state churches derive their authority to baptize, from Christ.
 
Top