I'm asking for your evidence for your assertion that the persecuted groups were orthodox. So, tell me: were the Arians orthodox? Were the Monophysites? The Nestorians?
Again I ask, the Word of God as interpreted by whom?
-
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!
If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...
- Thread starter jay29
- Start date
Perhaps even the Mormons are right...
Helps support my point: who has the God given authority to carry out the Great Commission?
According to Joseph Smith Jr., all churches having apostasized, God re-established the New Testament Covenant with Joe Jr. That is either true or false.
A similar analogy can be made for the "holy see". They either have the authority or not. If they have it, all others are usurpers.
Selah,
Bro. James
Helps support my point: who has the God given authority to carry out the Great Commission?
According to Joseph Smith Jr., all churches having apostasized, God re-established the New Testament Covenant with Joe Jr. That is either true or false.
A similar analogy can be made for the "holy see". They either have the authority or not. If they have it, all others are usurpers.
Selah,
Bro. James
Not necessarily -it ain't necessarily an "all or nothing" issue as you make out (well, it is with the Mormons): it could equally be the case that the authority was over time corrupted and degraded to the point where it needed to be reformed and others, far from usurping, had to come alongside and provide a counterbalance.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
(I don't see how). God gave the Apostles the authority to carry out the great commission and to "bind and loose". The Church(s) in historical and doctrinal succession to the Apostles still has (have) that authority.
According to many (but not all) Protestants the Church apostasized, either with the ascension of Constantine or even right after the apostles died. Then roughly 1500 years later God restored the true New Testament Gospel to (fill in the blank) and the denomination he (or she) founded.
The "holy see" says the authority was given to Peter and his successors as the vicars of Christ. Peter never even alluded to any such thing, nor did Paul.
This is the crux of the argument. The papacy is either a valid entity or it is not. Rome stands or falls on the recipient of the authority given in Mt. 16 and 28. If the "holy see" is correct, all others are anathema. If the "holy see" has usurped authority, the so-called reformers of Rome have no authority either. This is a real dilemma for many--either way they have no authority. Rome did not give it even if she had it, or she could not give something which she did not have.
All churches did not apostasize--they could not. Jesus promised to keep them through the gates of hell to the end of the age. They have been hanged, burned, drowned and sawn asunder. They are still here. Jesus is faithful, even when we are not. His Bride is still out there, without spot or blemish or any such thing, waiting and watching for the Bridegroom.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Selah,
Bro. James
This is the crux of the argument. The papacy is either a valid entity or it is not. Rome stands or falls on the recipient of the authority given in Mt. 16 and 28. If the "holy see" is correct, all others are anathema. If the "holy see" has usurped authority, the so-called reformers of Rome have no authority either. This is a real dilemma for many--either way they have no authority. Rome did not give it even if she had it, or she could not give something which she did not have.
All churches did not apostasize--they could not. Jesus promised to keep them through the gates of hell to the end of the age. They have been hanged, burned, drowned and sawn asunder. They are still here. Jesus is faithful, even when we are not. His Bride is still out there, without spot or blemish or any such thing, waiting and watching for the Bridegroom.
Even so, come Lord Jesus.
Selah,
Bro. James
Again I ask, the Word of God as interpreted by whom? [/QB][/QUOTE]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
The interpretation of the Bible by the apostles such as Hebrews writer cannot be argued, and furthermore, by the sincere believers should be trusted.
However, we cannot accept any interpretations by the murderers and adulterers.
Apparently these people were not the true believers at all. Please check these people:
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1676.cfm
Apparently Arians were not trustworthy at all but they didn't kill the people as RC did.
Nestorians refused to call Mary as Mother of God and as a result they were condemned by Cyril and the people at that time. However, they never killed the people as Holy Roman Catholic did.
I would say to you that Bible should be interpretted by the true believers who have apparent testimony of Being Born Again, which is the minimum requirement.
For example, if we read the testimony by John Wesley, we can clearly believe that he was born again on May 24, 1738. Pascal has the testimony that he was born again in the night of Nov 23, 1654. Harry Ironside has it. Many of my friends have it, and I have it. You may point out that there are diversities even among the born again believers. Yes, there can be. But such dis-agreements are to be discussed and not to be too different.
Does this lineage include the anti-popes, anathematized popes and other apparent blank spaces in the succession which has to be traceable back to Peter for any of this to be valid?
The "holy see" either has the keys or not--they were not posted to the Roman Forum; which brings up another dumb question: Jesus gave the keys and commission in Jerusalem; how did all of this get going from Rome? There is little evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.
Is it possible that the "holy see" is really unclean and blind?
Selah,
Bro. James
The "holy see" either has the keys or not--they were not posted to the Roman Forum; which brings up another dumb question: Jesus gave the keys and commission in Jerusalem; how did all of this get going from Rome? There is little evidence that Peter ever went to Rome.
Is it possible that the "holy see" is really unclean and blind?
Selah,
Bro. James
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
True. (The Church has never apostasized--you are correct)
The statements by Catholic Cardinal betrays you :
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers ." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Surely you jest. That quote has been demonstrated to be a hoax.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Surely you jest. That quote has been demonstrated to be a hoax. </font>[/QUOTE]How can you say so? Unless you prove it, your statement is a hoax too. Mine was brought from Dr. Caroll's Trail of Blood. </font>[/QUOTE]The TRAIL OF BLOOD??? Yeah, that's a reliable source of history.
The fact is there are no primary source documents which back up Carrol's claim. If one investigates the primary sources there is no such statement from Cardinal Hosius to be found.
Surely you jest. That quote has been demonstrated to be a hoax. </font>[/QUOTE]How can you say so? Unless you prove it, your statement is a hoax too. Mine was brought from Dr. Caroll's Trail of Blood. </font>[/QUOTE]In a certain sense, Rome has been quite successful in destroying all the record of the true believers but there are some records supporting the true history. Catholics' own declarations coincide with the claims.
Riverm,let me hear your excuse about the cruelty shown in this site:
http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html
You may be saying Pope John Paul II made a big mistake because he said that he regret about the past history of Crusade and Inquisiton.
This is why I don't trust the repentance of RC
http://www.exposingchristianity.com/Inquisition.html
You may be saying Pope John Paul II made a big mistake because he said that he regret about the past history of Crusade and Inquisiton.
This is why I don't trust the repentance of RC
Could you please explain how it is that this quote is said to come from the Council of Trent in 1524 when that Council did not convene until 1545?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Don't be so quick to "suppose" that the RCC ever repented. When ASKED they deny ANY specific reference to any ACTUAL misdeed INCLUDING the extermination of those that they opposed!
To oppologize one must first admit that SOMETHING specific was done wrong. They do not! Hence you will find great support EVEN today among RC follower for the SPECIFIC examples of extermination done in the past by the RCC. And they SUPPORT this BECAUSE of the teaching and the current support IN the Church NOT inspite of it!
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
The statements by Catholic Cardinal betrays you :
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers ." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(BTW - the quote does not say President of the Council of Trent (during the Council of Trent):
Nor does it say President of the Council of Trent shortly AFTER the Council of Trent:
So you will need something tangible when claiming to have proof.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eliyahu:
The statements by Catholic Cardinal betrays you :
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers ." (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then please "demonstrate it" don't merely "assume it".
(BTW - the quote does not say President of the Council of Trent (during the Council of Trent):
Nor does it say President of the Council of Trent shortly AFTER the Council of Trent:
So you will need something tangible when claiming to have proof.
Ask and ye shall receive:-
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html
And I wouldn't trust JM "I Make Up Church History As I Go Along" Carroll, author of the Trail of Lies and Half-Truths, to sit the right way on a bathroom seat.
http://www.angelfire.com/ms/seanie/forgeries/hosius.html
And I wouldn't trust JM "I Make Up Church History As I Go Along" Carroll, author of the Trail of Lies and Half-Truths, to sit the right way on a bathroom seat.