My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Better be careful....Ive read horse meat has been being served instead of beef....so if you feel like taking a drive to the track after dinner, put $2.00 on Midnight Jasmine to WIN in the 6th race.:smilewinkgrin:

:laugh::laugh::smilewinkgrin: Well...if they serve real beef (cowmeat) then does that mean we can bet on cow races...? moooo!

Bro.Greg

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It's late, so I will answer you fairly briefly. There is nothing I have stated that is not absolute historical fact.

FYI to assert Catholicism is the greatest or the most or the largest propaganda Machine in history of humanity isn't a fact it is an assertion. So to say it is a fact is irresponsible. Facts can be backed up by objective data.

What is telling is the attempts by Catholics and Magisterial Protestants to dodge, deny, and rationalize the atrocities approved of and committed by them against Dissenters, and each other!

I don't think anyone things attrocities committed in the past is ok or promotable. In fact, The Catholic Church has objected to certain acts in the past committed in its name. However, as a student of history you should know that for both Protestants and Catholics were products of their time. And they acted as they believed in their time frame. Just like we are products of our time. As an example look at the Health and Wealth Gospel. Because Britan and the United States have influenced the world economic system by promoting Capitalism there is a group of Christians that hold to the economic rewards and punishments as a sign of following God. If one reads history often Chrisitans would give up wealth to draw closer to God. But these Mega Churches and Health and Wealth preachers are certain a result of the modern age. The time period which we are discussing the culture centered around how the Monarch protected the faith of the people subject to them in his/her lands and capital punishment was certainly considered appropriate. They didn't have civil rights as we do now.

For you to try to make the claim that it was the state which was responsible and not the church is laughable, absurd, and false.

I think you need to study more closely all that I have said can be quickly assertained by just pulling out the facts of history. Certainl clergy did bad things. Certain Popes as well. But these men acted contrarily to the Church's teaching which is why the actions of certain clergy and nobles were so objectionable by Europeans during the time of the reformation. Both Catholics and Protestants realized the church needed some reformation with in its authority structure. The reason for this is because these men were acting hypocritical to what everyone knew what was being taught.

The former state churches have admitted their guilt by apologizing for their crimes; popes have done this, and leaders of the Magisterial Protestant denominations, also.

As I have said.

Catholicism was of course not created by Constantine, but with Constantine was the beginning of the union of church and state, an unholy alliance.

Well, you are partly faulted here. Constantine did begin a closer relationship with the Church appointed some church men as his "cabinate" members. But never did he make Catholicism the only faith of the Roman empire. that happened latter. The empire continued to allow for other faiths under constantine. There were problems with this new status Christians held. However, knowing history as you claim to know you would also know that when the civil authorities of Rome fell in decline there was no where else to go for the protection of civilization save the Church leadership. Though you call it an "unholy alliance" history shows that had the church not been in a place of influence greater anarchy and atrocities would have occured in Europe and we may be no better off today than the tribalism that is so problematic in the rest of the world. Not to mention the development of Universities (Catholic idea btw) and the consept of Human rights which came out of Christian Europe influenced primarily by Catholic Teaching. So, I wouldn't term it "Unholy" rather a necessity of the time.

I have many weaknesses and infirmities, but ignorance of history and church history are not among them, despite your attempt to insult.

I haven't attempted to insult you. I have suggested that it is worrisome that someone attaining your level of degree in Christian History is so biased in perspective when all one has to do is read documents from sources so as not to predujice themselves to a certain perspective. I have a close friend a Phd as well and an archeologist who teaches at a major Christian University who goes to the sources to determine what actually happened. He just got off a dig in Greece showing that the diolkos was not in use as much as we had originally supposed. Simply put go to the source and form an opinion. You want to know what baptist think? Go to the baptist writings don't read Catholic thought about them. And the same works the other way round. You want to read what early Christians thought? Read early Christian writings. Believing that baptist churches (as they do today) existed in 100 AD well then find source documents that prove it. Where are their writings? What archeological digs have revealed such churches? In fact if you study what the Montanist, and all the other heretical movements in Christianity thought and believed we see it in no way resembles baptist churches of today. Maybe one aspect may be similar but all else would be foriegn. The only reference I have heard for the possiblity of this is a line from a Bishop during the reformation who generalizes all again baptizers (ana-baptist) as baptist and notes there have been these sects going back centuries. Certainly, I believe there were groups that sprung up from time to time re-baptizing people to their beliefs. But this alone doesn't hold up to what a baptist is. Some of these sects had liturgies, others were gnostic, and none could be compared to baptist as baptist are. The same is not true of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

Of course infant baptism was practiced before the state and church became united, but after it did, this became one way of trying to insure the perpetuity of both.

This is not true no State as ever relied on its perpetuity by relying on baptism. I can see you making an argument for the Catholic/Orthodox Church about this. But a State? I think not.

What you are either ignorant of or not honest enough to admit is that the Baptists, Anabaptists, and other free church/believers' baptism churches were persecuted by the state churches mostly for two reasons: the advocacy of the former for absolute religious liberty for all and the refusal to have their infants baptized.

Wow this is really backwards thinking! Anabaptist were persecuted because they discented from the Orthodox teaching held in trust (as believed) by the Civil authority of which not baptizing their children was one practice showing their un-orthodoxy. Had an ana-baptist believed in baptizing their infants they still would have been persecuted.

You have not one leg to stand on. All your denials of the facts that I have stated are nothing more than obfuscation to try to obscure the truth.

Note you still haven't stated a fact. Still assertion.

I challenge anyone who doubts what I say to read some history

Likewise I encourage others to study history for themselves. History is pretty clear. And following the principle that you should not read history from a biased opinion go to the sources. Don't read someone who has an axe to grind.

of the atrocities perpetrated by the state churches against the free churches. One good resource is the "Martyrs' Mirror", a book I referenced elsewhere in this thread.

Foxe's book of martyrs which I have a copy by my bed because I like to read it is writen by someone with an axe to grind as John Foxe was a protestant during the reformation (Anglican) as is Martyrs' Mirror from a dutch Ana-baptist. I personally would read these and the accounts from these two with the understanding they they are not objective and I would read other writers regarding the same time period to get an understanding what actually happened. You can plainly tell in both these books the biase expressed by these authors. However, interesting Foxe follows Catholic history correctly though not without some hyperbole up to Chapter 4. And leaves large gaps in history and leave no room for cultural activities at the time. It is clearly a work to demonize the Catholic church and support the Church of England's seperation from Rome. I would suggest our readers read academic works as well.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

FYI to assert Catholicism is the greatest or the most or the largest propaganda Machine in history of humanity isn't a fact it is an assertion. So to say it is a fact is irresponsible. Facts can be backed up by objective data. I don't think anyone things attrocities committed in the past is ok or promotable. In fact, The Catholic Church has objected to certain acts in the past committed in its name. However, as a student of history you should know that for both Protestants and Catholics were products of their time. And they acted as they believed in their time frame. Just like we are products of our time. As an example look at the Health and Wealth Gospel. Because Britan and the United States have influenced the world economic system by promoting Capitalism there is a group of Christians that hold to the economic rewards and punishments as a sign of following God. If one reads history often Chrisitans would give up wealth to draw closer to God. But these Mega Churches and Health and Wealth preachers are certain a result of the modern age. The time period which we are discussing the culture centered around how the Monarch protected the faith of the people subject to them in his/her lands and capital punishment was certainly considered appropriate. They didn't have civil rights as we do now.


I think you need to study more closely all that I have said can be quickly assertained by just pulling out the facts of history. Certainl clergy did bad things. Certain Popes as well. But these men acted contrarily to the Church's teaching which is why the actions of certain clergy and nobles were so objectionable by Europeans during the time of the reformation. Both Catholics and Protestants realized the church needed some reformation with in its authority structure. The reason for this is because these men were acting hypocritical to what everyone knew what was being taught.

As I have said.

Well, you are partly faulted here. Constantine did begin a closer relationship with the Church appointed some church men as his "cabinate" members. But never did he make Catholicism the only faith of the Roman empire. that happened latter. The empire continued to allow for other faiths under constantine. There were problems with this new status Christians held. However, knowing history as you claim to know you would also know that when the civil authorities of Rome fell in decline there was no where else to go for the protection of civilization save the Church leadership. Though you call it an "unholy alliance" history shows that had the church not been in a place of influence greater anarchy and atrocities would have occured in Europe and we may be no better off today than the tribalism that is so problematic in the rest of the world. Not to mention the development of Universities (Catholic idea btw) and the consept of Human rights which came out of Christian Europe influenced primarily by Catholic Teaching. So, I wouldn't term it "Unholy" rather a necessity of the time.


I haven't attempted to insult you. I have suggested that it is worrisome that someone attaining your level of degree in Christian History is so biased in perspective when all one has to do is read documents from sources so as not to predujice themselves to a certain perspective. I have a close friend a Phd as well and an archeologist who teaches at a major Christian University who goes to the sources to determine what actually happened. He just got off a dig in Greece showing that the diolkos was not in use as much as we had originally supposed. Simply put go to the source and form an opinion. You want to know what baptist think? Go to the baptist writings don't read Catholic thought about them. And the same works the other way round. You want to read what early Christians thought? Read early Christian writings. Believing that baptist churches (as they do today) existed in 100 AD well then find source documents that prove it. Where are their writings? What archeological digs have revealed such churches? In fact if you study what the Montanist, and all the other heretical movements in Christianity thought and believed we see it in no way resembles baptist churches of today. Maybe one aspect may be similar but all else would be foriegn. The only reference I have heard for the possiblity of this is a line from a Bishop during the reformation who generalizes all again baptizers (ana-baptist) as baptist and notes there have been these sects going back centuries. Certainly, I believe there were groups that sprung up from time to time re-baptizing people to their beliefs. But this alone doesn't hold up to what a baptist is. Some of these sects had liturgies, others were gnostic, and none could be compared to baptist as baptist are. The same is not true of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.


This is not true no State as ever relied on its perpetuity by relying on baptism. I can see you making an argument for the Catholic/Orthodox Church about this. But a State? I think not.

Wow this is really backwards thinking! Anabaptist were persecuted because they discented from the Orthodox teaching held in trust (as believed) by the Civil authority of which not baptizing their children was one practice showing their un-orthodoxy. Had an ana-baptist believed in baptizing their infants they still would have been persecuted.

Note you still haven't stated a fact. Still assertion.


Likewise I encourage others to study history for themselves. History is pretty clear. And following the principle that you should not read history from a biased opinion go to the sources. Don't read someone who has an axe to grind.

Foxe's book of martyrs which I have a copy by my bed because I like to read it is writen by someone with an axe to grind as John Foxe was a protestant during the reformation (Anglican) as is Martyrs' Mirror from a dutch Ana-baptist. I personally would read these and the accounts from these two with the understanding they they are not objective and I would read other writers regarding the same time period to get an understanding what actually happened. You can plainly tell in both these books the biase expressed by these authors. However, interesting Foxe follows Catholic history correctly though not without some hyperbole up to Chapter 4. And leaves large gaps in history and leave no room for cultural activities at the time. It is clearly a work to demonize the Catholic church and support the Church of England's seperation from Rome. I would suggest our readers read academic works as well.

Well, I'll only reply to your tome in addressing this: You said, "However, as a student of history you should know that for both Protestants and Catholics were products of their time. And they acted as they believed in their time frame. Just like we are products of our time." I have said this before, but it bears repeating: the Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were products of their time, too, which was concurrent with the Catholics and Magisterial Protestants, and yet they did not have a policy of persecution, torture, murder, and extermination of other Christians in the name of Jesus.

I stand by what I posted; there is no bias there. All of it is objective historical fact.

I will post a few more accounts to substantiate what I have stated.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

In addition to the good sources I quoted earlier in this thread, particularly posts #130, #132, #133, here are more:

In an article on "Heresy": "In France the Cathars grew to represent a popular mass movement and the belief was spreading to other areas. The Cathar Crusade was initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc. Heresy was a major justification for the Inquisition (Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis, Inquiry on Heretical Perversity) and for the European wars of religion associated with the Protestant Reformation."

"One example of a few of the alleged heretics who were executed under Protestant church law was the execution of the Boston martyrs in 1659, 1660, and 1661. These executions resulted from the actions of the then ultra orthodox protestant "Puritan" sect, which during those years operated as a de facto church-state institution holding nearly absolute authority over the Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time, the colony leaders were apparently hoping to achieve their vision of a "purer absolute theocracy" within their colony. As such, they perceived the teachings and practices of the rival Quaker sect as heretical, even to the point where laws were passed and executions were performed with the aim of ridding their colony of such perceived "heresies". This example is by no means unique to the times.

In England, the sixteenth century European Reformation resulted in a number of executions on charges of heresy. During the thirty-eight years of Henry VIII's reign, about sixty heretics, mainly protestants, were executed and a rather greater number of catholics lost their lives for political offences such as treason, notably Sir Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher when their actions were motivated by their loyalty to the Pope.Under Edward VI, the heresy laws were repealed in 1547 only to be reintroduced in 1554 by Mary Tudor; even so two radicals were executed in Edward's reign (one for denying the reality of the incarnation, the other for denying Christ's divinity). Under Mary, around two hundred and ninety people were burnt at the stake between 1555 and 1558 after the restoration of papal jurisdiction. When Elizabeth I came to the throne, the concept of heresy was retained in theory but severely restricted by the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the one hundred and eighty or so catholics who were executed in the forty-five years of her reign were put to death because they were considered to be members of "a subversive fifth column".[21] The last execution of a "heretic" in England occurred under James I in 1612."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I'll only reply to your tome in addressing this: You said, "However, as a student of history you should know that for both Protestants and Catholics were products of their time. And they acted as they believed in their time frame. Just like we are products of our time." I have said this before, but it bears repeating: the Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were products of their time, too, which was concurrent with the Catholics and Magisterial Protestants, and yet they did not have a policy of persecution, torture, murder, and extermination of other Christians in the name of Jesus.

There were Catholics who also believed in non violence at this time (which I can name many) as there were "Protestant Magesterial Reformers" Just as there were certain Baptist who were violent. I'm in agreement about the quakers and the mennonites.

I stand by what I posted; there is no bias there. All of it is objective historical fact.

Unfortunately, this isn't true either. For instance You attempt to characterize the 3rd Canon of the 4th Lateran Council to suggest that it said to exterminate from the land heretics. This is a mistranslation the actual canon says " Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defense of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith." or expel. Significant difference I would say. Thus its clear like John Foxe and Van Braght you are purposely putting forth your clearly biased view.

I will post more accounts to substantiate what I have stated.

Hopefully they are not as erronious as your attempt to characterize the section in the 3rd canon of the 4th Lateran council.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

In addition to the good sources I quoted earlier in this thread, particularly posts #130, #132, #133, here are more:

In an article on "Heresy": "In France the Cathars grew to represent a popular mass movement and the belief was spreading to other areas. The Cathar Crusade was initiated by the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the Cathar heresy in Languedoc. Heresy was a major justification for the Inquisition (Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis, Inquiry on Heretical Perversity) and for the European wars of religion associated with the Protestant Reformation."

"One example of a few of the alleged heretics who were executed under Protestant church law was the execution of the Boston martyrs in 1659, 1660, and 1661. These executions resulted from the actions of the then ultra orthodox protestant "Puritan" sect, which during those years operated as a de facto church-state institution holding nearly absolute authority over the Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time, the colony leaders were apparently hoping to achieve their vision of a "purer absolute theocracy" within their colony. As such, they perceived the teachings and practices of the rival Quaker sect as heretical, even to the point where laws were passed and executions were performed with the aim of ridding their colony of such perceived "heresies". This example is by no means unique to the times.

In England, the sixteenth century European Reformation resulted in a number of executions on charges of heresy. During the thirty-eight years of Henry VIII's reign, about sixty heretics, mainly protestants, were executed and a rather greater number of catholics lost their lives for political offences such as treason, notably Sir Thomas More and Bp. John Fisher when their actions were motivated by their loyalty to the Pope.Under Edward VI, the heresy laws were repealed in 1547 only to be reintroduced in 1554 by Mary Tudor; even so two radicals were executed in Edward's reign (one for denying the reality of the incarnation, the other for denying Christ's divinity). Under Mary, around two hundred and ninety people were burnt at the stake between 1555 and 1558 after the restoration of papal jurisdiction. When Elizabeth I came to the throne, the concept of heresy was retained in theory but severely restricted by the 1559 Act of Supremacy and the one hundred and eighty or so catholics who were executed in the forty-five years of her reign were put to death because they were considered to be members of "a subversive fifth column".[21] The last execution of a "heretic" in England occurred under James I in 1612."

Certainly we see the time and Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I will all have to answer their actions to God. Clearly these were people of their times and acted accordingly as bad as it was but I don't hold the Catholic Church entire to blame for Mary Tudors actions nor do I blame the Church of England Entire for Henry's actions nor do I blame all Puritans for Cromwells actions.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

There were Catholics who also believed in non violence at this time (which I can name many) as there were "Protestant Magesterial Reformers" Just as there were certain Baptist who were violent. I'm in agreement about the quakers and the mennonites.

Unfortunately, this isn't true either. For instance You attempt to characterize the 3rd Canon of the 4th Lateran Council to suggest that it said to exterminate from the land heretics. This is a mistranslation the actual canon says " Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defense of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith." or expel. Significant difference I would say. Thus its clear like John Foxe and Van Braght you are purposely putting forth your clearly biased view.


Hopefully they are not as erronious as your attempt to characterize the section in the 3rd canon of the 4th Lateran council.

The only time Baptists were violent is when they defended themselves against the persecutors, many joining the military. They were not pacifists like the Mennonites and Quakers. The Baptists did not initiate vilence against others for religious reasons.

I did not attempt to characterize anything in the 4th Lateran council; I posted direct references.

I realize that you, having made the decision to embrace Roman Catholicism, feel compelled to defend it, but I had hoped that you would at least be able to admit the truth of the state-church policy of persecution and murder, which was also practiced by Magisterial Protestantism. Perhaps you are unable to do so because this record in itself destroys the contention that the RCC is or ever was the one true church, following the teachings, examples, and practices of Jesus and the apostles. Magisterial Protestants, while engaging in the same reprehensible practices, didn't claim to be the one true church in unbroken connection to the apostles. But I suppose that if you embrace error you must use error to excuse it and defend it.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Certainly we see the time and Henry VIII, Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I will all have to answer their actions to God. Clearly these were people of their times and acted accordingly as bad as it was but I don't hold the Catholic Church entire to blame for Mary Tudors actions nor do I blame the Church of England Entire for Henry's actions nor do I blame all Puritans for Cromwells actions.

You don't have to because the policy of the entire Catholic Church, Church of England, and Puritans (Independents) was to persecute, torture, murder, and exterminate other Christians.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The only time Baptists were violent is when they defended themselves against the persecutors

Is this true in regards to African Slaves or owned slaves during American Slavery? Certainly slaves weren't hanged because of their faith but common hangings of slaves who wanted their personal freedom still occured. How about against the Cherokee natives? Certainly it wasn't against their faith as many had embrased Christianity rather it was about their land. These two are agressive acts. Not for religious beliefs certainly but for other reasons. And what you find in the middle ages is that the reasons heretics were killed by civil authorities or Monarchs was because they believed in their national cohesion and that the Leaders had a God given responsibility to maintain the faith of their lands.

The Baptists did not initiate vilence against others for religious reasons.

No not for religious reasons. But others reasons just as reprehensible.

I did not attempt to characterize anything in the 4th Lateran council; I posted direct references.

That mistranslated the latin. Probably from a Protestant source.

I realize that you, having made the decision to embrace Roman Catholicism, feel compelled to defend it

True enough. I admit some biase of my own, however, having converted back to the Catholic faith these are matters which I also questioned but upon research which I found that the real relationship between State and Church was rather the state attempting to control the Chruch but with limited success and the Church stepping in where the state was unable. The problem with Europe was that eventually the general faith became Christian and the State saw themselves as defenders of the faith and thought themselves able to dictate to the church its desires. Which is why for a while the priesthood were political appointees by the Monarch. The Church attempted to stem this practice but was limitedly succesful and thus there was this constant tension between Church and the State. Henry's answer was to establish himself as Supreme authority over his land to include religion where as other States still holding to their authority but could not dictate ecclessiastical jurisdiction to the church with in its State.

but I had hoped that you would at least be able to admit the truth

I do admit the truth atrocities occured by people claiming Christ. However, I don't over simplify the matter to the point of mis-characterization of the occurences during this period. The truth of the Matter is the Church recogized the regents right to civily rule their lands. The Church could only speak to ecclesiastical authority.

Perhaps you are unable to do so because this record in itself destroys the contention that the RCC is or ever was the one true church

Not at all. It does speak to the truth of Jesus parable showing that the Church would be filled with tares until judgement comes.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Is this true in regards to African Slaves or owned slaves during American Slavery? Certainly slaves weren't hanged because of their faith but common hangings of slaves who wanted their personal freedom still occured. How about against the Cherokee natives? Certainly it wasn't against their faith as many had embrased Christianity rather it was about their land. These two are agressive acts. Not for religious beliefs certainly but for other reasons. And what you find in the middle ages is that the reasons heretics were killed by civil authorities or Monarchs was because they believed in their national cohesion and that the Leaders had a God given responsibility to maintain the faith of their lands.
No not for religious reasons. But others reasons just as reprehensible.

That mistranslated the latin. Probably from a Protestant source.

True enough. I admit some biase of my own, however, having converted back to the Catholic faith these are matters which I also questioned but upon research which I found that the real relationship between State and Church was rather the state attempting to control the Chruch but with limited success and the Church stepping in where the state was unable. The problem with Europe was that eventually the general faith became Christian and the State saw themselves as defenders of the faith and thought themselves able to dictate to the church its desires. Which is why for a while the priesthood were political appointees by the Monarch. The Church attempted to stem this practice but was limitedly succesful and thus there was this constant tension between Church and the State. Henry's answer was to establish himself as Supreme authority over his land to include religion where as other States still holding to their authority but could not dictate ecclessiastical jurisdiction to the church with in its State.
I do admit the truth atrocities occured by people claiming Christ. However, I don't over simplify the matter to the point of mis-characterization of the occurences during this period. The truth of the Matter is the Church recogized the regents right to civily rule their lands. The Church could only speak to ecclesiastical authority.

Not at all. It does speak to the truth of Jesus parable showing that the Church would be filled with tares until judgement comes.

But the fact remains that the state churches, RCC and Magisterial Protestant, persecuted, tortured, and murdered others in the name of Jesus and fought against religious liberty.

Anyway, enough of this. This is Walter's thread about Walter's journey. Unlike some others here, I am not going to call the RCC a cult. I believe it contains serious errors, but I believe the same about Calvinism. However, I have Calvinist friends, here and in the "real world", as well as Catholic friends, and I'd like to count you and Walter among my friends, as well.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But the fact remains that the state churches, RCC and Magisterial Protestant, persecuted, tortured, and murdered others in the name of Jesus and fought against religious liberty.

Anyway, enough of this. This is Walter's thread about Walter's journey. Unlike some others here, I am not going to call the RCC a cult. I believe it contains serious errors, but I believe the same about Calvinism. However, I have Calvinist friends, here and in the "real world", as well as Catholic friends, and I'd like to count you and Walter among my friends, as well.

BTW & as a sidenote: I believe Arminism contains serious doctrinal errors! :smilewinkgrin: Tat, Tat Tat :tongue3:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

BTW & as a sidenote: I believe Arminism contains serious doctrinal errors! :smilewinkgrin: Tat, Tat Tat :tongue3:

I don't think Helyws is a quaker, so you may be in trouble! :laugh:

However, to Helyws honestly, I do like going over history even though we disagree.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't think Helyws is a quaker, so you may be in trouble! :laugh:

However, to Helyws honestly, I do like going over history even though we disagree.

Too bad he isnt......but his beliefs in divine grace plus human effort ---- has to put him in the Arminian theology camp. Then there is the name.

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

 

[Thomas Helwys]

BTW & as a sidenote: I believe Arminism contains serious doctrinal errors! :smilewinkgrin: Tat, Tat Tat :tongue3:

I know you do, but despite that I still like you because you're as nutty as I am. :laugh:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Too bad he isnt......but his beliefs in divine grace plus human effort ---- has to put him in the Arminian theology camp. Then there is the name.

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

And I believe pretty much like him, thus my username.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Too bad he isnt......but his beliefs in divine grace plus human effort ---- has to put him in the Arminian theology camp. Then there is the name.

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

Well, I think an Arminian may have something to say in response. But what I found interesting in your link is this quote by the Actual Helwys

"If the Kings people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more: for men's religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man." — A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity.

giving more evidence towards my argument on how things operated at the time.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Well, I think an Arminian may have something to say in response. But what I found interesting in your link is this quote by the Actual Helwys giving more evidence towards my argument on how things operated at the time.

The evidence being that a united church and state were also united in persecution of other Christians. Helwys died in prison at 40 years of age at the hands of the Anglican state church.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The evidence being that a united church and state were also united in persecution of other Christians. Helwys died in prison at 40 years of age at the hands of the Anglican state church.

The evidence being the Civil Authority attempting to control the ecclesastical functions of the Church and prompting capital punishement on discenters from the faith of their lands prove to be the ones primarly responsible for those killings. Just like Tyndal put the blame where it was due.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

The evidence being the Civil Authority attempting to control the ecclesastical functions of the Church and prompting capital punishement on discenters from the faith of their lands prove to be the ones primarly responsible for those killings. Just like Tyndal put the blame where it was due.

There's your spin again. It was the policy of the church to persecute dissenters. The only churches where this wasn't the policy was the free churches.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

When you two guys going to realize that your are both in very destructive belief systems that glorify having sinners contribute to their own salvations. If humans contribute any essential part towards their salvation, they are effectively becoming their own saviors.

So there is a clear point of demarcation between your RC beliefs & mine.

1. Roman Catholicism insists that the will of man as the decisive factor in salvation. The RC also recognizes that the leaven of synergism eventually works its way through the entire loaf of soteriology.

2. Justification for roman catholics is a subjective process that is begun by faith but completed by works.

2b. For DoG believers, justification is an objective declaration that the believer is righteous through faith in Christ alone, apart from works.