My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Thinkingstuff]

Why did Paul, when he wrote Romans, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and approved as canon by the Catholic church, greet everybody and their brother, EXCEPT Peter, who the CC says was the first Pope in Rome? No way Peter was the first Pope in view of all the evidence.

You haven't answered my question but lets look at your question reasonably. Your contention is that Paul doesn't mention Peter by name at the begining of Romans. Well, lets think about that. Paul wrote Romans probably duriing the winter of late AD 57 or early 58. Is it possible Peter hadn't established himself in Rome at that time I mean he didn't die for approximately another 10 years? Also the persception that is often forgoten is holding a place of prominance does not negate being first among equals. Paul's intention was to establish Rome as a base of operations to conduct missionary journeys as far as Spain. I mean there can be several reasons for this. But not so many with the questions I put forward.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

None of that remotely explains why Peter is held as the 1st Pope by the RCC. But one thing in your post really jumped out at me.


Are you saying that the Pope holds the keys to the Kingdom?

Good question. You have to give up the modern notion of keys in this passage. We have to take a biblical perspective. Jesus when speaking to Peter regarding the Keys is referrencing Isaiah 22:15-25

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him: 16 What have you to do here, and whom have you here, that you have cut out here a tomb for yourself, you who cut out a tomb on the height and carve a dwelling for yourself in the rock? 17 Behold, the Lord will hurl you away violently, O you strong man. He will seize firm hold on you 18 and whirl you around and around, and throw you like a ball into a wide land. There you shall die, and there shall be your glorious chariots, you shame of your master's house. 19 I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. 20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

Jesus in short is making him the equivalent to what we think of when we say primeminister. Its a title of office. The problem is the modern age is so far removed that people mistake ancient consepts. Like mayors in England are given golden chains around their neck a symbol of office. And Catholics believe it gives him a teaching authority.

 

[DHK]

Good question. You have to give up the modern notion of keys in this passage. We have to take a biblical perspective. Jesus when speaking to Peter regarding the Keys is referrencing Isaiah 22:15-25 Jesus in short is making him the equivalent to what we think of when we say primeminister. Its a title of office. The problem is the modern age is so far removed that people mistake ancient consepts. Like mayors in England are given golden chains around their neck a symbol of office. And Catholics believe it gives him a teaching authority.

And the Catholics are wrong in their interpretation, as they are in many of their interpretations of the Bible. The keys do not refer to any passage in the OT. Jesus was not referring to an OT passage at all. You can't read into the Bible that which is not there. The "key" is the same "key" which the Pharisees had. It was a key of knowledge. The Pharisees had shut up the kingdom to the common person by hiding this key. It wasn't a physical key.
The key to the kingdom was the knowledge of the gospel. Jesus said "If you know the truth it will set you free, and you shall be free indeed."
The key is the gospel. That alone will set you free. Later he gave that same "key" to all the apostles. It was the message of the gospel and passed on to every believer, every person that has ever received Christ as Savior.

 

[Zaac]

I want to state again some things I have done prevously and hopefully clarify them as well.

The primary issue for me (when I was Baptist) was that I thought Scripture affirmed 'Scripture Alone' but nowhere does it reduce God's Word down to Scipture alone.

So exactly how does the Catholic Church differentiate between Scripture and the word of God?

Instead, we find Scripture tells us in many places that God's authoritive word is to be found in the Church, Her Tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as Her preaching and teaching (I Peter 1:25; 2 Peter I:20-21; Mt 18:17). This is why the Church supports sola verbum Dei-the word of God alone, rather than what Baptists support-sola scriptura-Scripture alone.

Answer to the previous question may help with this.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Are you suggesting I'm not being honest? I am being honest. The problem is that you look at the issues from propaganda rather than what it is. Look at the problem with your next statement.

You have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda when you're a member of the biggest propaganda machine in Christian history? What I have stated are the facts -- no misleading at all; rather, the pure unadulterated historical facts. Catholics have always tried to obscure and deny facts by spewing propaganda.


Look at how you mislead by this statement. I bolded the particular object which is purposely misleading in your statement. You state that "churches which were in union" obviously to make the reader make a false connection due to similarity of language to the ecclesiological meaning regarding full communion which recognizes a relationship between church organizations that mutually recognize their sharing the essential doctrines. Thereby equating the State beliefs and practices with that of the Church when in fact the two are not the same. Even when the lines seem somewhat blured whereby a state that is lead by a Monarch claims to have a particular faith. However, in that case the Monarch still acts independently as a state and is inhibited only as far as their individual conscience allows. The flaw you have is you believe the state is a subsidary of the Church. This is just not the case. Thus I cannot blame the Protestant churches for the Monarchs acts against Catholics. I place the blame where it belongs: on Monarch. Just as Tyndale placed the blame where it belongs: King Henry. Thus if any union between Church and State exist it only goes as far as the concience of the regent as can be seen in Europe time and again. The regents viewed themselves as defenders of their faith in their realms thus they delt with faith issues as they saw fit. And unfortunately many regents were unjust.


In state churches, the state was the political arm of the church; the church was the religious arm of the state, and they acted in concert.


Many as you said were opposed to state run churches. Look at the emphasis "state run churches" not "church run state".


To blame the Catholic Church for atrocities conducted by the regent of Spain is no less dishonest and inaccurate.

Most I agree were.

Look how misleading this is. You imply by what I bolded that I held Virginia was always tollerant. What did I actually say? the first 3 states to legislate religious tollerance (during the revolution). I didn't say it was always tollerant. In fact didn't I mention that this Anglican state cause the Puritans to move into Maryland which had a religeous tollerance act in place only to attempt to get rid of it? My point was Catholics in the colonies were proponents for Religious Liberty not just the Baptist, Quakers, or Mennonites.


Again you mislead here. I bolded what I mean. In which you attempt to lead the reader to believe that infant baptizing has something to do with the 1) creation of a State Church and 2) the subsequent slaughtering and persecuting of Anabaptist, Baptist, and other Dissenters. Whether one believes in infant baptism or not does not affect whether they hurt others. You don't even see how you introduce propaganda to your argument. You purposely put infant baptism and connect the practice to killing discenters when one has nothing to do with the other. Its purpose is to inflame and mislead to a false connection.



Again not misleading but the absolute truth. Infant baptism was a state church practice; the free churches didn't believe in it. Infant baptism was a pillar of the state churches; it was used to keep the people loyal members of both. The free church people were persecuted, tortured, and murdered for refusing to have their babies baptized, and their believers' baptism was taunted and parodied in their murder by drowning. My purpose is not to inflame but enlighten with the historical facts and truth about the murderous Satanic state churches.


It is certain you've never actually studied history apart from a propaganda machine built from the conflicts during the reformation. Things are certainly less black and white than you imagine them. I suppose you believe the Crusades were wars of aggression against muslims. When in reality Islam was aggressing against Christianity and the Eastern Europeans sought the assistance from the west to defend land already in Christian hands. But hey if you want to believe the hype thats on you.


If you had read the other threads, you would have seen me defending Catholics there. But I will condemn what needs to be condemned, and state church murders need to be condemned -- Catholic and Protestant. Never studied history? Ha! The joke is on you, pal. You must have also missed the post where I said I had a doctorate in humanities with a concentration in church history and theology. You are the propagandist here, not I.


Try some actual history. What you will find is that it is always the State leader who executed people. The Church determined who was and was not a heretic. And the State would use that label as the justification for the execution. Sadly certain Church leaders were in agreement with the States actions. However, knowing the time period and the cultures which lead to this its understandable if not agreeable to my modern sensibilities. In fact the Inquisition grew up out of a need to provide due process in Civil Courts which inlcuded matters of faith creating a religeous review during the 1200's before civil authorities carried out judgement. However, in that day and age the State believed it was responsible for the faith with in its realm. Because the though of the day was

Some of my responses are inside your post.


Really? The free churches didn't agree with or follow the state church persecutors and murderers, and they lived during the same time. Guess they actually read the scriptures and saw Jesus' teachings and practices were not the same as those of the state church murderers.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Where does scripture state that there were "successors" to Peter? Or that Peter was the first Pope? Where does it state that any of the other apostles answered directly to Peter and that he was above them in authority? Actually Peter got his clock cleaned as he was being hypocritical regarding following the "Law".
Peter was an apostle no less or no greater than any others and had no successors.

Absolutely.

And was Peter chief of apostles and infallible when he denied Jesus thrice?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

None of that remotely explains why Peter is held as the 1st Pope by the RCC. But one thing in your post really jumped out at me.


Are you saying that the Pope holds the keys to the Kingdom?

Sure! After all, he's the "Holy Father", isn't he?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

And the Catholics are wrong in their interpretation, as they are in many of their interpretations of the Bible. The keys do not refer to any passage in the OT. Jesus was not referring to an OT passage at all. You can't read into the Bible that which is not there. The "key" is the same "key" which the Pharisees had. It was a key of knowledge. The Pharisees had shut up the kingdom to the common person by hiding this key. It wasn't a physical key.
The key to the kingdom was the knowledge of the gospel. Jesus said "If you know the truth it will set you free, and you shall be free indeed."
The key is the gospel. That alone will set you free. Later he gave that same "key" to all the apostles. It was the message of the gospel and passed on to every believer, every person that has ever received Christ as Savior.

Excellent and spot on!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And the Catholics are wrong in their interpretation, as they are in many of their interpretations of the Bible. The keys do not refer to any passage in the OT. Jesus was not referring to an OT passage at all. You can't read into the Bible that which is not there. The "key" is the same "key" which the Pharisees had. It was a key of knowledge. The Pharisees had shut up the kingdom to the common person by hiding this key. It wasn't a physical key.
The key to the kingdom was the knowledge of the gospel. Jesus said "If you know the truth it will set you free, and you shall be free indeed."
The key is the gospel. That alone will set you free. Later he gave that same "key" to all the apostles. It was the message of the gospel and passed on to every believer, every person that has ever received Christ as Savior.

Well we are going to have to disagree. Clearly the Keys represented a teaching authority in that holding keys themselve symbolized an authority as we discover in Isaiah 22. Note Jesus doesn't tell Peter he gives him the Key meaning the as in your assertion about the key of knowledge but specifically mentions the Keys as in the Keys of authority. We see the use of Keys in this plural manner showing authority also in Rev 1:18 as in Christ has authority over heaven and hell. Clearly this is how the Jews viewed authority of Keys as that of a teaching authority. Just like binding and Loosing was commonly held among Jews to mean forbid and permit certain practices. So in the context of the time Jesus was speaking with Jewish listeners they would have immediately understood what is implied is the teaching authority which is first singled out in Peter. If Jesus didn't have a special role for Peter with regard to teaching authority and binding and loosing of practices there would never have been a seen in Matthew of this being specific to Peter. The fact the other apostles were generally mentioned later confers this to the teaching authority of the Church lead by Peter.

 

[DFG]

If you're going to debate church history with me, at least be honest. No Baptist individual or church ever persecuted or murdered anyone for their religious beliefs.

Justin Martyr was born in Samaritan Palestine about 100 A.D. He converted to Christianity about 130 A.D. and was martyred under Marcus Aurelius for defending Christianity.

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

Redirect...

You are setting up a strawman arguement. I didn't say that Baptist killed anyone for their beliefs not once. Well at least not the present day model of baptist which is an amalgamation of differing reformed influences. What I did say in response to this Statement of yours Was 1) it wasn't the Church that was responsible for massacre your cited with The Piedmont Easter rather the Civil Authority who was not the church but a regional leader. 2) and that Baptist have a history that is not innocent of as you say it as baptist have certainly tortured and murdered other Christians (note I didn't say for their faith, Non the less they tortured and murdered with the full backing of their local churches). I then pointed to the wide acceptance of Slavery by the Southern Baptist (which many were tortured and hung for various reasons) and the trail of tears acknowledging that both African American slaves were Christian as well as the Cherokee Natives. Thus it can be said baptist did kill torture and kill other christians though not for their faith. My third point 3) was that we can no more tie the bad behavoir of this duke to the Catholic Church than we can of baptist belief to those who participated in slavery or or the trail of tears despite the wide support from their local churches. Though of course the difference is that the Catholic Church is a singular institution where as each baptist church is an institution of itself. Still can I say the fundementals which form baptist faith and doctrine lead to these attrocities? No. But neither can I say the Duke acted in accordance with Catholic Teaching.


indeed I am If your argument is they acted independently apart from their faith then this is no different than the argument I've proposed regarding the civil authorities who killed these protestants. The only difference is that where one is a mob (munster) and the other is a civil authority (The Duke). Both belied the teachings of their faith but to include one to be fair must include the other.



A little reforemed history here? First of all you haven't properly Identified "state church" and how that opperates. Where a king who holds to a faith believes they must protect that faith with in their territory thus a Catholic King will seek to root out heresy (protestant) in a manner they see fit. OR a protestant King (or Queen as in Elizabeth) will seek to root out heresey (catholic) as they see fit. The Church itself apart from the civil authorities is not involved execpt as a Clergy member may be involved in an advisory roll whose advise often wasn't taken or else you had corrupt a clergy member. But this is true in both camps as we can see how things played out in Europe. This is not reflective of the teachings of faith and morals. Catholics btw in the United States were just as invested in not only the fight for independence but ensuring that the State didn't impose itself upon religeous practices as well as were other faiths to inlcude those you mentioned. As we can see that the first three original states that provided for religious tolleration were Pennsylvania (thanks to William Penn a Quaker), Maryland (pedominately Catholic), and Virginia. And interesting to note before the Revolutionary War Catholic Maryland passed the Toleration Act in 1649 allowing for religious liberty which later was to be taken away by Puritans who leaving Anglican Virginia revolted against Maryland leadership. However, once the Catholics again took control they re-enacted the toleration act in 1658.

While I know why topics like the one you,Thomas and DHK are discussing ARE related to the issue of to be/or not to be a Catholic in light of Walters current testimony, the value of drawing out this much "detail" about it is questionable in this thread. (Even if it IS interesting) Maybe another thread in the Church History forum would be more appropriate and valuable. My only contribution to this topic would be to suggest that EVERYBODY prayerfully read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" if you haven't already. Any doubts I had about the character and nature of Popery were completely quashed by my tearful trip through those pages. We have suffered NOTHING by comparison in this country.....YET. But this world and satan himself are not done with their "crimes against God" spree just yet. Even so,come Lord Jesus! My personal OPINION is that, in this context, maybe we (and Walter) would be better served by more of a focus on discussing the doctrinal distinctives that make one either a Baptist (since this IS the BB) or a Catholic (which is what our friend Walter is about to become). If we believe him to be in error in his pursuit then, with compassion and truth we should try to show him why He should reconsider from sound instruction from the Word of God. Think about it folks.JMHO

Bro.Gregraying:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have the nerve to accuse me of propaganda when you're a member of the biggest propaganda machine in Christian history? What I have stated are the facts -- no misleading at all; rather, the pure unadulterated historical facts. Catholics have always tried to obscure and deny facts by spewing propaganda.

Is Statement by you: "you're a member of the biggest propaganda machine in Christian history" is not a "fact" as you call it. It is an assertion. And it seems as though you take assertions for "facts" which may indicate why you're having a problem with your historical review. You taken the same approach to debate as the Modern Media which is to say Assertion = Fact. Therefore providing no facts rather an assertion I can certainly say you are misleading. Your only attempt at using a fact which was to say a Duke committed an attrocity and say it was the Catholic Church that did it. No it was that Duke that did it. Not the Catholic Church.

In state churches, the state was the political arm of the church; the church was the religious arm of the state, and they acted in concert.

This shows your ignorance of how things worked. The state was its own political arm. What you find in history is often State leaders wanted to dictate things to the Church. The Catholic Church only had ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The best that can be said of the Church at that time is that they had influence on states but not direct control. What you don't understand of history is when a Bishop would die a noble would take control of that bishops property and often time assign bishops of their own choosing. The State has always attempted to hold more control over the Church than the Church the State.

Again not misleading but the absolute truth. Infant baptism was a state church practice; the free churches didn't believe in it. Infant baptism was a pillar of the state churches; it was used to keep the people loyal members of both. The free church people were persecuted, tortured, and murdered for refusing to have their babies baptized, and their believers' baptism was taunted and parodied in their murder by drowning. My purpose is not to inflame but enlighten with the historical facts and truth about the murderous Satanic state churches.

This certainly is not an absolute truth. I've read through many historical documents and no State government has been founded upon infant baptism. This is pure nonsense. And it makes obvious to the reader that you aren't aware of the real issues of the time. The nobles killed people they deemed to be heretics in their lands to preserve their faith. Infant Baptism has been practice long before any government even recognized Christians as an acceptable religion. What you don't understand about the Catholic view of Baptism is that we hold it as a covenant between God and Man similar to circumcision as it says in Col 2

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism

If you had read the other threads, you would have seen me defending Catholics there. But I will condemn what needs to be condemned, and state church murders need to be condemned -- Catholic and Protestant. Never studied history? Ha! The joke is on you, pal. You must have also missed the post where I said I had a doctorate in humanities with a concentration in church history and theology. You are the propagandist here, not I.

Well, I haven't seen your other threads. And though I don't agree will actions a lot of Catholics did in the past I attempt to put the blame right where it belongs. On the Monarch and Nobles and individual Clergy members where they are to be blamed includng some Popes. This however doesn't affect the Church's teaching on faith and Morals. There have been bad baptist leaders as well which does not reflect on baptist beliefs.. And though I am impressed with your degrees it worries that what you have purported as fact is nothing more than biased approach to history. It conserns me because it seems you with your education have ignored some simple facts of history. Tell me was Catholicism created by Constantine? Did Constantine create the "Church State"? Your answers to these will be very telling. And as far as me being the protagonist here. I tell you that I am not. I am answering your assertions which by definition takes me out of the protagonist roll as one defending.

 

[DHK]

Well we are going to have to disagree. Clearly the Keys represented a teaching authority in that holding keys themselve symbolized an authority as we discover in Isaiah 22.

Nowhere does Jesus reference Isaiah 22. Therefore your interpretation is false.

Note Jesus doesn't tell Peter he gives him the Key meaning the as in your assertion about the key of knowledge but specifically mentions the Keys as in the Keys of authority.

Your interpretation; your opinion; doesn't make it right.

We see the use of Keys in this plural manner showing authority also in Rev 1:18 as in Christ has authority over heaven and hell.

Only the gospel can give one entrance into heaven.
Only the gospel can deliver one from hell.
Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with the gospel and is totally irrelevant. Jesus never referred to it, but he did refer to the gospel.

Clearly this is how the Jews viewed authority of Keys as that of a teaching authority. Just like binding and Loosing was commonly held among Jews to mean forbid and permit certain practices.

The binding and loosing that Jesus referred to was strictly in the context of church discipline. Look it up.

So in the context of the time Jesus was speaking with Jewish listeners they would have immediately understood what is implied is the teaching authority which is first singled out in Peter. If Jesus didn't have a special role for Peter with regard to teaching authority and binding and loosing of practices there would never have been a seen in Matthew of this being specific to Peter. The fact the other apostles were generally mentioned later confers this to the teaching authority of the Church lead by Peter.

The Jews knew exactly what Jesus meant, had they been listening to him.
Compare Scripture with Scripture:

Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key of knowledge is now the gospel. In order to enter into heaven and avoid entering into hell one must know the gospel and apply it to their lives. Salvation is through Christ alone.
The Pharisees hid the message of salvation from the people; in fact it seems as if they didn't understand it themselves. They had condemned themselves to hell. Jesus never refers to Isaiah 22, but he does refer to the key of knowledge--the gospel--the way of entering into heaven.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

While I know why topics like the one you,Thomas and DHK are discussing ARE related to the issue of to be/or not to be a Catholic in light of Walters current testimony, the value of drawing out this much "detail" about it is questionable in this thread. (Even if it IS interesting) Maybe another thread in the Church History forum would be more appropriate and valuable. My only contribution to this topic would be to suggest that EVERYBODY prayerfully read "Fox's Book of Martyrs" if you haven't already. Any doubts I had about the character and nature of Popery were completely quashed by my tearful trip through those pages. We have suffered NOTHING by comparison in this country.....YET. But this world and satan himself are not done with their "crimes against God" spree just yet. Even so,come Lord Jesus! My personal OPINION is that, in this context, maybe we (and Walter) would be better served by more of a focus on discussing the doctrinal distinctives that make one either a Baptist (since this IS the BB) or a Catholic (which is what our friend Walter is about to become). If we believe him to be in error in his pursuit then, with compassion and truth we should try to show him why He should reconsider from sound instruction from the Word of God. Think about it folks.JMHO

Bro.Gregraying:

You are absolutely correct. I do get caught up in these details. Maybe Helwys will start a new thread regarding history.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Nowhere does Jesus reference Isaiah 22. Therefore your interpretation is false.

Your interpretation; your opinion; doesn't make it right.

Only the gospel can give one entrance into heaven.
Only the gospel can deliver one from hell.
Isaiah 22 has nothing to do with the gospel and is totally irrelevant. Jesus never referred to it, but he did refer to the gospel.

The binding and loosing that Jesus referred to was strictly in the context of church discipline. Look it up.

The Jews knew exactly what Jesus meant, had they been listening to him.
Compare Scripture with Scripture:

Luk_11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

The key of knowledge is now the gospel. In order to enter into heaven and avoid entering into hell one must know the gospel and apply it to their lives. Salvation is through Christ alone.
The Pharisees hid the message of salvation from the people; in fact it seems as if they didn't understand it themselves. They had condemned themselves to hell. Jesus never refers to Isaiah 22, but he does refer to the key of knowledge--the gospel--the way of entering into heaven.

I can answer all your points by pointing out one simple problem with your interpretaton. Look what you are refering to

the key of knowledge

Jesus didn't say key of knowledge or even key but Keys and if you go to Luke 11 you see that Jesus is dressing down the entire authority structure because it was viewed that the Pharisses, scribes, and lawyers were authoritative teachers. So Jesus isn't speaking to Peter about the Key of Knowledge of the Keys of Heaven. Which we can see referrenced as authority such as in Is. and Rev. Unless you purport Jesus was confused about plural and singular words.

 

[DHK]

What you find in history is often State leaders wanted to dictate things to the Church. The Catholic Church only had ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The best that can be said of the Church at that time is that they had influence on states but not direct control.

There is little difference.
History shows that any church state, of whatever religion it is, takes away the liberty of others, and even persecutes others. This was sadly true of England's history. Britain's "Bloody Queen Mary of Tudor" was well known for her persecution of Baptists and others that were not Catholic. She was a zealous Catholic. Of course the Pope or the leaders of the RCC would not stand in the way of her murderous ways but rather promoted it.
Baptists were also persecuted by the Church of England when it was in power.
Calvin persecuted others when he set up a "church-state" in Geneva.
Those missionaries that go to nations where Sharia law is imposed by Islam are certain to face persecution because of the same "church state" concept. There is no tolerance for freedom of religion. The religion dictates what the government should do. And so it was under the government of England, and in many other nations. The Pope can be held directly responsible for the nations actions.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As to your second question, I can respond that Christ died for me. Beyond that, I don't really want to get into a Calvinism-v-Arminianism debate - there's far too much of that already on these boards!

Matt,

your misinterpreting my question here. I dont really give a fig about the C vs A thing that obsesses so many & I aint trying to draw you into it. If Christ died for you then should have experiences being born from above by this point right? Or is that whats missing? True conversion!!!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is little difference.

Contrarily I think the difference is greater than you think.

History shows that any church state, of whatever religion it is, takes away the liberty of others, and even persecutes others.

Certainly history shows where a monarch or a state tries to enforce their will upon the free practice of religion with in their realm abuses occur.

This was sadly true of England's history. Britain's "Bloody Queen Mary of Tudor" was well known for her persecution of Baptists and others that were not Catholic. She was a zealous Catholic. Of course the Pope or the leaders of the RCC would not stand in the way of her murderous ways but rather promoted it.

I don't think the Church spoke to the specific issue of Queen Mary's bloody purge. Save to say about her that

Mary... it seems on the whole probable that in her conscientious but misguided zeal for the peace of the Church, she was herself principally responsible for them

Baptists were also persecuted by the Church of England when it was in power.
Calvin persecuted others when he set up a "church-state" in Geneva.
Those missionaries that go to nations where Sharia law is imposed by Islam are certain to face persecution because of the same "church state" concept. There is no tolerance for freedom of religion.

Which matches what I said in the begining.

The religion dictates what the government should do. And so it was under the government of England, and in many other nations. The Pope can be held directly responsible for the nations actions.

Whether Christian or Muslim People are responsible for their own actions. The Pope cannot be directly responsible for something another person chooses to do. Was Jesus responsible when Peter cut off the guards ear?

 

[DHK]

Was Jesus responsible when Peter cut off the guards ear?

Wait until Jesus rules from David's Throne on this earth as King of kings. He will rule with a rod of iron. Perfect justice will be carried out throughout all nations.

 

[Bro. James]

Going back to the concept of keys: Jesus delegated keys and the authority to use them in Mt. 16 and 28. The real bone of contention is: who got the keys and who has them today??

If the apostle Peter got the keys and handed the authority down through the so-called Holy See/ Pontifex Maximus even through today, the RCC is the only authorized version. Anyone else is without authority--they are usurpers. This includes all those who would reform Rome. Henry VIII was not trying to reform anything--he started his own thing--without authority--maybe he dubbed himself. The descendents of Canterbury, while somewhat diminished in numbers still survive on both sides of the pond, probably not with a large amount of due benevolence towards each other.

Who is authorized? If the RCC got it the reformers are usurpers. If the RCC did not get the keys, the reformers are still unauthorized since they came out of Rome who has no keys from the gitgo.

Enter stage left: Joseph Smith, Jr. He claims to have had an apparition and a revelation directly from God. Joseph was informed that all churches had fallen away and a new priesthood and church would be established through Joseph Smith. There are some 13 million people who still believe what Smith testified.

Now everyone should be a mormon.

Leave the question on the floor: Who is authorized to carry out Jesus commands?

Clue: Behold the Bride, the Lamb's Wife.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James