Refuting Catholics...Scripture or Chick tracts?

If we were to judge a religion or doctrine solely on the actions of people who claim to adhere to said religion/doctrine then all would stand condemned. The anabaptist have their share of shed blood from the anabaptist revolts in Europe. The Lutherans have RCC and anabaptist blood on their hands. The RCC has anabaptist and Lutheran blood. No one denomination stands innocent. As long as man is involved in any church attrocities will be perpetrated in the name of that church. So why don't we drop the ad hominin attacks based on violence done in the past and actually spend time on things of substance.

 

Yes, any judgment or discernment should be focussed on the individual. But in reality if any one defends a group of murderers in the past, we can only condemn such person as the same group of the sects in the past.

Anabaptists were the victims of Lutheran too. Moreover not all the Anabaptists were fine and good. Satan worked very fast in penetrating Anabaptists as we can see in the case of Munster.

Catholics tried their best to excuse about Inquisition but found no way, then Pope declared that they regret about the past. But the people on this BB are not repenting about that, which means the Repentance by Pope was just a Lip Service.

 

With the possible exception of Briony and jay29, I do not think there are any members of the RCC on this board, so why would you expect any of us to repent of the actions of a group none of us belong to?

I don't think any of us disagrees the inquisition was a horrible travesty. Most of us just doubt the integrity of your sources and your attempts to discredit all of RCC doctrine using these sources and the ad hominims about the inquisition.

Of course, everytime I see the word inquisition I just can't help but think of Mel Brooks.

 

Scripture. God's Word never comes back void. I would use scripture, discuss it, and then (here's the one most fail to do) listen.

As for Chick tracts, I wouldn't even use them for toilet paper. That would be an insult to toilet paper.

 

It's not that simple Chemnitz and it goes beyond an ad hominem against individuals. This is against the wholesale slaughter of people because their faith was not according to the dictates of Rome.

IMO, what you have stated is not the best attitude. It seems to me that to be silent is not in keeping with our responsibility to preach, teach, proclaim the pure gospel of grace without ANY human sacerdotal mediation (priest, pope or any other) but by faith in the one and only high priest the Lord Jesus Christ as revealed in the Word of God.

The pure Gospel of grace OFFENDS in and of itself and those who oppose it move in quickly and attempt to snatch the seed Word out of the hearts of the listeners and silence the preachers.

Historically myriads have been slain by the Church of Rome for those disseminating the Word and those who once freed refuse to return to bondage.

For the most part the "heretics" slain by Rome simply wanted to be left alone but were agressively persecuted and slaughtered by the "religious" both of the priesthood and the laity.

Historically this separation from and rebuke of Rome's error is what the Reformation is/was all about and it is (or should be) ongoing.

This is what the Baptists Distinctives are all about.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.


HankD

 

Monty Python as well, surely?

 

Eliyahu
"groups like Aramaic primacists are neutral but they say that the Priests in the East were called as Canna, and they were worshipping their son gods and Baal and offered the human body and blood too. After the sacrifice, they ate the rest of the human body and drank the blood and they were called Canna-Baal, which eventually became Cannibal.
Even in Egypt the priests lifted up the cookies to their gods, like Osiris, Horus, Isis, in the same way as Holy Roman Catholic priests lift up the cookies and offer them to their goddess, Holy Mother of gods ! Only the labels are changed but the substance of the goddess worship and solar god worship, human body celebration have not changed ! "
"
All of this was made up by one Alexander Hislop in the 19th century for his book The Two Babylons.

 

Sticking with Monty Python,
(edited for personal attack)

[ January 31, 2006, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

I believe that it really is that simple. The teachings of any group should be judged by how accurately they teach the truth of Scripture, not by the actions of the people who supposedly adhere to the teachings.

Sometimes corrupt doctrines lead to oppression such as the Reformed and Roman insistance on church controlled governments.

 

I'd say that source is as reliable as Chick.

cannibal etymology: From Spanish Caníbalis, name (as recorded by Christopher Columbus) of the allegedly cannibalistic Caribs of Cuba and Haiti, from earlier Carib karibna, person, Carib.

(American Heritage Dictionary)

 

And how do I know that you are not the one 'mangling the Scriptures' and the Catholics are?

I guess you need an example too:-

God says:

James 2:24: "You see that a man is justified through what he does and not alone through faith"

You however say something else.

God says one thing and Mike says something else. (Doubtless Mike will now say that the above Scripture is not really God and its interpretation has been 'mangled' by me and the Catholics.)

They can't both be right because they completely contradict each other.

I choose God as being the one who is telling us the truth.

 

But where Scripture contradicts itself - on the face value reading of it - as it does between the passages you have quoted and the passage I quoted, then it can be scarcely said to 'interpret itself'.

Therefore an interpreting authority is absolutely essential.

Now we really are getting somewhere

 

Murderers like Inquisitors are not qualified to interpret the Bible.

The True Believers who are born again in the Lord can interpret the Bible as we read 1 John 2:27, 2 Pet 1:20-21, 2 Tim 2:15.

Therefore anyone who want to present the interpretation of the Bible must present his or her own testimony on the salvation. John Wesley was born again after many years of his service as Anglican priest,on May 24, 1738, Pascal was converted on No 23, 1654, Harry Ironside confessed it, Martin Luther was born againin 1515, 2 years before his work in 1517. Paul had it on the road to Damascus, Chiniquy had it, I had it, hundreds of people whom I know confessed their testimonies.
If anyone continue to murder, he or she would have not had the salvation at all. Any Inquisitors would have not had the salvation at all as we read John 16: 1-3

If there are some conflicting interpretation, it is much easier to resolve the differences as long as the interpreters are born again believers. Sometimes even the different interpretations help each each other.

 

Er...no. Just take a look around on these boards alone and you will see the plethora of conflicting interpretations from the posters here; most of these I am confident are born-again believers like you and I.

So your theory falls to the ground.

Next!

 

You are right to some extent.
That's why I said, many of the people [snip] on this BB are not born again in the Lord.

[ February 01, 2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: Pastor_Bob ]

 

Word Cannibal existed far before Columbus.
Only Spanish Cannibales existed after Columbus.

 

Matt Black: // ... the posters here; most of these I am confident
are born-again believers like you and I.//

Eliyahu: // ... many of the people including you on this BB are
not born again in the Lord.//

Matt Black takes the moral highground and wins this point
of the debate.

The point seems to be:
Saved folks can have variant opinions of Scriptural Truth.

I know for sure, Scripture and Chick Tracts have WIDE VARIANTS
from each other

 

Then I guess you like everybody else in the world is not qualified to interpret scripture. Mt 5

By your own standard you are not qualified to interpret scripture.