Roman Catholicism , cult or not?

[D28guy]

riverm,

"Sola Scriptura FAILS,"

Let me try once more to explain to you why Gods truth regarding what we call "sola scriptura" works so beautifully.

Using the arminians and calvinists as one example, they have some different convictions...as God clearly tells us will happen...regarding how some aspects of Gods salvation works itself out.

But, both of them are turning to the same...unchanging...truth standard...as the source of their convictions.

By argueing their convictions...a very healthy thing to do...they hold each other accountable to the same unchanging standard of truth.

Gods scriptures.

Because of the arminians vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the calvinists from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

Likewise, Because of the calvinists vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the arminians from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

The same could be said regarding the fundamentalists vs the pentecostals...as one other example.

All of these folks are brothers and sisters and are members of Christs one body here on earth. There are not in the least bit enemies, but rather family members. Brothers and sisters.

Their differing convictions are ordained of God...Romans 14 and others...and because of the sola scriptura approach God has placed into His one body a wonderful "checks and balances" system.

Its a beautiful thing.

And as a result you can read the history books and find that there have always been pockets of true believers all through the centuries, and they bear a striking resemblance to evangelicalism and penetecostalism of today.

And that is no surprise...for they all were turning to the same unchanging truth standard.

(At least until they were killed by the Catholic Church.)

Now, on the other hand, in the dysfunctional world of the Catholic Church, there is absolutly no "checks and balances" system in place. Nobody can hold their teaching up against the word of God and hold them accountable to Gods unchanging truth standard.

They are commanded to never do that! The hierarchy is answerable to nobody, and can never be corrected or held accountable to Gods truth standard.

And as a result?...in cotrast to the non-catholics through the centures...one finds the Catholic "development of doctrine" to be an absolute mess. What the Catholics were commanded to believe in the 4th century was different than what they were to believe in the 6th. It was different in the 10th and then different in the 12th, 15th, 18th and 20th centuries.

But the thing that is constant through the centuries is that the Catholic Church has no checks and balances system in place, and nobody can hold them accountable to Gods truth standard.

So...what do we find?

Its no suprise. Idolatry, heresy, blashphemy, paganisn, and superstition has been multiplying exponentially...completly unchecked and unhindered...for literaly centuries.

No "checks and balances" system.

No accountability.

No unchanging truth standard.

No sola scriptura.

How I wish you guys could get a grip on this. It is essential. It is primary. It is Gods "checks and balances system"

Ignoring it leads to complete chaos and an overflow of falseness and idolatries.

Very sadly,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Jacob Dahlen:
Roman Catholics are not even true catholics....

Welcome to the board, my raskolnik (if I may call you that!) brother in the Lord!

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"3. But that good works after and as a result of faith do have soteriological merit, following James, as a fruit of that faith?"

No.

They have absolutly (((zero))) soteriological merit whatsoever.

We are justified in God sight through faith alone in Christ. Romans teaches it. Galaciens teaches it. Ephesians teaches it. Jesus taught it. And James teaches it.

</font>[/QUOTE]Then why does James say that they do and that faith, divorced from those works, is dead and non-salvific?

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Eliyahu:
Matt,
That is what I wanted to discuss with you, because you are there.
As you know, PB started there in UK and Ireland. As I mentioned we don't like to be called PB as 1 Cor 1:11-16 disapproves the denominations. But people call us like that. Now the assemblies were split in general since the issue of Newton and JN Darby. George Mueller tried to intermediate there, but the split continued as we have the same split even in Canada since around 1926. I attend Open Gospel Chapel, but which is relatively conservative in Ontario, and have some good fellowship with closed assemblies, Gospel Halls too.
I hope you can have a chance to visit some of the assemblies there which I believe maintain both the truth and the rituals, while the most Protestant churches relatively ignore the rituals like Supper and Head Covering, etc.
Some eminent figures are CH McIntosh, George Muller, Robert Chapman, Eric Sauer(German), David Livingstone( Africa), Hudson Taylor(Inland Missionary China), Harry Ironside, William McDonald, Recently Art Farstad translated NKJV and compiled Majority Texts,Sir Robert Anderson etc.
I met some brother from Northern Ireland who preached here in Toronto. I notice the discussion on Internet has a limitation, while the visit and personal discussion can exchange quite frank opinions and testimonies. I cannot tell many part of my personal testimonies for myself here. But my personal exchange of the testimonies include a lot of experiences and that's why I recommend you to pay a visit to an assembly there. I think J N Darby is a great man but disagree with him on dispensationalism, etc. It is OK to me as I don't expect one can agree with the other on all the issues.
One typical aspect of PB may be weekly Bread Taking and Wine sharing.

I am familiar with Brethren Meetings; my wife's family are Exclusive Brethren of the Raven-Taylor-Frost variety. I would describe your Meeting as Open Brethren.

Incidentally, I would say that the Brethren use 'tradition' in the same way as RCs, the difference being that their tradition goes back to the 1820s as opposed to the RCs which goes back to the 1st century AD. My in-laws' shelves are stacked full of books by the Brethren equivalent of the Early Church Fathers (although of course they would vehemently deny the comparison!), often known by their initials: John Nelson Darby ('JND'), Frederick Raven ('FER'), Mr Coates ('CAC'), and James Taylor Senior ('JTS') (it all went horribly wrong with the latter's son of course but that's another story). This tradition doesn't quite amount to "all Scripture must be interpreted according to the teaching of these Brothers" but it does create the presuppositions with which Brethren approach and interpret Scripture.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
riverm,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Sola Scriptura FAILS,"

Let me try once more to explain to you why Gods truth regarding what we call "sola scriptura" works so beautifully.

Using the arminians and calvinists as one example, they have some different convictions...as God clearly tells us will happen...regarding how some aspects of Gods salvation works itself out.

But, both of them are turning to the same...unchanging...truth standard...as the source of their convictions.

By argueing their convictions...a very healthy thing to do...they hold each other accountable to the same unchanging standard of truth.

Gods scriptures.

Because of the arminians vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the calvinists from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

Likewise, Because of the calvinists vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the arminians from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

The same could be said regarding the fundamentalists vs the pentecostals...as one other example.

All of these folks are brothers and sisters and are members of Christs one body here on earth. There are not in the least bit enemies, but rather family members. Brothers and sisters.

Their differing convictions are ordained of God...Romans 14 and others...and because of the sola scriptura approach God has placed into His one body a wonderful "checks and balances" system.

Its a beautiful thing.

</font>[/QUOTE]Erm...except it's a bit different from how you describe it, isn't it, Mike? Far from being 'checks and balances' these various sects anathematise each other vigorously in terms that make those of Trent seem mealy-mouthed in comparison, don't they? (Except you didn't read my link to the Synod of Dort, did you? That's a perfect example of what I'm taking about.) These are not 'checks and balances', these are mutually exclusive soteriological positions (monergist - v- synergist) which strike at the heart of Who God Is: the Calvinist God loves selectively and the Calvinist Jesus has only died for some people selectively, whereas the Arminian God loves all and the Arminian Jesus has died for all; here you have two different Gods and two different Jesus's.

I'd say that was a considerably greater problem than whether we are saved by 'faith alone' or 'faith+the Spirit working through us'. And guess what the cause of that problem is: step forward sola Scriptura!

 

[Eliyahu]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am familiar with Brethren Meetings; my wife's family are Exclusive Brethren of the Raven-Taylor-Frost variety. I would describe your Meeting as Open Brethren.

Incidentally, I would say that the Brethren use 'tradition' in the same way as RCs, the difference being that their tradition goes back to the 1820s as opposed to the RCs which goes back to the 1st century AD. My in-laws' shelves are stacked full of books by the Brethren equivalent of the Early Church Fathers (although of course they would vehemently deny the comparison!), often known by their initials: John Nelson Darby ('JND'), Frederick Raven ('FER'), Mr Coates ('CAC'), and James Taylor Senior ('JTS') (it all went horribly wrong with the latter's son of course but that's another story). This tradition doesn't quite amount to "all Scripture must be interpreted according to the teaching of these Brothers" but it does create the presuppositions with which Brethren approach and interpret Scripture. [/QB]

Actually I was not familiar with Raven or Taylor, Coates. The representative writers may be JND, CH McIntosh for his commentary on Pentateuch, Harry Ironside, Erich Sauer, William McDonald who is still alive in US, John Richie and son. There are some famous hymn writers like Joseph Scrivener who wrote " What a friend we have in Jesus" and James Deck who wrote many worship songs. PB respects the importance of Lord's Supper, Head Covering, Plural Eldership, calling Brothers and Sisters, Baptism by immersion. However, those traditions are found in the Bible easily and if they find anything wrong with a view to Bible, they are ready to correct them. Relatively they are focused on Dispensationalism which I disagree. A certain mild (or relative) dispensationalism may be quite true according to the Bible, while absolute dispensationalism mislead to the wrong interpretation of eschatology etc.
Importance is to check their acutal lives through the testimony and such can be found from Robert Chapman.

 

[Matt Black]

The 'Brethren ECFs' to whom I referred above are all, with the exception of JND initially, are Exclusives; if you're Open, you probably won't have heard of them, and I suspect the names you quoted are the OBs' equivalents.

 

[Eliyahu]

William McDonald, yes OB.
But the others were mostly before the split or without specific bias.

This has some lists:

http://www.bruederbewegung.de/personen/biografisches.html

 

[Matt Black]

I just remembered - J B Stoney ('JBS') was another of these blokes.

 

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

I said...

"Let me try once more to explain to you why Gods truth regarding what we call "sola scriptura" works so beautifully.

Using the arminians and calvinists as one example, they have some different convictions...as God clearly tells us will happen...regarding how some aspects of Gods salvation works itself out.

But, both of them are turning to the same...unchanging...truth standard...as the source of their convictions.

By argueing their convictions...a very healthy thing to do...they hold each other accountable to the same unchanging standard of truth.

Gods scriptures.

Because of the arminians vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the calvinists from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

Likewise, Because of the calvinists vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the arminians from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

The same could be said regarding the fundamentalists vs the pentecostals...as one other example.

All of these folks are brothers and sisters and are members of Christs one body here on earth. There are not in the least bit enemies, but rather family members. Brothers and sisters.

Their differing convictions are ordained of God...Romans 14 and others...and because of the sola scriptura approach God has placed into His one body a wonderful "checks and balances" system.

Its a beautiful thing."

And you said...

"Erm...except it's a bit different from how you describe it, isn't it, Mike? Far from being 'checks and balances' these various sects anathematise each other vigorously in terms that make those of Trent seem mealy-mouthed in comparison, don't they?"

Sometimes people go to far, I admit. But those cases are the minority.

(and when brothers and sisters do get a bit too vitriolic regarding those they disagree with, we dont round them up and give them a dose of the old torture chamber, or round them all up and murder them by the thousands as the Catholic Church spent several hundred years doing)

"(Except you didn't read my link to the Synod of Dort, did you? That's a perfect example of what I'm taking about.)"

No I didnt., but if you want me to I'll go back and try and find it. What page was it on?)

"These are not 'checks and balances', these are mutually exclusive soteriological positions (monergist - v- synergist) which strike at the heart of Who God Is: the Calvinist God loves selectively and the Calvinist Jesus has only died for some people selectively, whereas the Arminian God loves all and the Arminian Jesus has died for all; here you have two different Gods and two different Jesus's."

They disagree. There is no problem with that. God told us to expect it. "Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, who are you to judge anothers servant."

I know people on both sides of that issue, and they are in relationship with the same Jesus, they both proclaim the same Jesus, they both acknowledge justification through faith alone, they both articulate the triune nature of God the same way, they both turn only to the scriptures alone as their truth source, they both hold to the same moral teachings found in the scriptures, and they both consider the others to be brothers and sisters in the faith.

"I'd say that was a considerably greater problem than whether we are saved by 'faith alone' or 'faith+the Spirit working through us'."

Hogwash. Both the arminians and the calvinists are proclaiming the same Jesus and the same gospel. The saving gospel. When I was lost I encountered arminians, calvinists, fundamentalists, and pentecostals who all shared the gospel with me.

I heard the same gospel from all of them.

Proclaiming that one is justified through works is a false gospel.

"And guess what the cause of that problem is: step forward sola Scriptura!"

Sola scriptura is the solution, not the problem.

Again...the evidence:

Sola scriptura...error is kept in check through Gods checks and balances system.

Catholic Church...1600 or so years of blasphemy, idolatry, false teaching, superstition and paganism flowing freely, unchecked, for century after century.

God bless,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
These are not 'checks and balances', these are mutually exclusive soteriological positions (monergist - v- synergist) which strike at the heart of Who God Is: the Calvinist God loves selectively and the Calvinist Jesus has only died for some people selectively, whereas the Arminian God loves all and the Arminian Jesus has died for all; here you have two different Gods and two different Jesus's.

I'd say that was a considerably greater problem than whether we are saved by 'faith alone' or 'faith+the Spirit working through us'. And guess what the cause of that problem is: step forward sola Scriptura!

You have the same problem raging right within the Catholic Church Matt. Are you a Calvinist or an Arminian? Care to elaborate? Before you do let me give you some background and relevant quotes:

Calvinism did not originate with John Calvin. It came from the Catholic superstar "St Augustine." Here is what Calvin said about Augustine:

Concerning John Calvin’s spiritual education Calvin said, “Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I would do so with all fullness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings” (John Calvin—“The Eternal Predestination of God”). ("Calvinism" by B. Kirkland D.D.)

And Augustine's belief concerning the Catholic Church:

Augustine said, “The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ…Outside of this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one.”

Calvinism is Augustinianism. Do you believe in all the tenets of Calvin as he did? He got them from Augustine, one of the foremonst Catholic theologians and leaders--an extreme "Calvinist." Do all Catholics believe this way? I am fairly sure that you have the same problem in the Catholic Church, but most Catholics don't know what they believe on such an issue because they don't think issues through. They sit there in the pews mindlessly taking in whatever the little homilies the priest gives them (which isn't much).
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Matt Black,

I said...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"Let me try once more to explain to you why Gods truth regarding what we call "sola scriptura" works so beautifully.

Using the arminians and calvinists as one example, they have some different convictions...as God clearly tells us will happen...regarding how some aspects of Gods salvation works itself out.

But, both of them are turning to the same...unchanging...truth standard...as the source of their convictions.

By argueing their convictions...a very healthy thing to do...they hold each other accountable to the same unchanging standard of truth.

Gods scriptures.

Because of the arminians vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the calvinists from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

Likewise, Because of the calvinists vigorously sharing their convictions, from the scriptures, they serve to prevent the arminians from going too far, and becoming extreme and out of balance.

The same could be said regarding the fundamentalists vs the pentecostals...as one other example.

All of these folks are brothers and sisters and are members of Christs one body here on earth. There are not in the least bit enemies, but rather family members. Brothers and sisters.

Their differing convictions are ordained of God...Romans 14 and others...and because of the sola scriptura approach God has placed into His one body a wonderful "checks and balances" system.

Its a beautiful thing."

And you said...

"Erm...except it's a bit different from how you describe it, isn't it, Mike? Far from being 'checks and balances' these various sects anathematise each other vigorously in terms that make those of Trent seem mealy-mouthed in comparison, don't they?"

Sometimes people go to far, I admit. But those cases are the minority.

(and when brothers and sisters do get a bit too vitriolic regarding those they disagree with, we dont round them up and give them a dose of the old torture chamber, or round them all up and murder them by the thousands as the Catholic Church spent several hundred years doing)

"(Except you didn't read my link to the Synod of Dort, did you? That's a perfect example of what I'm taking about.)"

No I didnt., but if you want me to I'll go back and try and find it. What page was it on?) </font>[/QUOTE]I honestly can't remember so here it is again: Canons of Dort

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"These are not 'checks and balances', these are mutually exclusive soteriological positions (monergist - v- synergist) which strike at the heart of Who God Is: the Calvinist God loves selectively and the Calvinist Jesus has only died for some people selectively, whereas the Arminian God loves all and the Arminian Jesus has died for all; here you have two different Gods and two different Jesus's."

They disagree. There is no problem with that. God told us to expect it. "Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, who are you to judge anothers servant."

I know people on both sides of that issue, and they are in relationship with the same Jesus, they both proclaim the same Jesus, they both acknowledge justification through faith alone, they both articulate the triune nature of God the same way, they both turn only to the scriptures alone as their truth source, they both hold to the same moral teachings found in the scriptures, and they both consider the others to be brothers and sisters in the faith.</font>[/QUOTE]I don't see how this can be since they hold to contradictory theologies as referred to in my earlier post from which you quote. Why do you think the Calvinism/ Arminianism forum here was closed?

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"I'd say that was a considerably greater problem than whether we are saved by 'faith alone' or 'faith+the Spirit working through us'."

Hogwash. Both the arminians and the calvinists are proclaiming the same Jesus and the same gospel. The saving gospel. </font>[/QUOTE]Bzzzt! Wrong! Nice try but incorrect,as demonstrated by my previous post.

Proclaiming that one is justified through works is a false gospel.

Indeed. But I don't think anyone here is proclaiming that.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"And guess what the cause of that problem is: step forward sola Scriptura!"

Sola scriptura is the solution, not the problem.

Again...the evidence:

Sola scriptura...error is kept in check through Gods checks and balances system.

Catholic Church...1600 or so years of blasphemy, idolatry, false teaching, superstition and paganism flowing freely, unchecked, for century after century.

</font>[/QUOTE]Only according to your personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Sola scriptura is the solution, not the problem.

Again...the evidence:

Sola scriptura...error is kept in check through Gods checks and balances system.

Catholic Church...1600 or so years of blasphemy, idolatry, false teaching, superstition and paganism flowing freely, unchecked, for century after century.

[/QUOTE

Only according to your personal interpretation of Scripture.

What has the verifiable reputation of the Catholic Church, as read through any reliable encyclopedia, got to do with sola scriptura. Their doctrines havee changed. Bible-believing Christians have been persecuted for their faith. The Inquistions and the Crusades did take place. These are the facts of history. And more recently there has been the great cover up of pedophiles first in America, and right not in Ireland. And yet you claim that this is God's representative church on this earth. Astounding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is your red herring. And a pretty obvious one at that.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, you asked me whether I am Calvinist or Arminian. To my mind, that's far too much of a Western rationalist/ modernist question and it seeks to pin God down into little boxes. Suffice it to say that I believe that God's sovereignty is far more powerful than that of Man (infinite being -v- finite being etc) and that both faith and the post-faith works to which I and the Catholics refer are primarily the initiative and 'works' of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless I am synergist rather than monergist. I tend to leave it at that rather than vainly try to plumb the depths of this soteriological mystery further.

You mention Augustine. Don't forget that Augustine was struggling with the error of Pelagianism - salvation by works - and that he and the Catholic Church condemned this and indeed semi-Pelagianism (ironic, considering that the Catholic Church has condemned the very thing you and others accuse it of teaching, wouldn't you say?). In reacting to Pelagius, he did sometimes overreact and stray into what amounted to monergism; but even he acknowledged the role of the human will in saving faith, something which both Calvin (and certainly his successor Beza) and to a lesser extent Luther neglected to glean from Augustine's teachings. For this reason - and, I suspect, his over-rationalised soteriology - he is virtually ignored by the Eastern Church and therefore is not regarded as an ECF by the whole Church.

That's what I think. If you want to know what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue, here are a couple of quotes from the Catechism:

Man's freedomand Grace and Justification. From the latter, the following is noteworthy:-

2001 The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, "since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it:"50


Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.51
2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:


If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52
2003 Grace is first and foremost the gift of the Spirit who justifies and sanctifies us. But grace also includes the gifts that the Spirit grants us to associate us with his work, to enable us to collaborate in the salvation of others and in the growth of the Body of Christ, the Church. There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments. There are furthermore special graces, also called charisms after the Greek term used by St. Paul and meaning "favor," "gratuitous gift," "benefit."53 Whatever their character - sometimes it is extraordinary, such as the gift of miracles or of tongues - charisms are oriented toward sanctifying grace and are intended for the common good of the Church. They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.54 (Italics mine)

The italicised quotes in particular indicate that, whilst the Catholic Church acknowledges the leading role of the Holy Spirit in both salvation and sanctification, it regards both in a synergistic rather than Calvinist manner.

 

[Eliyahu]

One thing I would add on Sola Scriptura is that Bible has all the answers to our questions and to encourgement of our faith. If not, we don't need to know any more than that.

Another thing about the faith alone, Sola Fide is that it doesn't mean that we don't behave properly according to the commandments, but that the works and the good behavior follows the faith, Sola Fide. Once we have the true faith in Jesus, our lives are changed, and therefore fruits follow the faith. If there is no change of life and works even after so-called salvation by faith, such person must examine himself or herself to see whether such person was really saved, as we read 2 Cor 13:5. So, Epistle James and Romans are 2 different sides of one paper. The starting point of the changes come from the faith. Some people misunderstand themselves are saved and therefore it is high time to pursue the good works now, but their faith was merely based on the mental understanding or human recognition without the involvement of Holy Spirit. My life was like that even though I had been attending the churches and was baptized, before I was actually born again. After the Salvation, there has been the Sprining Well in my heart all the time. This question remains not only in RC but also in many of Protestants.
So, I return to the words in Matt 11:25-30.

 

[Matt Black]

You're pretty much on all fours with the Catholics there...

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Blackactually it was Mike who posted this next bit, not me)
Sola scriptura is the solution, not the problem.

Again...the evidence:

Sola scriptura...error is kept in check through Gods checks and balances system.

Catholic Church...1600 or so years of blasphemy, idolatry, false teaching, superstition and paganism flowing freely, unchecked, for century after century.

[/QUOTE

This is my reply: Only according to your personal interpretation of Scripture.

DHK: What has the verifiable reputation of the Catholic Church, as read through any reliable encyclopedia, got to do with sola scriptura. Their doctrines havee changed. Bible-believing Christians have been persecuted for their faith. The Inquistions and the Crusades did take place. These are the facts of history. And more recently there has been the great cover up of pedophiles first in America, and right not in Ireland. And yet you claim that this is God's representative church on this earth. Astounding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</font>

Yeah right, like no other denomination has skeletons in the cupboard - SBC, slavery and the KKK, anyone?

This has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is your red herring. And a pretty obvious one at that.
DHK

Er...which bit is the red herring?

[Did my best to correct DHK's code]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Matt Black:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This has nothing to do with sola scriptura. This is your red herring. And a pretty obvious one at that.
DHK

Er...which bit is the red herring?

[Did my best to correct DHK's code] </font>[/QUOTE]In discussing doctrine such as sola scriptura you referred to historical events. That has nothing to do with doctrine but rather to the RCC's sordid past which pales in compariston to the events (confined to America) that you brought up. Here is only one page in the history of the RCC as documented in the book "A Woman Rides the Beast," by Dave Hunt:

In 1209 [Pope Innocent III] proclaimed a crusade against [them]. Indulgences, such as had been given to the [Holy Land] Crusaders…were now offered to all who would take part in the easier work of destroying the most fruitful provinces of France. This, and the prospect of booty and license of every kind, attracted hundreds of thousands of men. Under the presidence of high clerical dignitaries and led by Simon de Montfort, a military leader of great ability…the most beautiful and cultivated part of Europe at that time was ravaged...33

These simple believers were burned at the stake or slain with the sword (and most of their records were destroyed) when their towns and villages were razed by papal armies. Catholic apologists falsely accuse them of heresies and abominable practices which they denied. The accounts we have of their trials reveal that they held beliefs similar to evangelicals of today. Though some of the worst tales are told about the Cathari, one can only agree with their beliefs as described by Durant:

[They] denied that the [Roman Catholic] Church was the Church of Christ; [declared that] St. Peter had never come to Rome, had never founded the papacy; [and that] the popes were successors to the emperors, not to the apostles. [They taught that] Christ had no place to lay His head, but the pope lived in a palace; Christ was propertyless and penniless, but Christian prelates were rich; surely…these lordly archbishops and bishops, these worldly priests, these fat monks, were the Pharisees of old returned to life! The Roman Church, they were sure, was the Whore of Babylon, the clergy were a Synagogue of Satan the pope was Antichrist. They denounced the preachers of crusades as murderers…laughed at indulgences and relics…the called the churches “dens of thieves” and Catholic priests seemed to them “traitors, liars, and hypocrites.”34

Nineteenth-century Roman Catholic author du Pin writes: “The pope [Innocent III] and the prelates were of opinion that it was lawful to make use of force, to see whether those who were not reclaimed out of sense of their salvation might be so by the fear of punishments, and even of temporal death.” Almost everyone knows that crusades were organized of tens of thousands of knights and foot soldiers to retake Jerusalem from the Muslims. Very few have ever heard that similar crusades involving huge armies were fought against Christians who could not in good conscience submit to Rome. Yet such was the case, beginning with Pope Innocent III. 35
A major crime of these Christians was believing in freedom of conscience and worship—biblical concepts which the popes hated, for such beliefs would put Rome out of business. Though no exact figures are available, the slaughter of these Christians by the popes probably ran into the millions during the thousand years before the Reformation. In the city of Bezeirs alone about 60,000 men, women and children were wiped out in one crusade.36 Innocent III considered the annihilation of these particular heretics the crowning achievement of his papacy! Broadbent writes:

When the town of Beziers was summoned to surrender, the Catholic inhabitants joined with the Dissenters in refusing….The town was taken, and of the tens of thousands who had taken refuge there, none were spared [alive]. 37

33. E.H. Broadbent, “The Pilgrim Church” (London, 1931), pp. 88-89
34. Durant, “op. cit., vol. IV, p. 772.
35. Du Pin, “The Inquisition,” vol. ii, pp. 151-54, cited in R.W. Thompson, “The Papacy and the Civil Power” (New York, 1876), p. 418.
36. R. W. Thompson, “The Papacy and the Civil Power” (New York, 1876), p. 418; see also de Rosa, op. cit., p. 73.
37. Broadbent, op. cit., pp. 88-89.

Of course the first thing you will do will complain about the bias of the author, and try to discredit him. I know that. It is the typical Catholic approach. So I will already state it before you start. That is why I included the foot-notes at the bottom of the quote, all of which are from reliable historians and/or sources.
DHK

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by DHK:
Of course the first thing you will do will complain about the bias of the author, and try to discredit him. I know that. It is the typical Catholic approach. So I will already state it before you start. That is why I included the foot-notes at the bottom of the quote, all of which are from reliable historians and/or sources.
DHK

I’m familiar with Hunt’s material, I was a fundamentalist for almost 30 years and whatever Hunt said was the Gospel. Thing I learned is that one can manipulate and write any material that will portray the subject in any light. I learned that just this past election.

Also, if the no. 34 of the references is the “Durant” that authored the “History of Civilization”, he also wrote some pretty negative things about Christianity in general, like how the early Christians or Catholics developed the idea of the Christian “Trinity” from Pagan Egypt…..and I’m sure you don’t believe that…

Sadly,
Tommy

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by riverm:

Also, if the no. 34 of the references is the “Durant” that authored the “History of Civilization”, he also wrote some pretty negative things about Christianity in general, like how the early Christians or Catholics developed the idea of the Christian “Trinity” from Pagan Egypt…..and I’m sure you don’t believe that…

Sadly,
Tommy

I wouldn't expect a secular historian to get all of his facts right about Christian theology. That's asking a bit much isn't it? Even the Oneness Pentecostals don't have their facts right about the trinity. However, about the events of history, what happened, their chronology, etc. I have no doubt that they are fairly accurate. Because they reflect badly on the Catholic Church is their own doing. The facts of history don't lie. The Catholics love revisionism.
DHK

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:

Also, if the no. 34 of the references is the “Durant” that authored the “History of Civilization”, he also wrote some pretty negative things about Christianity in general, like how the early Christians or Catholics developed the idea of the Christian “Trinity” from Pagan Egypt…..and I’m sure you don’t believe that…

Sadly,
Tommy

I wouldn't expect a secular historian to get all of his facts right about Christian theology. That's asking a bit much isn't it? Even the Oneness Pentecostals don't have their facts right about the trinity. However, about the events of history, what happened, their chronology, etc. I have no doubt that they are fairly accurate. Because they reflect badly on the Catholic Church is their own doing. The facts of history don't lie. The Catholics love revisionism.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]We’ll I haven’t researched the other references, they could all be secular as well, but what makes a secular historian that has access to the same data as anyone else less accurate? Durant is wrong concerning his research about the “Trinity” developed from pagan Egypt, but right about all things Catholic, and I’m not saying that the Catholic Church has been innocent of all charges…Christ said He would protect the Church…that didn’t mean that He’d protect the Church from weeds growing in her…

Just looks bad when you discredit Durant on his research pertaining to certain aspects of the brand of Christianity you practice and hail him as accurate when he rants about the RCC.