The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

[DHK]

I don’t like speaking for others, but my take on DT’s statement to refute your statement of lent was taken from paganism. And I agree with DT, BTW. My view is if even if it could be ‘proven’ lent was of pagan origin, what difference would that really make; as long as the person is fasting or abstaining from something during lent to bring one into a closer relationship with God and His Son leading up to Easter. Even the wedding band on my finger is of pagan origin, but I don’t view it as such.

1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

The principle given here is that when such things are decreed by the church they are doctrines of demons. They are practices based on non-Biblical doctrine, and then decreed by the church such as celibacy and declaring certain foods unlawful to eat.
The same would be true of any church declaring that their members must fast on a certain day or time or period of time. All of Christianity is voluntary. Christianity is a relationship between an individual and Christ. Fasting is an intensely personal decision, the time, place, and reason decided upon by the person fasting. It has nothing to do with the church. Lent is a farce. As was noted it has pagan roots. It goes contrary to the Biblical teaching of what fasting is. It is more akin to what the Muslim doctrine of fasting is. Perhaps the RCC is closer to Islam than it is to Biblical Christianity in this respect.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don’t like speaking for others, but my take on DT’s statement to refute your statement of lent was taken from paganism. And I agree with DT, BTW. My view is if even if it could be ‘proven’ lent was of pagan origin, what difference would that really make; as long as the person is fasting or abstaining from something during lent to bring one into a closer relationship with God and His Son leading up to Easter. Even the wedding band on my finger is of pagan origin, but I don’t view it as such.


No, I still have a lot to learn, but I like the idea of Lent, fasting and the feasts, but I haven’t read about these customs yet, and I’d like my whole family to participate. We’re still emerging from fundamentalism, where we were such romophobics.


Personally I wouldn’t base lent on what Jesus did per say (no food and water), but I would give up something and use that as a focus for improving my relationship with God and His Son through prayer.

Your whole post implies that your religion is rather based on Asceticism, human works decorated with Christian grace!, which is not a new thing, but one of the paganism.

 

[DHK]

Personally I wouldn’t base lent on what Jesus did per say (no food and water), but I would give up something and use that as a focus for improving my relationship with God and His Son through prayer.

I never did take Lent seriously as a kid. Neither did any of my peers. I would give up something like "chewing bubblegum," something that didn't cost, wasn't really a sacrifice. I didn't care about bubble gum in the first place. :laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

Peter?? That is their claim? Do you also believe in the big bang? How about David Koresh or Jim Jones? Are you gullible? Because the Catholic Church claims something is true does that make it true? What has the Catholic Church in common with Peter?
Peter preached the Word of God; the gospel; he preached against the very things that the RCC believes in.
Peter was married and had a wife. Catholic priests don't.
Peter learned from God that all meat was clean and nothing was to be refused.
To this day there are some Catholics that will only eat fish on Friday.
The Catholic Church has nothing in common with Peter; they only think they do.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

You posted as if one should not read/hold to/ teach docrine held by the man from hippo and your reason was that because Catholics held him as a hero. I'm asking based on that logic, and the fact that RCC also holds peter dear, should we also not read/hold to/ teach Peter?????

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

We readily admit that there were heresies that the RCC now holds, and even centers its primary teachings around, before the fourth century...

OK, but then - on the positive side - what pre-4th century writers or documents best expressed the Baptist position?

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Ps104_33, In your OP what do you mean by "demonstratively traceable to the apostolic age"? CA

Ps104_33,

2nd Request.

CA

 

[DHK]

OK, but then - on the positive side - what pre-4th century writers or documents best expressed the Baptist position?

CA

Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine we can logically conclude the apostles and the early churches that the apostles had influence over.

 

[DHK]

What does that have to do with the price of eggs?

You posted as if one should not read/hold to/ teach docrine held by the man from hippo and your reason was that because Catholics held him as a hero. I'm asking based on that logic, and the fact that RCC also holds peter dear, should we also not read/hold to/ teach Peter?????

Yes, teach Peter; teach from what he wrote in the Bible; not what is written about him in RCC tradition; not the fables made up from the RCC; not the misinterpretation of the Scriptures that he is the first Pope, when both Scripture and history teach otherwise. Read and study the Scriptures that Peter wrote and believe them.
The conceptd of what the RCC has about Peter is at odds with what the Bible teaches about Peter.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Since the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine we can logically conclude the apostles and the early churches that the apostles had influence over.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

What writings - between the death of the Apostle John and the rise of Constantine in the 300's - demonstrate which churches that "the apostles had influence over" continued to maintain Baptist doctrine?

CA

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Carpenter's Apprentice:

"... continued to maintain Baptist doctrine?"

GE:

The only thing making sense to me in this clause is the question mark.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Dig deeper. Calvinism didn't originate with Calvin. Calvin took his ideas (almost plagiarized) them from Augustine (one of the devout heroes of the Catholic faith). Calvin almost worshiped Augustine. Augusine was a thorough "Calvinist" if there ever was one. Check you history.

GE;

Yes. And if I remember my history correctly, Augustine was not popular with his own church for this. He also actually LEFT the Roman Catholic church in later age.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ja; Luther was a Roman Catholic priest thoroughly; actually in later age regretted to an extent that he ever left the RCCC.

 

[DHK]

I think that's a reasonable conclusion.

What writings - between the death of the Apostle John and the rise of Constantine in the 300's - demonstrate which churches that "the apostles had influence over" continued to maintain Baptist doctrine?

CA

There are many Baptist history sources available to trace back to the second and third centuries believers that had modern day Baptist doctrine. Here is one or two URL's that can be checked out, primarily dealing with Vedder's, "History of the Baptists."

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/contents.htm

But take a look at what he says in this chapter:

THIS degeneration in the church, whose stages we traced in the preceding chapter, was a gradual process, whose completion occupied several centuries. It did not occur without resistance, determined, prolonged, and frequently renewed. Many attempts were made at a reformation of the church, a return to the simplicity and purity of the apostolic churches. The truth was not totally eclipsed at first, only obscured; from time to time men taught anew the spiritual nature of Christ's church, the necessity of regeneration in order to membership in a church of Christ, salvation by grace and not by sacraments and penances. At times these reactions promised to be successful, but they all in turn failed to effect their object. Some failed by their own inherent weakness, others were suppressed by force, and in the end the Holy Catholic Church triumphed over them all. It is instructive to consider the causes of the partial success and the final failure of these attempts to restore an evangelical Christianity.
The first of these protests against the corrupt teachings and life that had come to be prevalent in the church, even in the second century, was Montanism. Little is positively known about the origin of the Montanists, and even the existence of their reputed founder has been denied. Montanus is said to have been a native of Phrygia, a converted priest of Cybele, and began his teachings about 150. He soon gathered about him many followers, among whom were two women of rank, Maximilla and Priscilla (Prisca), who left their husbands to become evangelists of the new sect, among whom they were soon esteemed prophetesses. The new teaching spread with great rapidity, and for a time met with little opposition. We are more fortunate in regard to the Montanists than in the case of many “heretical” sects, for we are not dependent solely on their Catholic opponents for a knowledge of their teachings; a large part of the writings of Tertullian, their ablest adherent and advocate, are also available for our instruction in this matter. From these and other sources we gather that the characteristic doctrines of Montanism were three.

He describes the rise of the Montanistis, the Donatists, the Novationists. There were other groups as well: the Bogomils, the Petrobrussions, the Waldenses, etc. These were all early groups of Christians outside of the Catholic Church, believing very similar to the way that we do, yet with some differences. There are still many differences between Baptists today. I hope you keep that in mind when examining these several groups.

That URL is
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/ch05.htm

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

...Vedder's, "History of the Baptists."... He describes the rise of the Montanistis, the Donatists, the Novationists. There were other groups as well: the Bogomils, the Petrobrussions, the Waldenses, etc. These were all early groups of Christians outside of the Catholic Church, believing very similar to the way that we do, yet with some differences. There are still many differences between Baptists today. I hope you keep that in mind when examining these several groups. That URL is
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/ch05.htm

Vedder does not appear to subscribe to the 19th century successionist theory that there has always been, from the 1st century on, a visible baptist-like church.

Beginning at paragraph 3 of his introduction, http://www.reformedreader.org/history/vedder/intro.htm "The history of Baptist churches cannot be carried, by the scientific method, farther back than the year 1611... A history of Baptist churches going farther back than the early years of the seventeenth century would, therefore, in the present state of knowledge, be in the highest degree unscientific. The very attempt to write such a history now would be a confession of crass ignorance, either of the facts as known, or of the methods of historical research and the principles of historical criticism, or of both."

Vedder believed that "The church that he said he would build on the rock, to which he guaranteed victory against the gates of hades itself, is not a visible body—that is the great falsehood of Rome—but the assembly of those in all the ages who truly love God and keep the commandments of Christ. Of these there has been an unbroken line, and here is the true apostolic succession—there is no other."

He was, however, equivocal in indicating which early assemblies these might be. Concerning the Montanists in particular Vedder says only that, "Nothing has been said concerning them except what is abundantly proved by their own literature; and every intelligent reader will be able to judge for himself in what respects they held the views of modem Baptists and how far they diverged from what we hold to be the teachings of the Scriptures."

That said, nevertheless, what writings of the Montanistis, Donatists, and Novationists might lead one to believe that they were an early version of Baptist?

CA

 

[DHK]

That said, nevertheless, what writings of the Montanistis, Donatists, and Novationists might lead one to believe that they were an early version of Baptist?
CA

Your profile says that you are a Baptist. You will find many of the answers to these questions in the Baptist History forum, and many good links there to Baptist resource material that will help you with the history of the early believers.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

OK.

Perhaps that might be the place to ask how the Montanists could be considered a precursor to Baptists if, according to Vedder "...no serious aberration from the Catholic faith is alleged against them..."

Thanks.

CA

 

[DHK]

OK.

Perhaps that might be the place to ask how the Montanists could be considered a precursor to Baptists if, according to Vedder "...no serious aberration from the Catholic faith is alleged against them..."

Thanks.

CA

Some of these groups (like the Montanists) go back to 150 A.D. Of course they wouldn't be preaching against the RCC. The RCC didn't come into existence until the early part of the fourth century when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion.
The very reason for the existence of the Montanists was a movement spurred on because of what they perceived in the church as a whole as "worldliness." They wanted their churches to be pure not worldly. They disdiained worldly corruption, and taught holy and righteous living. Thus they separated from the main body of Christendom at that time in history and began their own movement which under Montanus, required a more holy standard of living.
Many of our IFB churches demand the same.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The RCC didn't come into existence until the early part of the fourth century when Constantine made Christianity a state-religion.

So again, as CA has asked, where’s the historical record that shows us a Christianity undistinguishable from present day fundamentalism prior to 313 AD?

If in fact in the first three centuries of Christian history, we could find no distinctively Catholic beliefs or practices, then you would have a plausible argument, but that’s simply not the case. When one looks at ecclesiastical history, what do we really find DHK?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Some of these groups (like the Montanists) go back to 150 A.D. Of course they wouldn't be preaching against the RCC...The very reason for the existence of the Montanists was a movement spurred on because of what they perceived in the church as a whole as "worldliness." They wanted their churches to be pure not worldly. They disdiained worldly corruption, and taught holy and righteous living. Thus they separated from the main body of Christendom at that time in history and began their own movement which under Montanus, required a more holy standard of living.
Many of our IFB churches demand the same.

Funny that sifting through all my fundamental notes, all I could find concerning the Montanists was that they were ‘true believers’. Here’s what I gathered concerning the Montanists.

The Montanist sect began when Montanus, a recent convert to Christianity appeared in a small village in Phrygia about the year 156. While in the village, Montanus fell into a trance, where upon he began to prophesy "under the influence of the Spirit." Apparently, he was soon joined by two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, who likewise began to "prophesy." Thereafter the movement spread throughout Asia Minor.

Even more interesting the Britannica Encyclopedia cites:

The essential principle of Montanism was that the Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, whom Jesus had promised in the Gospel According to John, was manifesting himself to the world through Montanus and the prophets and prophetesses associated with him. .... It soon became clear, however, that the Montanist prophecy was new. True prophets did not, as Montanus did, deliberately induce a kind of ecstatic intensity and a state of passivity and then maintain that the words they spoke were the voice of the Spirit. It also became clear that the claim of Montanus to have the final revelation of the Holy Spirit implied that something could be added to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles and that, therefore, the church had to accept a fuller revelation.​

No wonder the Early Church Fathers considered these Montanists heretics, for they held the belief that Montanus had received a special final revelation of the Holy Spirit, which was added to the teachings of the Apostles and Christ.

The only thing I could find in common with modern day fundamentalism, was that these Montanists were legalistic.

 

[DHK]

So again, as CA has asked, where’s the historical record that shows us a Christianity undistinguishable from present day fundamentalism prior to 313 AD?

If in fact in the first three centuries of Christian history, we could find no distinctively Catholic beliefs or practices, then you would have a plausible argument, but that’s simply not the case. When one looks at ecclesiastical history, what do we really find DHK?

We find the early churches with orthodox doctrine (meaning orthodox in the sense of Biblical doctrine) reproducing themselves as Paul instructed them in 2Tim.2:2. The early churches did not go into error immediately. They were steadfast, and some of them were steadfast for century after century throughout the ages.
God has never left himself without a witness.
The RCC has not always been in existence.
RCC doctrine has not always been in existence.
RCC tradition has not always been in existence.
The RCC church and its doctrine is in a state of constant fluctuation, but the Bible changes never. It is a a reflection of Jesus Christ--the same, yesterday, today and forever.

Thus, up until the early fourth century many of the churches were relatively orthodox in doctrine. That is not to say that there were some that were carnal. Obvously there were. The church at Corinth was a worldly and carnal church. Both the church at Galatia and at Corinth harbored false teachers. We know that they got off to rocky starts.

As corrupton was seen in more and more churches there were movements to separated from this corruption or from the worldliness in the churches. Such a movement was the Montanists, who determined in themselves to live holy lives. That movement began ca. 150 A.D. How close to the time of early churches do you want me to take you. The last of the apostles, John, died in the beginning of the second century. Revelation was written about 98 A.D.

The Waldensess also have historical claims going back to the time of the Apostles. Waldenses is a generic term meaning "People of the Valley." They came from south-east France and north-west Italy. They were independent groups of Christians living among the valleys in this mountainous region, many of whom dated back to the time of the Apostles. They had a translation of the Bible in Old Latin called the Itala. It was made in 150 B.C. Here again you have Bible-Believing churches, believing much like Baptists existing long before the RCC, and RCC doctrines came into existence.

Did you know that the Assumption of Mary was not made a doctrine of the RCC until 1950?
It Is a church in a state of constant change and fluctuation. Whereas the Bible never changes. Our belief are based on the Bilbe, not on tradtion or on any other authority. Sola Scriptura is such a great doctrine in that sense. It brings believers together, not divides them, as the Catholics would have you to believe.