• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The $100,000 Roman Catholic Question.

Status
Not open for further replies.

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
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.
Any heretic (and many of the church fathers [like Origen] were) would call holy living Bible believers heretics. Why, the RCC put to death Godly scientists such as Copernicus, Godly living Christians such as Tyndale, Wycliffe, Huss, and many otheres. In fact the numbers aren't in the hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands. They are in the millions. Millions and millions were put to death in the wicked Inquistions, putting to death believers trying to live for the Lord. The RCC labeled them all as heretics. History has an odd way of repeating itself, doesn't it?

Worldy Christians who don't like living Godly lives are prone to call those who are doing their level best to live a Godly life as "legalist." That is just as true today as it was back then.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Sorry DHK, but I’m on my way to work and can’t really give detailed answers, but will later on.

DHK said:
Did you know that the Assumption of Mary was not made a doctrine of the RCC until 1950?
I do know that 1950 was when the Assumption of Mary of officially defined. That doesn’t mean the Early Church in the first few centuries didn’t believe this. If I’m not mistaken, ECFs have written such.

DHK said:
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.
The RCC doesn’t believe that the Bible changes! You’re confused between fixed beliefs such as dogma or doctrines and practices or customs, which on the other hand are changeable. Dress, habits or prayer, languages of the liturgy are all changeable.

DHK said:
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.
The many thousands of Protestant denominations are a testament that your statement concerning Sola Scriptura bringing believers together is wrong.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
In fact the numbers aren't in the hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands. They are in the millions. Millions and millions were put to death in the wicked Inquistions, putting to death believers trying to live for the Lord.
Millions…? Like what’s the number DHK in millions? While you’re at it, please provide reputable documentation proving your statement. Not some IFB preachers website, who claims to be a ‘historian’ with an agenda.

What research I’ve conducted since studying RC is from the Almanac of the Christian World (1994), which is a Protestant publication states that only 40,725,000 Christians have died for their faith since 33 AD. The break down is 16,301,205 were Catholics and Orthodox and 2,694,700 were protestant. The Almanac also states that of these 40 million, 32,900,00 were put to death by non-Christians!

Wow, what a little effortless research will do.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
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.
Problem with this view is that many, many Baptist groups disagree with your fundamentalist take on history and so does the historical evidence from accredited sources. So the fact that half or more of the Baptist groups disagree with you, along with every major Protestant group should clue you in.

Little know facts that my IFB ‘scholars’ failed to mention in our Baptist history classes, that on my own research from more mainstream academic sources concluded that the founder of the Waldenses, Peter Waldo asked Pope Alexander II at the 3rd Lateran Council for permission to develop a ministry where he and his followers were to embrace a life of poverty. The Pope granted his request, but the Pope refused to allow Waldo to preach except with the permission of local bishops and pastors. The reason was because Waldo was untrained and only knew the bible from vernacular translations.

Odd that a group seen by IFBs as a prototype of modern ‘bible believing’ churches, first sought permission from the Pope to begin its ministry. In any event the group, with the Popes permission, formed the Poor Men of Lyons and fact is the Waldenses remained loyal to the Church in all its doctrines. But…

Waldo got irritated that he wasn’t given necessary permission to preach, so he began preaching against priests and bishops. So in order to preach Waldo had to reject the Church’s authority and it all went down hill from there. So the Waldenses were condemned as heretical at the Synod of Verona in 1184

Here we have an interesting development. A group seeks the Authority's blessing to do work, but when there are strings attached, such as submitting the teaching to some review due to the lack of religious training, the group rebels.

Apparently authority is only valuable when it agrees with you. Sounds farmiliar…huh…
 

Bro. James

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
RC Question

Since when has the majority ever been right about religion? The religion of the "powers that be" usually dominates. Religion has ruled a sizeable portion of the known world--i.e. Holy Roman Empire.

Freedom of conscience has been suppressed in every generation for several thousand years--by those religious?? God is no respecter of persons. Pope, potentate or pauper--all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Now what?
What's in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
CarpentersApprentice said:
Copernicus was seized with apoplexy in late 1542, and, in a coma, he died from a stroke on May 24, 1543.

CA
You are right. Had Copernicus lived long enough to promote his theories he would have been persecuted. Even in his lifetime he was reluctant to make anything of his findings public for fear of the consequences of the RCC. His fears proved to be true.
(Interestingly, Copernicus' original manuscript, lost to the world for 300 years, was located in Prague in the middle of the 19th century; it shows Copernicus' pen was, it would appear, continually in motion with revision after revision; all in Latin as was the vogue for scholarly writings in those days.)
Copernicus died in 1543 and was never to know what a stir his work had caused.

Two other Italian scientists of the time, Galileo and Bruno, embraced the Copernican theory unreservedly and as a result suffered much personal injury at the hands of the powerful church inquisitors. Giordano Bruno had the audacity to even go beyond Copernicus, and, dared to suggest, that space was boundless and that the sun was and its planets were but one of any number of similar systems: Why! -- there even might be other inhabited worlds with rational beings equal or possibly superior to ourselves. For such blasphemy, Bruno was tried before the Inquisition, condemned and burned at the stake in 1600. Galileo was brought forward in 1633, and, there, in front of his "betters," he was, under the threat of torture and death, forced to his knees to renounce all belief in Copernican theories, and was thereafter sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his days.
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Copernicus.htm



The Copernican theory had a great effect on the scientific world. It also had great consequences on those who embraced it enforced by the Inquisitors of the RCC. Copernicus died before the RCC could get to him, and he was smart enough to keep quiet about his findings. They were only published right around the same time as his death.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
Sorry DHK, but I’m on my way to work and can’t really give detailed answers, but will later on.

I do know that 1950 was when the Assumption of Mary of officially defined. That doesn’t mean the Early Church in the first few centuries didn’t believe this. If I’m not mistaken, ECFs have written such.
The silence of the ECF doesn't prove that they did believe in the Assumption of Mary--a ludicrous argument. Even if they did, it woud just further prove that many of them were heretics. Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC.
The RCC doesn’t believe that the Bible changes! You’re confused between fixed beliefs such as dogma or doctrines and practices or customs, which on the other hand are changeable. Dress, habits or prayer, languages of the liturgy are all changeable.
You didn't read my post carefully enough. I stated that the Catholic Church is in a state of constant change. That is a true statement that irrefutable, even by you. It has had two different Catechisms. The Vatican II came out making some changes. And there have been papal bulls made throughout the centuries entering into the Catholic faith new, interesting and often damnable heresies that have shaped the dogma of the RCC throughout its history. It is a chameleon that adopts to the country and society in which it lives also changing its practices there to accomodate to the people. Thus the paganization of Christianity is very real in the RCC.

I never said that the RCC changes the Bible. They rarely have anything to do with the Bible, except to pay a little lip service to it.
I said, in contrast, The Bible never changes.
The Catholic Church changes always; the Bible never changes. There is a great contrast there. The Baptists base their faith on an unchangeable rock--the chief cornerstone of our faith, Jesus Christ, who is revealed to us through the Bible, a book which never changes. Thus our faith never changes throughout the ages (totally unlike the RCC).
The many thousands of Protestant denominations are a testament that your statement concerning Sola Scriptura bringing believers together is wrong.
As has been demonstrated by others, the tenets that unite evangelical Christiantiy are stronger in unity than those which divide the various sects of Catholicism. Catholicism is more divideed within than Evangelical Christianity is. There may be differences in some areas of doctrine, but we all know very well what salvation means, who Christ is, etc. Most Catholics can't even define what it means to be born again, the most essential thing in the Christian faith in order to go to heaven.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
The silence of the ECF doesn't prove that they did believe in the Assumption of Mary--a ludicrous argument. Even if they did, it woud just further prove that many of them were heretics. Origen was declared a heretic even by the RCC.
I’m not going to go through this he said, she said, but I stated that the Pope in 1950 officially defined the dogma Assumption of Mary. 1950 wasn’t the year the dogma was invented. The ECFs did in fact write about the Assumption of Mary.

DHK said:
I stated that the Catholic Church is in a state of constant change. That is a true statement that irrefutable, even by you.

It has had two different Catechisms. The Vatican II came out making some changes. And there have been papal bulls made throughout the centuries entering into the Catholic faith new, interesting and often damnable heresies that have shaped the dogma of the RCC throughout its history.

You’re right; there are changes in the Catholic Church, just as my post pointed to. You still seem confused in terms of fixed doctrine or dogma and customs and practices. Dogma’s are fixed and is my understanding, unchangeable.

So please, present to me one officially defined dogma, the date of when the dogma was defined and then show me the date when the same officially defined dogma was changed, not explained or elaborated on, but actually changed. I’d like to research it.

Customs and practices are changeable even in your IFB churches and we see these changes in today’s Protestant circles.
 

D28guy

New Member
I believe it was on this thread that I posted multitudes upon multitudes of "groups" and "isms" having different beliefs in Catholicism. If not here than one of the other Catholic threads, but regardless...here is another link concerning the so called "unity" of this counterfiet christian organisation...

http://www.acts1711.com/cathsplint.htm

Mike
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
As has been demonstrated by others, the tenets that unite evangelical Christiantiy are stronger in unity than those which divide the various sects of Catholicism. Catholicism is more divideed within than Evangelical Christianity is.
Out of curiosity, please present a few of these sects within the Catholic Church. Also DHK I need solid proof that the Holy See approves of their teachings or in other words imprimatur, meaning that these ‘sects’ are free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals and hence acceptable for all faithful Catholics to be a part of. Simple enough huh?

DHK said:
There may be differences in some areas of doctrine, but we all know very well what salvation means, who Christ is, etc.
Major differences DHK, yes all know who Christ is, including the Catholic Church, one major division does in fact lie in salvation and how salvation is obtained.

DHK said:
Most Catholics can't even define what it means to be born again, the most essential thing in the Christian faith in order to go to heaven.
‘Born again’ is used once or twice in Scripture and all of a sudden it’s a measuring stick to see if people are saved. Again, even Protestantism are at odds with each other at exactly what it’s meant to be and how one is ‘born again’.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
D28guy said:
I believe it was on this thread that I posted multitudes upon multitudes of "groups" and "isms" having different beliefs in Catholicism. If not here than one of the other Catholic threads, but regardless...here is another link concerning the so called "unity" of this counterfiet christian organisation...

http://www.acts1711.com/cathsplint.htm

Mike
I remember seeing you post some, but I'll try and find the thread...in the mean time...as I requested from DHK, I'll also request from you...

Please present a few of these sects within the Catholic Church. In addition D28guy, I need solid proof that the Holy See approves of their teachings or in other words imprimatur, meaning that these ‘sects’ are free from error in matters of Roman Catholic doctrine and morals and hence acceptable for all faithful Catholics to be a part of. Simple enough huh?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
Millions…? Like what’s the number DHK in millions? While you’re at it, please provide reputable documentation proving your statement. Not some IFB preachers website, who claims to be a ‘historian’ with an agenda.

What research I’ve conducted since studying RC is from the Almanac of the Christian World (1994), which is a Protestant publication states that only 40,725,000 Christians have died for their faith since 33 AD. The break down is 16,301,205 were Catholics and Orthodox and 2,694,700 were protestant. The Almanac also states that of these 40 million, 32,900,00 were put to death by non-Christians!

Wow, what a little effortless research will do.
Unfortunately that 40 million number includes all of Christendom which includes the apostate RCC which aren't Christians at all. In fact many of the true believers in Christ were persecuted by the very hand of the RCC, so how skewed are your numbers??

Let's take a look at some real history:
First let’s look at just the Reformation period alone.
The Netherlands: In the Netherlands the Reformation was received early. Lutheranism, Calvinism, and then the Anabaptists—all of them were already numerous. Between 1513 and 1531 there were 25 different translations of the Bible in Dutch, Flemish and French. The Netherlands were a part of the dominion of Charles V. In 1522 he prohibited religious meetings in which the Bible would be read. In 1546 he prohibited the printing or possession of the Bible (either vulgate or translation). In 1535 it was decreed “death by fire” for Anabaptists. Then, Phillip II (1566-98), successor to Charles V, re-issued the edicts of his father, and with Jesuit help carried on the persecution with still greater fury. By one sentence of the Inquisition of the whole population was condemned to death, and under Charles V and Phillip II more than 100,000 were massacred with unbelievable brutality. Some were chained to a stake near the fire and slowly roasted to death; some were thrown into dungeons, scourged, tortured on the rack, before being burned. Women were buried alive, pressed into coffins too small, trampled down with the feet of the executioner. Those that tried to flee to other countries were intercepted by soldiers and massacred. Thus was the nature of the Inquisition in the Netherlands.

In France: First Luther’s teachings entered France in 1520, and then Calvin’s soon followed. By 1559, ho0wever, there were hundreds of thousands of Protestants that were called “Hugenots.” Their earnest piety and pure lives were in striking contrast to the scandalous lives of the Roman clergy. In 1557 Pope Pius urged their extermination. The king issued a decree for their massacre, and ordered all loyal subjects to help in hunting them out. The Jesuits went through France persuading the faithful to bear arms for their destruction.
Catherine de Medici, mother of the King, an ardent Romanist and willing tool of the Pope, gave the order, and on the night of August 24, 1572, 70,000 Hugenots, including most of their leaders, were massacred. There was great rejoicing in Rome. The Pope and his College of Cardinals went in, in solemn procession to the Church of San Marco and ordered the Te Deum to be sung in thanksgiving. This was known as “St. Barholomew’s Massacre.” Following this massacre were the Hugenot wars. By 1598 they were finally granted the right of freedom of conscience and worship. But in the meantime some 200,000 had perished as martyrs. Pope Clement VIII called the “Toleration Edict of Nantes” a ‘cursed thing’ and after years of underground work by the Jesuits, the Edict was revoked in 1685. Then 500,000 Hugenots fled to Protestant Countries.

In Bohemia: By 1600, in a population of 4,000,000 80% were Protestant. When the Hapsburgs and Jesuits had done their work, 800,000 were left, all Catholics. There are your millions.

In Austria and Hungary: More than half of the population had become Protestant, but under the Hapsburgs and Jesuits they were slaughtered.

In Poland: By the end of the 16th century, it seemed as if Romanism was about to be entirely swept away, but here too, the Jesuits, by persecution, killed the Reform.

In Italy: The Pope’s own country, the Reformation was getting out of hand. But the Inquisition got busy, and hardly a trace of Protestantism was left.

In Spain: The Reformation never made much headway, because the Inquisition was already there. Every effort fro freedom or independent thinking was crushed with a ruthless hand. Torquemada (1420-98), a Dominican monk, arch-inquisitor, in 18 years burned 10,200, and condemned to perpetual imprisonment 97,000. Victims were burned alive in the public square; made the occasion of religious festivities. From 1481 to 1808 there were at least 100,000 martyrs and 1,500,000 banished. “In the 16th and 17th centuries the Inquisition extinguished the literary life of Spain, and put the nation outside the circle of European civilization.” When the Reformation began Spain was the most powerful nation in the world. Its present negligible standing among the nations shows what the Papacy can do for a country.

Papal Persecutions:
The number of martyrs under papal persecutions far outnumbered the early Christian martyrs under pagan Rome: hundreds of thousands among the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Protestants of Germany, Netherlands, Bohemia, and other countries. Truly “the Great Harlot was Drunk with the Blood of Saints.” It is common to excuse the popes in this matter by saying that it was the “spirit of the age,” and that “Protestants also persecuted.” As for the “spirit of the age,” whose age was it? And who made it so? The popes. It was their world. For a thousand years they had been training the world to be in subjection to them. If the Popes had not taken the Bible from the people, the people would have known better, and it would not have been “the spirit of the age.” It was NOT the “spirit of Christ, and “Vicars of Christ” should have known better. Persecution is the spirit of the Devil, even though carried on in the name of Christ.
(Info gleaned from: Halley’s Bible Handbook, Henry Halley, Chicago, 1955, pp. 886-890)

Even when one excludes all the crusades, and other atrocities of the RCC, the number of those murdered by the RCC runs into the millions. You cannot deny history.
 

D28guy

New Member
Agnus Dei...

"I remember seeing you post some, but I'll try and find the thread..."

They are on both page 12 and page 13 of this thread. My post on page 12 contains a link that will show 10 times more than I could put on the post.

Here is a tiny percentage of the Catholic splinter groups....


Amadeans
Apostles of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
Apostolic Union of Secular Priests
Assumptionists
Augustinian Sisters, Servants of Jesus and Mary
Austrian Congregation

Baladites
Baptistines
Barnabites
Latin Basilians
Benedictine Confederation
Bethlehemites
Boni Homines
Bridgettines
Brothers Hospitallers of St. John of God
Brothers of Our Lady of Mercy
Congregation of the Blessed Sacrament
Consecrated life (Catholic Church)
Daughters of Divine Charity
Daughters of the Cross
Daughters of the Holy Spirit
Discalceation
Dominican Nuns of the Perpetual Rosary
Dominican Order
Fathers of Mercy
Fonte Avellana
Franciscan
Franciscan Apostolic Sisters
Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn
Franciscan Missionary Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Jesuati

Knights of Saint Mary
Knights of the Cross


Marianist Family
Marist Sisters
Maryknoll Sisters of St. Dominic
Mercy International Centre
Militia Templi

Oblate Sisters of Providence
Oblates of St. Joseph
Olivetans
Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration
Presentation Sisters
Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter

Religious Sisters of Mercy
Resurrectionist Order
Rogationists


Hundreds more can be found on the link from page 12 of this thread.

God bless,

Mike
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
I’m not going to go through this he said, she said, but I stated that the Pope in 1950 officially defined the dogma Assumption of Mary. 1950 wasn’t the year the dogma was invented. The ECFs did in fact write about the Assumption of Mary.

You’re right; there are changes in the Catholic Church, just as my post pointed to. You still seem confused in terms of fixed doctrine or dogma and customs and practices. Dogma’s are fixed and is my understanding, unchangeable.

So please, present to me one officially defined dogma, the date of when the dogma was defined and then show me the date when the same officially defined dogma was changed, not explained or elaborated on, but actually changed. I’d like to research it.

Customs and practices are changeable even in your IFB churches and we see these changes in today’s Protestant circles.
Dogma is teaching. "The Assumption of Mary" is a good example. Research it. It is a man-made, extra-biblical, unscriptural doctrine. When did it enter Catholicism? Officially--1950. It doesn't matter if Mr. Magee believed in it a century and a half ago, does it? At that time they also believed the earth was flat. Is that also still part of your "dogma." Or, do you still put to death (that is your practice) all who believe in the Copernican theory (dogma). Perhaps you have some other punishment for those who believe in that damnable scientific dogma that the RCC so hated. If the dogma was so hated that it gave a life-sentence in prison to Galileo and put to death Bruno, why should there be an acceptance of the doctrne now? Why does the Catholic Church change its dogma? Obviously because it has been proven wrong in so many areas--both scientifically and theologicaly. The difference is: it is far more reluctant to back down on theological grounds, even when proven wrong.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
D28guy said:
Agnus Dei...



They are on both page 12 and page 13 of this thread. My post on page 12 contains a link that will show 10 times more than I could put on the post.

Here is a tiny percentage of the Catholic splinter groups....
D28guy, I spot checked some of these 'splinter' groups as you refer to them, and the ones I looked up are ‘religious orders’ that for instance are committed to caring for prisoners and of the sick. Others were orders that gave themselves entirely to works of mercy.

The ones I investigated are all in communion with the Holy See and are fully sanctioned.

These groups are nothing like what we see in today’s divisions in Protestantism, which are indeed 'splinter groups'.

When I have time I’ll spot check some others…
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
‘Born again’ is used once or twice in Scripture and all of a sudden it’s a measuring stick to see if people are saved. Again, even Protestantism are at odds with each other at exactly what it’s meant to be and how one is ‘born again’.
Evangelical Christianity all agree on what it means to be born again, and have a good understandng of it. The RCC doesn't have a clue to the Biblical meaning of "Except you be born again you cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
In this one essential and very vital truth in the Bible we are united. Catholics OTOH, are basically ignorant. And yet without it, Jesus said, "you cannot enter the kingdom of God." I would not make this a trivial issue if I were you.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
Evangelical Christianity all agree on what it means to be born again, and have a good understandng of it. The RCC doesn't have a clue to the Biblical meaning of "Except you be born again you cannot enter the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).
In this one essential and very vital truth in the Bible we are united. Catholics OTOH, are basically ignorant. And yet without it, Jesus said, "you cannot enter the kingdom of God." I would not make this a trivial issue if I were you.
Then what is the 'biblical' meaning of 'born again'?

And also are ye 'united' with the Church of Christ in regard to 'born again'?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Agnus_Dei said:
Then what is the 'biblical' meaning of 'born again'?

And also are ye 'united' with the Church of Christ in regard to 'born again'?
I just went through this with some one else (or was it you). No, these exact questions were asked by Doubting Thomas.
Those who deny that salvation is by grace through faith and faith alone do not fall into the category of evangelical Christianity.
Neither do those who deny the deity of Christ or any of the other fundamental doctrines of the Bible, that even you believe in: trinity, deity of Christ, virgin birth, to name a few.
Those so-called Protestant churches that deny these very fundamental cardinal doctrines of the faith are Liberal churches, and we have nothing to do with them. They don't even earn the right to be called Christian in my mind. They are liberal.
The COC, United Pentecostal, and many others that require something other than faith (whether it be baptism, or tongues, or confirmation, or church membership, or whatever) probably belong to a cult, an offshoot of Christianity. Some are worse than others. That is where the COC is. They make baptism a requirement of salvation, that which the Bible does not teach. That along with some of their other teachings excludes them from the over-all group of "evangelical churches" which I am referring to.

Maybe you should start a thread on the "new birth" rather than derailing this thread more than it already has. I will tell you what it isn't. It isn't baptism, and that is the teachng of the RCC.
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
DHK said:
I just went through this with some one else (or was it you). No, these exact questions were asked by Doubting Thomas.
Those who deny that salvation is by grace through faith and faith alone do not fall into the category of evangelical Christianity.
Neither do those who deny the deity of Christ or any of the other fundamental doctrines of the Bible, that even you believe in: trinity, deity of Christ, virgin birth, to name a few.
Those so-called Protestant churches that deny these very fundamental cardinal doctrines of the faith are Liberal churches, and we have nothing to do with them. They don't even earn the right to be called Christian in my mind. They are liberal.
The COC, United Pentecostal, and many others that require something other than faith (whether it be baptism, or tongues, or confirmation, or church membership, or whatever) probably belong to a cult, an offshoot of Christianity. Some are worse than others. That is where the COC is. They make baptism a requirement of salvation, that which the Bible does not teach. That along with some of their other teachings excludes them from the over-all group of "evangelical churches" which I am referring to.

Maybe you should start a thread on the "new birth" rather than derailing this thread more than it already has. I will tell you what it isn't. It isn't baptism, and that is the teachng of the RCC.
So here I thought that God had his hands tied all this time until Luther finally figured it all out and now I’m learning that it wasn’t Luther, but the Evangelical community that finally after close to 2,000 years were the ones that figured it all out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top