The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

Wesley was more influenced by the German Pietists. Even without Wycliff, the 'King's Matter' would have still propelled Henry VIII into breach with Rome. And Charles Parham influenced by Catholicism? Come on!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Other errors by Augustine

In Christ,

Bob

 

Your claim that Henry in England could have withstood Papal power EVEN WITHOUT the help of the Catholic Reformers is form of turning a blind eye to history.

You have forgotten the lesson learned by Henry IV of Germany.

Without popular support for breaking with Rome - the kings had little power.

Such was the power of the Papacy.

Such was the power of the Catholic reformers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

You also forget the power of Renaissance monarchs - much accrued since 1077 - and the loss of Papal power since then, most notably with the 'Babylonian Captivity' in Avignon 1309-77 and the subsequent Great Scism of 1378-1417. The world of Christendom had changed greatly between 1077 and 1534...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Bob:

The so called "experts" have their own agendas. I suggest you look past people's own opinion's and get the facts.

As for Augustine, he may of held some views that were'nt accurate. But when you have all of the early Christian writers, Christians that died a painful death rather than deny Christ, agreeing on and teaching the same doctrines (many which are being disputed right here on the board) I don't see how any sincere Christian can not hold some value to what these men have to say. Some of these men where taught by the Apostles themselves and have a clear understanding of the context of some disputed Scripture verses.

 

Greetings Logan,
Longtime, no 'hear.'
Don't you think it would be fair to say that when referring to the church fathers, it all depends upon whose perspective you take. I have learned that you can make the church fathers say just about any thing you want. Baptists will use them to verify their position as much as Catholics will. For example Tertullian became a Monatanist near the end of his life and changed his views on baptism among many other things. Catholics condemn the Montanist movement and discredit it as much as possible. In reality it was a movement of holiness and purity. It was a call to rid the church of the corruption and the depths of sin to which it had sunk. It was a call to repent from sin and repent toward God. There certainly is nothing wrong with that message. In his message Montanus emphasized the ministry of the Holy Spirit, but I don't believe in an unscriptural way. I believe that it was blown out of proportion by his enemies, and perhaps by a couple of women who were out of order and got carried away with their emotions. But why do people focus on the minor details, rather than on the major doctrines of this movement; the exceptions rather than the rule of this movement? The answer is ovbviously just to discredit it. Tertullian became a Montanist because of the corruuption he saw in the church. His latter beliefs were more in line with the Baptists than were his former beliefs. So you can pick and choose what part of Tertullian's writings to defend your position with.

Origen is often used, and yet Origen was a heretik, the father of Arianism. He was eventually condemned as a heretik by the church. I wish I had the list of heresies that he believed in. Carson once posted them here, but I failed to copy and paste them.

Iraeneus had some odd beliefs such as Christ living to the ripe old age of 80. If he believed that what other strange doctrines did he hold? How much can his writings be trusted?

One of the other early church fathers (I can't recall which offhand) introduced the heresy of purgatory--never heretorfore believed by any of the Apostles or early believers, and completley unsupported by Scripture.

So our position all along is to "prove all things" but prove them from the Word of God, and not from fallible men who hold to some very strange doctrines in some cases, if not heretical in other cases.
DHK

 

Ummm....Montanus said that he himself was the Paraclete ("I am the Paraclete"). There has also been an inscription discovered on an excavated house reading: "Flavius, grandsire of the household. In the name of the Father and the Son and of the Lord Montanus. What he promised he performed."

I might think twice before listing Montanus/Montanists in a geneology of some alleged proto-Baptists. (OTOH, I'm sure some here will chalk up what I've posted to mere catholic propaganda...)

 

That they can. Reliable sources say otherwise. The Baptist history forum in the past has had some good information on the Montanists. I also have some good information on them. It is just a matter of digging it out.
DHK

 

Greetings DHK,

It's been awhile...I hope all is well with you and your family.

I think you can choose bits and pieces on certain topics and twist some sayings of the fathers, yes, on that I agree. But I don't think you can twist their sayings on certain doctrinal matters such as the Eucharist. One can search long and hard and not find one father saying that the Eucharist is not the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ. This was a common and unanimous belief up until a short time after the reformation.

For sake of argument,if it was indeed a heresy as I suppose is the view you hold, then it defies logic that there is not one single writer condemning it as such. Every other heresy that popped up, whether it be Jesus is not God or some other Gnostic view, there were literally dozens of Church fathers condeming the heretics and stating the Church's view.

The only ones I could find condemning Christ' Eucharistic teaching are the Jews, Gnostics and a few other pagan sects.

 

The Papacy did not really reach its fully persecuting strength until it swung into action with its favorite toy - the "inquisition".

Since my quotes are of Catholic experts confessing to the crimes and failings of their own church - I tend to believe them. A more objective source on than - would be hard to come by.

They "seem to think" that they held some power during the dark ages.

Henry IV seems to have "gotten the point".

The history "is in".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Last daze...

Hello.

1st of all, surely you dont buy this utter nonsense of "30,000 protestant denominations" do you? If so, I have some wonderful information that will help you with that.

2nd, surely you dont believe the Catholic Church is actually "unified" do you? If you do, I can help you with that as well.

Also, there is only one body of Christ on earth. Not many...one. The divisions are something God told us about, and helped us in how to deal with them when He said in Romans 14...

"Let your brother be convinced in his own mind...who are you to judge your brother...to his own master he will stand or fall, and God will make him stand"

Why are you bewildered about something God told us to expect?

And finally, with no hiearchial monstrosity attempting to tell us what to believe, we in the evangelical world are unified regarding the foundational doctrines. With no centralised governing authority telling us what we must believe, we have no problem identiying cults and "isms" as being what they are.

God bless,

Mike

 

Mike, I'm curious:

(1)What groups (denominations/sects/what-have-you) do you believe comprises the "evangelical world"? What criteria do you use in identifying them as such?

(2)What are the "foundational doctrines" regarding which everyone in this "evangelical world" are allegedly unified? Could you list them for me? Thanks.

 

Doubting Thomas...

I didnt have any specific groups in mind.

Its a bit unusual for someone to actually ask that they be listed, since that is usually not necesarry, but...

Probably a good group would be...

All people are sinners, spiritually dead, and will be judged according to their works, found guilty and condemned

Jesus Christ is our only hope, and is the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by Him.

Salvation is not possible apart from Christ.

We must be born again.

Our justification before God is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

The scriptures are our only truth standard, source of authority doctrinally, and contains our moral instruction.

And it would probably be a good idea to include the nature of God. 3 distinct persons, one God. Some people like the word trinity a lot regarding that. I'm not wild about the word trinity, but the "trinitarian" view is biblical. Jesus was 100% man, and 100% God.

Hope that helps you some. If you are Catholic you are probably very much into those creeds, so this should be right down your alley I would hope.

(Except of course for the truth of justification through faith alone and the scriptures alone truth. Those probably sort of discombobulate you, unfortunetly)

God bless,

Mike

 

Two problems with the above, Mike:

1. Scripture is the only standard of truth. That's fine as far as it goes, but whose interpretation do you pick from the smorgasbord and on what basis?

2. You allude to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Trinitarian dogma and the Definition of Chalcedon, which I 100% agree with - but both of those are explicitly extra-Scriptural (although both can be reasonably but not inevitably inferred form Scripture) - so much for the 'sola' bit!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The catholic church isn't just called "catholic" / "universal" for no reason:

the pagan religions formed a single catholic faith at Rome.

 

Interesting take.

[personal attack edited] but very interesting. I'd like to learn how you arrived at this conclusion.

[ February 18, 2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

jcf,

I'm not a creed person. I pay no attention to them. It is the scriptures we are to feed on, not reciting creeds...which sometimes proclaim everything except the gospel.

The truth of the triune nature of God comes straight from the scriptures, even though the word trinity does not. Its for that reason that I almost never use the word trinity

God bless,

Mike

 

Matt Black,

The Holy Spirits interpretation.

We are never told to find a group we like the best, and then let them tell us what we believe. Thats cultic. We are called to search and feed on the scriptures with the Holy Spirit as our guide, interpreter, and teacher. I consider the teaching from the pastor and other brothers and sisters at our church. I consider the teaching found in good books by teachers from many persuasions of christian thought. I listen to and consider the teaching found in lots of different radio and TV broadcasts. And I recieve literature and consider what is found in it from many different groups and denominations.

Evangelical, charismatic, pentecostal, fundamentalist, moderate, etc. It makes no difference to me, as long as they hold to justification through faith alone and hold to the scriptures alone as their truth authority.

But I never...under any circumstances...blindly accept anything because so and so teaches it.

If I did it was purely accidental. I dont believe I have ever in my life read a "Nicene-Constantinople" anything, or any kind of the "Chalcedon" creed or teaching.

I dont get into creeds at all.

Nope. The "sola" stands! Thats where I go for my truth. Even regarding the books and literature I read and recieve. Its only the scriptural truth found in them that I seek to heed.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

The Holy Spirits interpretation. </font>[/QUOTE]Problem is, there are many different groups who come up with conflicting interpretations but they claim theirs is the "Holy Spirit's interpretation". Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?