mes228 said:
Eliahyu, Either you cannot read or you are a liar. I advocated nothing about the Pope but did explain that the infallable issue is when he speaks ExCathedra, and has done so a limited number of times. I never said I agree with him. My desire was to not let you not get by with half truths and spout your cultic beliefs as truth.
Please avoid calling people liars.
Your are correct about the Pope speaking infallibly only when he speaks ex cathedra, and that has only been done just a few times (something like 17).
However the Pope is still the authority of the Catholic Church. Hundrdeds of Papal Bulls have been issued, all of which are treated
as if they were each infallible. Decrees have been made at the many Councils of the RCC. The decrees made at the Council of Trent in the mid-16th century have never been rescinded.
The council eventually met during three separate periods (1545-47, 1551-52, 1562-63) under the leadership of three different popes (Paul III, Julius III, Pius IV). All of its decrees were formally confirmed by Pope Pius IV in 1564.
In the area of religious doctrine, the council refused any concessions to the Protestants and, in the process, crystallized and codified Catholic dogma far more than ever before. It directly opposed Protestantism by reaffirming the existence of seven sacraments, transubstantiation, purgatory, the necessity of the priesthood, and justification by works as well as by faith. Clerical celibacy and monasticism were maintained, and decrees were issued in favor of the efficacy of relics, indulgences, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary and the saints. Tradition was declared coequal to Scripture as a source of spiritual knowledge, and the sole right of the Church to interpret the Bible was asserted.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/trent.htm
I spoke of "early" Church pictures - then you defined the term "dates" as to what was "early" and felt smug that you vanquished them. The catacombs have several examples of baptism by 'pouring". You and I both know that for between 100-200 years little church history is available. Your claiming to "win" a point that is so foolish it wasn't contested.
One is right to question the date of such pictures. It is not the pictures that we base our doctrine on; it is the Bible. The Bible leaves no room for any other method of baptism but immerison. The very word Baptidzo means immersion. The Greek Orthodox baptizes by immersion to this day. I wonder why?
One of the primary Baptist distinctives is that the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice--a doctrine known elsewhere as sola scriptura. If ever there was a doctrine that the Catholics hated it was this one. They have fought tooth and nail against sola scriptura, because they have other authorities than the Bible--Tradition, the Pope, the Magesterium, the ECF, etc. The ECF are not our authority; the Bible is.
Most every point I attempted to penetrate your hard head with about viable baptism, other than immersion was scriptural.
I am not going to go back and read 16 pages of your arguments. But the Bible does not give any credible arguments for any method of baptism other than immersion. Anything other than immersion would destroy the very picture that baptism represents--our death to our old life of sin, and our resurrection to a new life in Christ (Rom.6:3,4).
I believe in immersion, and was immersed. But any truthful, honest person must admit that on a scriptural basis the other side has as good, and perhaps better biblical support.
Then why can't they give it. There is no support for pouring or sprinkling--none. I haven't seen it in all my years of ministry. And I believe myself to be honest and truthful.
You simply are disingenous and not sincerely seeking to understand the 98% of Christians that ever lived. Frankly I think thats a gross evil. I guess that you believe that all those Christians were ignorant, and had different scriptures, or less understanding than you. You are the quite wrong and blind to it. Its an embarasament to Christ that you attempt to teach others. You are not honoring those that died, you are a shame to them with the way you go about it. I suggest you stop, and straighten up.
I suggest you take your own advice.
As for transubstantiation, the point I was poorly making was that after Luther every Tom, Dick, and Harry had their own "understanding" within a few years.
Do you only read the revised Catholic history of the "church"? Have you ever studied "Baptist History?" It doesn't look like it? Until you have, perhaps you are unqualified to comment on the issue. We have enough Catholics spewing out what the ECF says. If we believed the doctrines of the ECF we would believe such things as "Jesus lived to the age of 80," (Irenaeus). Origen was a heretic, even according to Catholic standards. Some have given him the title "the father of Arianism." From the ECF came baptismal regeneration, and consequently infant baptism. Yes within those first few centuries there were many errors that crept into
Every crack pot group, including the one your in apparently, leans heavily on the Waldenses. My statement stands - until after Luther pretty much all christian groups believed the same thing.
Your statement is wrong and only shows a woeful lack of a study of church history.
I tried every tactic to be nice and help you reach reasonable Christian doctrinal understanding. Truth is, most men here cannot get their head up their rectum far enough to see things from your point of view.
I am not sure what point of view exactly you are referring to. But the traditional RCC point of view is heretical. And it is not the Biblical one presented throughout history. It is the heretical one. God has always had his people in every century called out standing for his name, proclaiming his truth, and they have always stood apart from the RCC or any semblance thereof.
In conclusion, I know your blind to it. But Agnus and many others handed you your head in a basket so to speak Just be honest with yourself and you may grow as a Christian and as a person. I would also suggest you keep your mouth shut until you know what you are saying. Why should anyone suffer idiots gladly?? I'm tired of people teaching their particuliar brand of misinformation.
Please take your own advice and in the meantime stop with the name-calling.
