True Christianity...

[WestminsterMan]

First they are not intellectually honest.
Secondly, if I had to guess without doing my homework, I would guess that they were liberals or in the very least new evangelicals.
Thirdly, I did say that I didn't agree with everything that Carroll wrote. I know he has some historical inaccuracies. But that doesn't take away from the main premise of his book which has been proven by a wealth of Baptist historians, not just Carroll.

Again, simply put: There have been "Baptists," that is those believers who have held to basic Baptist beliefs throughout every century since the apostles. Though not called by the Baptist name they have held to Baptistic beliefs. A good example would be the Waldenses. ...

Right. Those evil Catholics destroyed ALL of the Baptists writings throughout their history which precludes you and the small group of Baptists who actually believe this drivel from producing any proof of such claims. I say small as in groups the size of those who believe that the moon shot was faked, etc.

Peace!
WM

 

[DHK]

Right. Those evil Catholics destroyed ALL of the Baptists writings throughout their history which precludes you and the small group of Baptists who actually believe this drivel from producing any proof of such claims. I say small as in groups the size of those who believe that the moon shot was faked, etc.

Peace!
WM

History is history. If you want to shut your eyes to the horrible crimes against humanity that Innocent III did and many of the other Popes whose blessings were upon the state-church religions of the day, then so be it. Close your eyes and enjoy. That doesn't wipe the blood off their hands any more than than the water in a basin washed the blood off of Pilate's hands. He was still a guilty man.

"The Lord knows them that are his." He has promised to preserve His Word, and His people throughout every age. Even in this age He continues to call out a people, a nation for himself, as he has done in every age.
One thing for sure: that holy people, that holy nation, is not the RCC.

 

[WestminsterMan]

History is history. If you want to shut your eyes to the horrible crimes against humanity that Innocent III did and many of the other Popes whose blessings were upon the state-church religions of the day, then so be it. Close your eyes and enjoy. That doesn't wipe the blood off their hands any more than than the water in a basin washed the blood off of Pilate's hands. He was still a guilty man.

"The Lord knows them that are his." He has promised to preserve His Word, and His people throughout every age. Even in this age He continues to call out a people, a nation for himself, as he has done in every age.
One thing for sure: that holy people, that holy nation, is not the RCC.

Yes documented history is documented history - and fictional pap is fictional pap. You got nothin' DHK.

WM

 

[Walter]

The SDA uses the same arguments and also claims succession by linking themselves to groups that did not resemble there denomination by either belief or practice. There were a few common beliefs and, as I said before both Baptists and SDA's skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith.When its brought to the attention of Baptists on this board that there is not a scrap of evidence that there have always been people who 'believe just like Baptists' throughout history then they can only resort to the false accusation that the "Catholic Church is responsible for murdering MILLIONS of bible believing Christians!" The Spanish Inquisition: 775 arrested, 221 killed
This was due to the government law that heresy was a crime - not the Church.

Christians killed in Russia by atheists in the 20th C: 70,000,000


There is tons of documented evidence proving The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been in existence all the way back to Jesus founding the Church on Peter.

Again, Baptists historian James McGoldrick says: On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers'. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

 

[DHK]

The SDA uses the same arguments and also claims succession by linking themselves to groups that did not resemble there denomination by either belief or practice. There were a few common beliefs and, as I said before both Baptists and SDA's skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith.When its brought to the attention of Baptists on this board that there is not a scrap of evidence that there have always been people who 'believe just like Baptists' throughout history then they can only resort to the false accusation that the "Catholic Church is responsible for murdering MILLIONS of bible believing Christians!" The Spanish Inquisition: 775 arrested, 221 killed
This was due to the government law that heresy was a crime - not the Church.

First, the SDA can't go back and that is obvious. Their founder is Ellen G. White. We all know that.
Secondly, many of their teachings, such as the Investigative Judgment, the exaltation of the 7th Day, and their peculiar meaning of the #666 all come straight from Ellen G. White's writing's, particularly in the "Great Controversy."
Thirdly, you have made a wild claim. Governments don't judge heresy, unless they are state church governments in which case it is the church that is judging the heresy. For example our Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian. He is born again. But half the population of Canada is RCC. If he were to proclaim as heresy infant baptism, transubstantiation, purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc., what do you think would happen in this nation?
What would happen in America if Obama started on a religious campaign doing the same kind of thing. He is not Catholic either. Neither President nor Prime Minister are in a position to declare anyone's belief as heresy. Only when the government is controlled by the church can they do? Who defines "heresy"? In the cases you mention, it is the RCC, and thus the RCC is responsible for all the murders you mention--the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc. Baptists would never do that.

Christians killed in Russia by atheists in the 20th C: 70,000,000

There is tons of documented evidence proving The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been in existence all the way back to Jesus founding the Church on Peter.

There is no evidence that Peter was even in Rome, except to die as a martyr.
The RCC had its origins in the fourth century. Some of its doctrines may have existed before then. But the doctrines that the Baptists hold to have always existed.

Again, Baptists historian James McGoldrick says: On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers'. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

OTOH we have a RCC Cardinal testifying to the legitimacy of the Waldenses right back to the Apostles.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

First, the SDA can't go back and that is obvious. Their founder is Ellen G. White. We all know that.
Secondly, many of their teachings, such as the Investigative Judgment, the exaltation of the 7th Day, and their peculiar meaning of the #666 all come straight from Ellen G. White's writing's, particularly in the "Great Controversy."
Thirdly, you have made a wild claim. Governments don't judge heresy, unless they are state church governments in which case it is the church that is judging the heresy. For example our Prime Minister is an evangelical Christian. He is born again. But half the population of Canada is RCC. If he were to proclaim as heresy infant baptism, transubstantiation, purgatory, the Assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc., what do you think would happen in this nation?
What would happen in America if Obama started on a religious campaign doing the same kind of thing. He is not Catholic either. Neither President nor Prime Minister are in a position to declare anyone's belief as heresy. Only when the government is controlled by the church can they do? Who defines "heresy"? In the cases you mention, it is the RCC, and thus the RCC is responsible for all the murders you mention--the Inquisitions, the Crusades, etc. Baptists would never do that.

There is no evidence that Peter was even in Rome, except to die as a martyr.
The RCC had its origins in the fourth century. Some of its doctrines may have existed before then. But the doctrines that the Baptists hold to have always existed.

OTOH we have a RCC Cardinal testifying to the legitimacy of the Waldenses right back to the Apostles.

Thank you for the facts. Amazing how members of former state churches try to get around the facts of state church persecution and murder by claiming that the state did it, not the church, when the state and church were united.

It is also a fact that the Roman Church was not founded on Peter. All the claims of Peter being the first pope are sheer fantasy and made-up doctrine.

See this article on the burial place of Peter:

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

The RCC is built on a house of cards. It has developed its doctrine over the centuries and has done so up through the 20th century, as the article alludes to. In this respect, it is like the SDA and Mormonism. It is orthodox in some areas and heterodox in many others.

 

[saturneptune]

Upon further thought, I can see a positive purpose in DHK and other moderators giving such large lattitude to the two main groups that come in here and needle Baptist distinctives. It forces us to become more knowledgeable of why we believe what we do.

It is one thing to say "Mary is not to be worshiped" or "we go to church on Sunday" but it is entirely another to know the source of it in Scripture.

 

[saturneptune]

The SDA uses the same arguments and also claims succession by linking themselves to groups that did not resemble there denomination by either belief or practice. There were a few common beliefs and, as I said before both Baptists and SDA's skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith.When its brought to the attention of Baptists on this board that there is not a scrap of evidence that there have always been people who 'believe just like Baptists' throughout history then they can only resort to the false accusation that the "Catholic Church is responsible for murdering MILLIONS of bible believing Christians!" The Spanish Inquisition: 775 arrested, 221 killed
This was due to the government law that heresy was a crime - not the Church.

Christians killed in Russia by atheists in the 20th C: 70,000,000


There is tons of documented evidence proving The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has been in existence all the way back to Jesus founding the Church on Peter.

Again, Baptists historian James McGoldrick says: On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers'. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

That is one of the most dishonest posts yet. The SDAs (Pentecostal, charasmatic) and RCC are united by one important element, a relation with the Lord based on what they do. Baptists did not white out Eph 2:8-9.

Aside from being theologically dishonest, you are historically dishonest. Baptists never claimed they have a direct line to the Apostles, who by the way sinned like everyone else. However, this is a fact. The RCC was founded in 400 AD. The Reformation was around 1600 AD. Jesus Christ promised to preserve His church. Since any nit wit can see the RCC did not do the job, for at least 1200 years, some group of collection of local churches did. Baptists do not claim a direct connection, but those who preserved the church, and modern Baptists are of like faith and order.

Ask yourself, would the Lord use an organization to preserve His church who
1. Pounds the podium against abortion yet whose hands are dripping with innocent blood by torture and executions over multi hundreds of years and millions of souls.

2. Meld with local governmental authorities throughout their existence to carry out this torture and executions.

3. Treat the Lords Supper like a magic act

4. Pray to entitites that are not the Creator

5. Base salvation on works and not faith in Jesus Christ

6. Baptise infants who have no knowledge of salvation

7. Send out missionaries to remote parts of the world then dilute the Gospel by mixing it with local pagen religions.

8. Actively use charms in worship like rosary beads and holy water

9. Chant and parrot creeds, confessions etc written by the RCC hierarchy and not Scripture

I could go on forever.

 

[WestminsterMan]

That is one of the most dishonest posts yet. The SDAs (Pentecostal, charasmatic) and RCC are united by one important element, a relation with the Lord based on what they do. Baptists did not white out Eph 2:8-9.

Aside from being theologically dishonest, you are historically dishonest. Baptists never claimed they have a direct line to the Apostles, who by the way sinned like everyone else.

I didn't depict Baptists as going back to the Apostles - those are your words not mine. However, there are many here who hold to that. Now, before you call anyone dishonest, you should do a little self examination...

However, this is a fact. The RCC was founded in 400 AD.

Fact? Only in the vagaries of your own mind. Catholic documents speak for themselves (something Baptists cannot produce).

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. " Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, Saint Ignatius of Antioch around AD 110.

If I'm not mistaken, 110 AD comes before 400 AD - at least in this universe anyway.

Oh my goodness... ladies!

The Reformation was around 1600 AD. Jesus Christ promised to preserve His church. Since any nit wit can see the RCC did not do the job, for at least 1200 years, some group of collection of local churches did. Baptists do not claim a direct connection, but those who preserved the church, and modern Baptists are of like faith and order.

Ask yourself, would the Lord use an organization to preserve His church who
1. Pounds the podium against abortion yet whose hands are dripping with innocent blood by torture and executions over multi hundreds of years and millions of souls

2. Meld with local governmental authorities throughout their existence to carry out this torture and executions.

And the hands of early Protestants weren't? Why, you act as though these things are happening today.... Well, uh wait - they are... except they are happening to Catholics in the middle east and Africa. Oppps.

3. Treat the Lords Supper like a magic act

Jesus said the bread and wine are His body indeed and His blood indeed. He made no explanations for a parable. In fact He even asked His appostles if, because it was such a hard teaching, they would leave him too. Those are Jesus' words and the words of the Catholics Church - they are synonymous! It is a hard teaching - but God himself said it. You either belive He has the power to do what he says or you do not. Many people in Jesus' day could not accept that He was actually the Son of God. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with that.

4. Pray to entitites that are not the Creator

Well, if you take the bible in its entirity, you might have a different take on the matter. None-the-less, the belief that prayer is always worship is a rather recent development - speaking in terms of the age of Christianity that is. As has been proven here ad-nausium, it isn't and you are wrong.

5. Base salvation on works and not faith in Jesus Christ

So YOU say. And, I might add, you are flat out wrong. I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty no matter from where it comes.

6. Baptise infants who have no knowledge of salvation

That is precisely WHY it IS done. Tell me my brother, exactly where in scipture is the age of accountability stated? - You know, that Baptist well loved doctrine and traditions of men?

7. Send out missionaries to remote parts of the world then dilute the Gospel by mixing it with local pagen religions.

Well, if one holds that Baptists believe in a diltuted gospel, then one could make the same claim about them with equal authority. Hmmm....

8. Actively use charms in worship like rosary beads and holy water.

Charms? Can you say Jesus' garments, Peter's cloak etc?
Uh oh...

9. Chant and parrot creeds, confessions etc written by the RCC hierarchy and not Scripture.

Well - Jesus said the same prayer three times in the Garden of Gethsemane. Surely you 've said the Lord's prayer more than once in your life. Can we say hypocrisy?

I could go on forever.

Yes, you certainly could go on forever - and you'd be just as wrong forever as you are now. Thankfully, we won't have to worry about your spew for very long. Unless of course, that would be part of purgatory. Oh my...

WM

 

[saturneptune]

I didn't depict Baptists as going back to the Apostles - those are your words not mine. However, there are many here who hold to that. Now, before you call anyone dishonest, you should do a little self examination...



Fact? Only in the vagaries of your own mind. Catholic documents speak for themselves (something Baptists cannot produce).

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. " Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, Saint Ignatius of Antioch around AD 110.

If I'm not mistaken, 110 AD comes before 400 AD - at least in this universe anyway.

Oh my goodness... ladies!



And the hands of early Protestants weren't? Why, you act as though these things are happening today.... Well, uh wait - they are... except they are happening to Catholics in the middle east and Africa. Oppps.



Jesus said the bread and wine are His body indeed and His blood indeed. He made no explanations for a parable. In fact He even asked His appostles if, because it was such a hard teaching, they would leave him too. Those are Jesus' words and the words of the Catholics Church - they are synonymous! It is a hard teaching - but God himself said it. You either belive He has the power to do what he says or you do not. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with that.



Well, if you take the bible in its entirity, you might have a different take on the matter. None-the-less, the belief that prayer is always worship is a rather recent development - speaking in terms of the age of Christianity that is. As has been proven here ad-nausium, it isn't and you are wrong.



So YOU say. And, I might add, you are flat out wrong. I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty no matter from where it comes.



That is precisely WHY it IS done. Tell me my brother, exactly where in scipture is the age of accountability stated? - You know, that Baptist well loved doctrine and traditions of men?



Well, if one holds that Baptists believe in a diltuted gospel, then one could make the same claim about them with equal authority. Hmmm....



Charms? Can you say Jesus' garments, Pere's cloak etc?
Uh oh...



Well - Jesus said the same prayer three times in the Garden of Gethsemane. Surely you 've said the Lord's prayer more than once in your life. Can we say hypocrisy?



Yes, you certainly could go on forever - and you'd be just as wrong forever as you are now. Thankfully, we won't have to worry about your spew for very long. Unless of course, that would be part of purgatory. Oh my...

WM

For all of your jaw flapping, you did not address the central question, who preserved the NT local church from 400 (or 110 if you insist) to 1600. Make a case the RCC did it. It is odd that in every response you make you refer to "Catholic documents" which are about as useful as copies of Hustler magazine.

 

[WestminsterMan]

For all of your jaw flapping, you did not address the central question, who preserved the NT local church from 400 (or 110 if you insist) to 1600. Make a case the RCC did it. It is odd that in every response you make you refer to "Catholic documents" which are about as useful as copies of Hustler magazine.

I'm not the one trying to make the case against it - that would be you. If you're going to challenge the historical record then you'd better get busy because you have one heck of a challenge.

WM

 

[Alive in Christ]

Allthogh I dont concider the catholic church to be a legitemat church..but rather a false cult...I GREATLY APLAUD this man for his exceedingly wonderfull way of dealing with this situation.

I wish more could see fit to respond in such a beautiful way.

Well played, Mr catholic cleric. Well played.

 

[saturneptune]

I'm not the one trying to make the case against it - that would be you. If you're going to challenge the historical record then you'd better get busy because you have one heck of a challenge.

WM

The only added deminsion one can add to the RCC besides it being a cult, is to define it as a criminal organization. They are guilty of organized torture, murder, and theft.

 

[Alive in Christ]

The only added deminsion one can add to the RCC besides it being a cult, is to define it as a criminal organization. They are guilty of organized torture, murder, and theft.

I believe the catholic church is certainly guilty of turning a blind eye regarding probably millions of children being sexually abused/and/or/ raped.

Where do you get the torture, murder, and theft?

 

[DHK]

I didn't depict Baptists as going back to the Apostles - those are your words not mine. However, there are many here who hold to that. Now, before you call anyone dishonest, you should do a little self examination...

I would expect better from you. This post was disgraceful, if not outright laughable and infantile. You can do better than this.
Many of us depict Baptists as going back to the Apostles but not in direct succession or apostolic succession as the RCC does. My view is called the "spiritual kinship theory," which I have already stated: "that in every age God has left a remnant of true believers--churches that have held to apostolic teaching (those Baptist truths that we teach today)."
The Bible teaches that God knows them that are his.
It teaches that he will always have his own.
It teaches the he is calling out a holy nation unto himself.
He has not finished, and he never finished at any one point in history. God did not fail in his purpose at any era. He has always had his people, and they have never been in the RCC. That is one thing we know for sure. We can prove the RCC history and theories wrong just through the Bible alone. As you well know the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. This post could end right here. The case is closed for the Bible is our authority.

1 Peter 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Fact? Only in the vagaries of your own mind. Catholic documents speak for themselves (something Baptists cannot produce).

He said 400. It was formed in the time of Constantine when Constantine made Christianity the state religion. He paganized Christianity and Christianized paganism. Idols were introduced into Christianity at this time to help the pagans adjust to this new brand of Christianity. It was a "new Christianity," the RCC. This wasn't 400, but the 4th century.

"Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. " Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8, Saint Ignatius of Antioch around AD 110.

This is just childish. You ought to know better.
Check the KJV. The word "bishop" is still used to designate the office of a pastor. We still use it today.
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
--Every Baptist pastor must follow the requirements that follow this verse--that which is set forth for the office of a bishop--overseer of the local church.
And wherever the bishop (overseer/pastor) is there are the people of God, and there is Christ. The pastor (or bishop) is normally the one who does the baptizing and administering of elements of the Lord's Table. No one else may do it without the pastor (or bishop's) consent. The pastor or bishop is directly responsible to God for his people.
--Your quote matches with Baptist doctrine almost word for word.

If I'm not mistaken, 110 AD comes before 400 AD - at least in this universe anyway.

Oh my goodness... ladies!

And your point is??? Must be a non sequitor.

And the hands of early Protestants weren't? Why, you act as though these things are happening today.... Well, uh wait - they are... except they are happening to Catholics in the middle east and Africa. Oppps.

Another "childish" post. Can't you do better?
Do you really think you can wash away the blood of the past because some Catholics are being persecuted by Islamic nations today. Islamic nations don't differentiate between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Christianity. It is called all of Christendom. They hate them all. And the missionaries sent out by the RCC will suffer in those nations. It also goes without saying that the RCC priests will hinder the work of evangelical Christians even though they have enough to contend with when working in an Islamic nation. The evangelical has two enemies in an Islamic nation--the RCC and the Muslim. You don't have to question my sources. I am the source. Firsthand experience. It is a horrible religion that opposes the spread of Christianity wherever it goes.

To even suggest that the present day persecution of the RCC by Muslims would wipe away the crimes against humanity that they have committed in the past is ludicrous.
What right did Innocent III to wipe out the Albigenses? They were a peace-loving people that minded their own business.

Jesus said the bread and wine are His body indeed and His blood indeed. He made no explanations for a parable. In fact He even asked His appostles if, because it was such a hard teaching, they would leave him too. Those are Jesus' words and the words of the Catholics Church - they are synonymous! It is a hard teaching - but God himself said it. You either belive He has the power to do what he says or you do not. Many people in Jesus' day could not accept that He was actually the Son of God. Unfortunately, I cannot help you with that.

You can't help with that because you don't rightly divide the word of truth.
Apparently you cannot discern when Christ uses metaphors like:
I am the door? Really? Do you believe it literally?
"I am that Manna". Did Christ also look like and taste like coriander seed?
I am the living water. Do you put him in a glass?
--Why don't you take those phrases literally? Hypocritically the RCC takes only the metaphors that relate to the Lord's Table literally to teach the heresy of transubstantiation. Ridiculous.
Who is on the one dollar bill, BTW? Is it George Washington?
If yes, well then NO. It is only an image of Washington. Washington is dead and in the grave. That is an image a representation; and in the same way Jesus was giving a picture, a representation for those that would believe on him.
Many people to this day cannot accept that he is the Son of God, nor do they accept that the elements represent his death on the cross and what he did for us.

Well, if you take the bible in its entirity, you might have a different take on the matter. None-the-less, the belief that prayer is always worship is a rather recent development - speaking in terms of the age of Christianity that is. As has been proven here ad-nausium, it isn't and you are wrong.

What you say you have proven you haven't. In fact what you think is new--that prayer is always worship--has been taught since the days of Moses--six thousand years ago. That is fairly ancient IMO. I believe your ideas concerning idolatry are not novel. God has been condemning them for ages. But like the RCC you close your eyes, ignore the Ten Commandments, and simply say that you don't commit it (or at least that they don't commit it).
Prayer is worship. It always has been. Since when did you redefine the worship of the Almighty?

 

[DHK]

So YOU say. And, I might add, you are flat out wrong. I cannot abide intellectual dishonesty no matter from where it comes.

He said:
"Base salvation on works and not faith in Jesus Christ"
--And that is correct since salvation is contingent on both baptism and other sacraments. But lets consider just baptism. The Catechism equates baptism with the new birth. The Bible says that "except a man be born again one cannot enter the kingdom of God." The Catechism says that this "born again" is baptism. Baptism is a work of man, something that man does and man receives. It is a work. Salvation is thus by works. It is that simple. So he is correct.

That is precisely WHY it IS done. Tell me my brother, exactly where in scipture is the age of accountability stated? - You know, that Baptist well loved doctrine and traditions of men?

Show me one instance of any infant being baptized?
Show me one instance of any infant anywhere in the history of the world that understands the gospel enough to accept it by faith, and then understand why he should be baptized after that. Baptism takes place only after salvation, on request of the believers realization of his need to be baptized.
If you can't demonstrate these things to me then you have no argument, age of accountability not withstanding. Who brought that into this argument. Baptism does not save.

Well, if one holds that Baptists believe in a diltuted gospel, then one could make the same claim about them with equal authority. Hmmm....

Why would you think that Baptists believe in a diluted gospel when the Catholics I meet don't even know the gospel. I spent 20 years in the RCC and never once heard the gospel. The RCC doesn't preach the gospel. They don't know what it is. I have never yet met a Catholic that can explain the gospel to me. They don't have the gospel, period!!

Charms? Can you say Jesus' garments, Peter's cloak etc?
Uh oh...

Childishness again. Now you ridicule the Word of God to justify the foolishness of the RCC. How low can you get? This post needs to be reported. Are you really serious?

Acts 5:14 And believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women.)
15 Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that at the least the shadow of Peter passing by might overshadow some of them.
16 There came also a multitude out of the cities round about unto Jerusalem, bringing sick folks, and them which were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed every one.

When you have the gift of healing like Peter did, and are able to heal ALL that come to you (thousands out of many cities) of EVERY disease no matter what they were (broken bones and all), then you can consider what happened in verse 15, and not until then.

Well - Jesus said the same prayer three times in the Garden of Gethsemane. Surely you 've said the Lord's prayer more than once in your life. Can we say hypocrisy?

Not in my "Christian" life. When I lived the heathen life of the RCC, yes.
I don't recite prayers "as the heathen do" for Jesus forbids us.

Matthew 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Saying the "Hail Mary" and "Our Father" repetitively, as the Catholics do, fits this description of Jesus perfectly.
--Again, to justify the ungodly practices of the RCC by ridiculing the prayer of Jesus, is blasphemous.

Yes, you certainly could go on forever - and you'd be just as wrong forever as you are now. Thankfully, we won't have to worry about your spew for very long. Unless of course, that would be part of purgatory. Oh my...
WM

Most of us could keep going on ad infinitum and ad nauseum about the heresies of the RCC. It is not a Christian organization and never was.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Roman Catholics take words that didn't mean in the first century what they came to mean much later to try to justify their existence.
"Bishop" in the time of Ignatius did not mean a monarchial bishop as a third order of ministry, and "catholic" did not mean Roman Catholic. And the word "honesty" is used in this context? Yes, honesty and historical accuracy would be helpful.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Roman Catholics take words that didn't mean in the first century what they came to mean much later to try to justify their existence.
"Bishop" in the time of Ignatius did not mean a monarchial bishop as a third order of ministry, and "catholic" did not mean Roman Catholic. And the word "honesty" is used in this context? Yes, honesty and historical accuracy would be helpful.

I find this statement curious. Reading Westminster's quote of Ignatius letter around 110 AD we see how the role of the Bishop is portrayed. Its a common matter of history to understand that a Bishop of a Church in a major city a Metropolis (the Greek name for them) often became responsible for the outlying rural regions as well assigning presbyters and so the role expanded. Just like in Acts the Apostles had to create a new job because they needed to delegate and so they expanded a role of certain "Godly men" and they became deacons. So when Catholics see Bishop they understand it in the Context Ignatius meant it. Also Catholic has always meant universal. The meaning hasn't changed. Rome is identified with Catholics because of the schism between east and west and how the role of the Bishop of Rome was to be understood. Those in communion with Rome continued to call themselves Catholic, whereas Eastern Churches took the title Eastern Orthodox. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the structure of the Roman Catholic Church on this site. People don't generally know that the Catholic Church is actually made up of 23 autonomous particular churches, each of which accepts the primacy of the Bishop of Rome on matters of doctrine. Thus the Catholic Church is more diverse than generally known. Often when people refer to "Roman Catholic" they are speaking only to one of the 23 autonomous particular church also known as the Latin Church. Thus Roman Catholic Speaks to two things 1) those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome (not all of whom are Latin) and 2) specifically the Latin Church. But in general Catholics hold to the same title mentioned by Ignatius understanding the same meaning.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I find this statement curious. Reading Westminster's quote of Ignatius letter around 110 AD we see how the role of the Bishop is portrayed. Its a common matter of history to understand that a Bishop of a Church in a major city a Metropolis (the Greek name for them) often became responsible for the outlying rural regions as well assigning presbyters and so the role expanded. Just like in Acts the Apostles had to create a new job because they needed to delegate and so they expanded a role of certain "Godly men" and they became deacons. So when Catholics see Bishop they understand it in the Context Ignatius meant it. Also Catholic has always meant universal. The meaning hasn't changed. Rome is identified with Catholics because of the schism between east and west and how the role of the Bishop of Rome was to be understood. Those in communion with Rome continued to call themselves Catholic, whereas Eastern Churches took the title Eastern Orthodox. There is a lot of misunderstanding of the structure of the Roman Catholic Church on this site. People don't generally know that the Catholic Church is actually made up of 23 autonomous particular churches, each of which accepts the primacy of the Bishop of Rome on matters of doctrine. Thus the Catholic Church is more diverse than generally known. Often when people refer to "Roman Catholic" they are speaking only to one of the 23 autonomous particular church also known as the Latin Church. Thus Roman Catholic Speaks to two things 1) those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome (not all of whom are Latin) and 2) specifically the Latin Church. But in general Catholics hold to the same title mentioned by Ignatius understanding the same meaning.

See bold. Yes, but in the time of Ignatius, that development had not happened yet. It was not fully developed and in place until the late second century. You are reading these later historical developments back into the late first/early second century when such had not happened yet. At that time, the Biblical account of only two offices or orders was still in effect -- bishop/presbyter/elder/pastor/overseer (one office), and deacon. As well, the term "catholic" still meant universal, not Roman Catholic.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

See bold. Yes, but in the time of Ignatius, that development had not happened yet. It was not fully developed and in place until the late second century. You are reading these later historical developments back into the late first/early second century when such had not happened yet. At that time, the Biblical account of only two offices or orders was still in effect -- bishop/presbyter/elder/pastor/overseer (one office), and deacon. As well, the term "catholic" still meant universal, not Roman Catholic.

Not at all. Ignatius description of the role of Bishop speaks for itself. You don't have to read into Ignatius to see his meaning. Clearly the Bishop or overseer had a specified function in the NT Church and it was one of primary leadership with in specified churches. All I've suggested is that there was some development shortly thereafter giving by necessity a wider roll to the Bishop. Naturally resulting in not only expanding that roll but affecting the roll of the presbyter as well. Simple progression. When 1 Bishop was responsible for 1 small community in the city by growth of multiplication of members it became necessary to expand his roll. Therefore there is no "reading" back into Ignatius anything. By Ignatius time it was already evident (by his own words) that the roll of overseer was becoming more specified and somewhat different from the presbyter. Even in the NT deacon wasn't the same as Bishop or Presbyter. And I'm surprised at you when it comes to the term Catholic. I've explained Catholic hasn't changed. Catholic has always meant universal. Ignatius use of Catholic meant universal. The only reason the Moniker "Roman" was attached to Catholic was because of the schism between eastern and western Churches which I explained. Its like this. People always called themselves Catholic nothing changed when half of them left but to differentiated which Catholics we are talking about we add the Moniker "Roman" for western Churches and those eastern Church holding to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Catholic still means universal to this day.