What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

[lori4dogs]

BTW, DHK, where did the primates meet to discuss the 'problem' in The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada??
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania would be the right answer. Not Canterbury. The Archbishop of Canterbury is considered 'first among equals'. Basically, he presides at the meeting but can certainly be out voted and often he is.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: "As you have summed it up: You get your information by "hearsay."
I get my information by firsthand experience."

By your own admission you have never been to Nigeria so comparing it to other countires is just apples and oranges. You don't know the Anglicans there are 'just religious' and not saved. You just make a judgement based on what you encounter with Anglicans in Canada. Again, apples and oranges. As far as your statement 'if they differ from their beliefs so much, why are they still Anglican?'If you knew anything about the Anglican Church you would know it contains many different views and practices. You have Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and broad Church elements in the church. In Canada you pretty much just have liberal church. Again, you are judging Anglicans by what you have encountered in The Anglican Church of Canada. If I were just exposed to that I would probably form the same conclusions you have.

 

[DHK]

DHK said: "As you have summed it up: You get your information by "hearsay."
I get my information by firsthand experience."

By your own admission you have never been to Nigeria so comparing it to other countires is just apples and oranges. You don't know the Anglicans there are 'just religious' and not saved. You just make a judgement based on what you encounter with Anglicans in Canada.

No. I told you before I am a missionary. I have been to a number of 3rd world nations some of which are Muslim nations with a "Christian" minority just like Nigeria is. I am very familiar with that type of culture. That is not Canada that I am describing or speaking about. I am speaking of first hand experience: maybe not Nigeria specifically, but from other nations very similar to Nigeria.
Again, apples and oranges. As far as your statement 'if they differ from their beliefs so much, why are they still Anglican?'If you knew anything about the Anglican Church you would know it contains many different views and practices. You have Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, and broad Church elements in the church. In Canada you pretty much just have liberal church. Again, you are judging Anglicans by what you have encountered in The Anglican Church of Canada. If I were just exposed to that I would probably form the same conclusions you have.[/QUOTE]
I have seen the Anglican Church in other nations as well. I have noted the difference as you have heard of the difference. The question was a fair question just as the Catholics on the board claim that there is no difference no matter where they are. They have their Catechism, their Magesterium, and no matter where they are they are Catholic. Nothing changes. I tend to believe you that there are differences in that I have seen them. But on the same hand you won't admit that for the Catholic Church. I have seen you stick up for them. And now that you are becoming a Catholic you will have to defend a position that is opposite of that which you are defending now, even though the two churches are almost the same. In fact, as this entire conversation started--the Anglicans are going back to Rome. But the RCC says, no matter what we don't change. As an Anglican, you say "we have many different kinds. You are in a bind. Which is it?

 

[lori4dogs]

This is the difference as I see it. The Catholic Church has opened it's doors (by request of an Anglo-Catholic group) to have individuals, churches, dioceses return to the Catholic Church. For the most part, I believe those churches, dioceses will have walk away from their properties when they do this. So they are giving something up alright but it is not a doctrinal thing, it's a church property thing.

What the Catholic Church is not doing is saying that those Anglicans who do not join the RCC are not Christians. However, those who do (and we just saw a group in Australia do this) must be willing to accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church without compromise. No doctrinal concessions.

You said that the RCC has a doctrine of celibacy, I said that is not true. I gave you evidence to the contrary.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning on why I'm in a bind converting to the Catholic Church. I have left the Anglican Church because I believe it is the Church Christ established on Peter. I believe the Anglican Church errored by breaking with the Church of Rome. Other Anglicans, as well, feel it is time to return home.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

If you don't know what you are talking about it would be better if you don't speak.

Oh, the irony.

 

[lori4dogs]

Oh, the irony.

Good answer to my question. Figured as much. I expected you would be repeating everything that DHK has said anyway.

 

[DHK]

This is the difference as I see it. The Catholic Church has opened it's doors (by request of an Anglo-Catholic group) to have individuals, churches, dioceses return to the Catholic Church. For the most part, I believe those churches, dioceses will have walk away from their properties when they do this. So they are giving something up alright but it is not a doctrinal thing, it's a church property thing.

And others are following suit. The reason? Ecumenism. It is all predicted in the Bible. As I mentioned before. Check almost all Protestant Commentaries that date right back to the reformation. They agree with very little difference on the interpretation of this verse, that it refers to the RCC.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

The ecumenical movement being shoved ahead with the World Council of Churches, promoted as well with the RCC is moving full steam ahead to the One World Church of the Anti-Christ.
Oh Lord Jesus, come soon!

What the Catholic Church is not doing is saying that those Anglicans who do not join the RCC are not Christians. However, those who do (and we just saw a group in Australia do this) must be willing to accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church without compromise. No doctrinal concessions.

And that is ecumenism. That plays into the hand of the RCC. We are heading quickly into the end times.

You said that the RCC has a doctrine of celibacy, I said that is not true. I gave you evidence to the contrary.

I guess you just ignore the decrees set forth right from the vatican itself.

I'm trying to follow your reasoning on why I'm in a bind converting to the Catholic Church. I have left the Anglican Church because I believe it is the Church Christ established on Peter. I believe the Anglican Church errored by breaking with the Church of Rome. Other Anglicans, as well, feel it is time to return home.

Return to the great harlot church of the end times. Read your Bible and see what is happening. To all that believe and understand the Bible, we live in the most exciting times of history. Jesus is coming soon. The signs of His coming are all around us. And you are posting some of them right on this board.

 

[lori4dogs]

DHK said: "I guess you just ignore the decrees set forth right from the vatican itself."

I showed you that, from your own source, it pertained only to the Latin Church. There is much more to the RCC than just the Latin Church.

Not buying your 'whore of Babylon' interpretation. Sorry. For Rome to become this 'one world church of the anti-Christ, it would have to accomodate all the heresies of the liberal protestant churches. You know, no virgin, birth, resurrection being the 'the spirit of Jesus living on in His followers', the atonement is divine child abuse, no real heaven, and so on. Not going to happen and the liberal protestant churches aren't likely to repent of their heresy.

 

[Zenas]

And others are following suit. The reason? Ecumenism. It is all predicted in the Bible. As I mentioned before. Check almost all Protestant Commentaries that date right back to the reformation. They agree with very little difference on the interpretation of this verse, that it refers to the RCC.

Revelation 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

The ecumenical movement being shoved ahead with the World Council of Churches, promoted as well with the RCC is moving full steam ahead to the One World Church of the Anti-Christ.
Oh Lord Jesus, come soon!

And that is ecumenism. That plays into the hand of the RCC. We are heading quickly into the end times.

I guess you just ignore the decrees set forth right from the vatican itself.

Return to the great harlot church of the end times. Read your Bible and see what is happening. To all that believe and understand the Bible, we live in the most exciting times of history. Jesus is coming soon. The signs of His coming are all around us. And you are posting some of them right on this board.

That sounds very interesting and convincing, and there was a time when I was quite a bit younger that I believed this as well. However, the problem with the idea that the Holy See is the whore of Babylon is that they also expect their church to be persecuted by the anti-Christ. Section 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

How do you reconcile this doctrinal statement with an institution that has designs to rule the world and stamp out Christianity?

By the way, the more I hear you rant about ecumenism the more certain I am that you have no idea what ecumenism is. I know where you're coming from because as a teenager I would occasionally attend an IFB, and more often than not the sermon would contain some form of denunciation of ecumenism. The World Council of Churches was always the primary villian in those days as well. Strangely, however, I have never heard this railing against ecumenism anywhere but in an IFB church. Maybe we should start a thread on this and flesh out all of our ideas on this topic.

 

[DHK]

That sounds very interesting and convincing, and there was a time when I was quite a bit younger that I believed this as well. However, the problem with the idea that the Holy See is the whore of Babylon is that they also expect their church to be persecuted by the anti-Christ. Section 675 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: How do you reconcile this doctrinal statement with an institution that has designs to rule the world and stamp out Christianity?

The Catholic Church's goal is to become a one-world church, and always has sought for world domination: if not by the sword, like they did in the Crusades; then by some other way. The previous Pope set things in motion by his ecumenical ways, his deep adoration of Mary, his appeal to other religions to come back to the fold. He was very "charismatic."
Look at what is happening. See this link:

Exorcisms and alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary are occurring in Cairo, in two of the city's poorest neighbourhoods, and the two phenomena are drawing in throngs of the faithful, mostly Christian Copts but Muslims as well. The most recent event is the one which occurred last Friday in the El Waaraq neighbourhood, located in the Giza area.

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8380

By the way, the more I hear you rant about ecumenism the more certain I am that you have no idea what ecumenism is. I know where you're coming from because as a teenager I would occasionally attend an IFB, and more often than not the sermon would contain some form of denunciation of ecumenism. The World Council of Churches was always the primary villian in those days as well. Strangely, however, I have never heard this railing against ecumenism anywhere but in an IFB church. Maybe we should start a thread on this and flesh out all of our ideas on this topic.

What better example of Catholics cooperating with Muslims is there of ecumenism.

Written in 1990 when John Paul II was still the Pope

August 31, 1990

We have noted that the ecumenical movement plays a key role in forming the Antichrist's world religion, which will be a paganized Christianity such as was developed under Constantine and became Roman Catholicism. It is therefore not surprising that behind the scenes, the Catholic Church has been pushing ecumenism for years. It is not only drawing the "separated brethren" of Protestantism back into the fold, but uniting all religions under Rome, as Revelation 17 indicates.
The current pope is the leader of worldwide ecumenism. As such he presents an altogether different picture from the inflexible dogmatist determined to convert the world to Catholicism that most people imagine a pope to personify. On the contrary, John Paul II has taken the initiative in contacting leaders of the world's religions, accepts them as working toward the same goals of social justice, ecological wholeness and world peace, suggests that their prayers are as effective as those of Catholics, and has not attempted to convert any of them. He seems content to be acknowledged as the spiritual leader of the world's religions uniting for peace.

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5909

 

[Zenas]

The Catholic Church's goal is to become a one-world church, and always has sought for world domination: if not by the sword, like they did in the Crusades; then by some other way. The previous Pope set things in motion by his ecumenical ways, his deep adoration of Mary, his appeal to other religions to come back to the fold. He was very "charismatic."
Look at what is happening. See this link:

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/8380
[/FONT]
What better example of Catholics cooperating with Muslims is there of ecumenism.

Written in 1990 when John Paul II was still the Pope

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/5909

Interesting. You put up a couple of quotes from a website that contains no less than sixty (60) antiCatholic articles (count them) but not one single comment, not even an acknowledgement of § 675 of the Catechism which completely contradicts what you are saying.

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

 

[lori4dogs]

Interesting. You put up a couple of quotes from a website that contains no less than sixty (60) antiCatholic articles (count them) but not one single comment, not even an acknowledgement of § 675 of the Catechism which completely contradicts what you are saying.

There will be no acknowledgment. I presented DHK with evidence from several sources proving DHK's allegation that "all Roman Catholic priest's must be celibate" is false and then posted a quote from the source DHK posted that proves DHK is wrong and still no acknowledgment. It seems this is a character defect shared by others in IFB churches as well. Their NEVER, EVER WRONG!!

 

[DHK]

Interesting. You put up a couple of quotes from a website that contains no less than sixty (60) antiCatholic articles (count them) but not one single comment, not even an acknowledgement of § 675 of the Catechism which completely contradicts what you are saying.

I don't know exactly what you want.
Here is #675 again as you quoted it:

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.

Now given the fact that the RCC don't have a clue about some of the most basic passages of Scripture:

John 3:3-5: The new birth: You must be born again. The RCC believes this is referring to baptism. That is pitiful.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
--a refusal to believe it.

The RCC has a problem with Scripture and always has. The Catechism contradicts itself in many different places.
What they say in that quote is close to true. The RCC may indeed go through a fiery trial, and many of them will apostasize from the RCC, their Church. Its leader no doubt will be the antichrist itself.

But here is the important thing to remember. All true believers will not pass through that fiery trial, and will never apostasize. Their salvation is secure in the hand of God, and they will be raptured before that time comes.

 

[Zenas]

But here is the important thing to remember. All true believers will not pass through that fiery trial, and will never apostasize. Their salvation is secure in the hand of God, and they will be raptured before that time comes.

Nonsense. The pretrib rapture was unheard of in the early church. It was unheard of by the church fathers. It was unheard of by the reformers. It was not until 1827 that a man named John Darby (Plymouth Bretheren) came up with this rather far fetched and unscriptural idea of all the Christians of the earth suddenly being snatched up in a secret return of Christ, leaving the rest of humanity to suffer through a period of tribulation until His public appearing. 1827--that was only 183 years ago. How could it have not been discovered until then? Do premillenialists share the Mormon belief of continuing revelation?

Incidentally, can you explain the difference between a believer and a true believer? Whenever I see something pertaining to perseverence of the saints or similar doctrine, the writer always puts the adjective "true" before believer. Just curious.

 

[DHK]

Incidentally, can you explain the difference between a believer and a true believer? Whenever I see something pertaining to perseverence of the saints or similar doctrine, the writer always puts the adjective "true" before believer. Just curious.

Have you ever been to an Islamic nation?
They look upon America as a Christian nation. We are not a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination. There is this great umbrella called "Christendom" which the encyclopedia uses to classify "Christians" which have a general population of one billion in the world. But true believers are a very small minority, maybe 5% of that population. That is those that are born again, have trusted Christ as their Savior, are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. I do not count the RCC in that number.
Thus to make myself clear as to whom I am speaking about, I often put the adjective "true" in front of the word "believer."

 

[Alive in Christ]

"Instead of focusing on the beliefs that divide us, I thought it would be interesting to focus on the beliefs that unite us."

I can not be "united" with the Catholic Church.


I am a christian who attends a christian church.

I believe the Catholic *church* is as cultic as the Mormons and Jehovahs Wittnesses. They preach a false gospel and a false Jesus.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I can not be "united" with the Catholic Church.


I am a christian who attends a christian church.

I believe the Catholic *church* is as cultic as the Mormons and Jehovahs Wittnesses. They preach a false gospel and a false Jesus.

What false Gospel do the Catholics teach? Honestly I keep hearing this and I want to know what false gospel do they preach?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Thinkingstuff...

"What false Gospel do the Catholics teach? Honestly I keep hearing this and I want to know what false gospel do they preach?

The Catholic church teaches a *justification* that includes works. That false gospel is condemned in the scriptures.

And the Catholic church condemns the true gospel of justification by faith alone. (The one and only saving gospel.)

Now you know.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff...



The Catholic church teaches a *justification* that includes works. That false gospel is condemned in the scriptures.

And the Catholic church condemns the true gospel of justification by faith alone. (The one and only saving gospel.)

Now you know.

Do they teach Justification is a one time event or a perfecting inclusive of sanctification? Do they say you can do this with our without faith?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Thinkingstuff...



The Catholic church teaches a *justification* that includes works. That false gospel is condemned in the scriptures.



And the Catholic church condemns the true gospel of justification by faith alone. (The one and only saving gospel.)

Now you know.

James, the Brother of Our Lord and first bishop of the Jerusalem Church, wrote in his Epistle:
"You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

I think it would be news to him, at least, that the "true gospel of justification by faith alone" is the "one and only saving gospel", or that justification by works is a "false gospel" "condemned in the Scriptures". (Too bad he wasn't alive today so you could set him straight.)