What else do members hold in agreement with Papists?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why does the BB even have "tat" before one resorts to "tit?"

Hmmmm, conjures up impure.......naaaaa, never mind:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

I was reflecting on the recent thread(s) about the end time views.

In light of the discussions on those threads, perhaps there are other areas that need to be teased into the open.

The a-mil view comes from Papist doctrine. Such groups as the Lutherns and Episcopalians, who really didn't want to completely unhinge themselves from the Papist influence, are for the most part a-mil holders.

Many Puritans, who had no desire to separate from the Episcopalian, followed the Papist doctrine of a-mil, yet there were some outstanding, highly esteemed (such as Jonathan Edwards) who were staunchly Pre-mil.

This thread isn't so much to do with the a-mil, it is used as an example of agreement between the Papists and groups that were either forced or came to understand they could no longer be in political power and be a Papist, yet held onto the hierarchy, codes, doctrines... of Papists.

So, what other views, doctrines, and such do members of the BB agree that are or could be from the Papists?

Btw, in light of the populace becoming more and more enthralled by the Pope, don't you think a discussion like this would not sharpen the edification so one could be ready to give consistent reasons why Baptists are so different?

Don't be too quick to use the Church of Roman Catholicism, the papists, to bash those who believe the Darby/dispensational pre-trib-removal of the Church is unbiblical. You need to expand your knowledge of the truth behind the Darby movement before you bash those who reject the pre-trib-dispansational doctrine of the failure of the Church as "papists" ????

The Roman Catholic Church empowered the Jesuits to counter the Reformation.

In 1545, they started meeting at what’s called the Council of Trent. One of its main purposes was to plan a counterattack against Martin Luther and the Protestants.

To do this they empowered the Jesuits, who were a secret Catholic order founded by Ignatius Loyola. They call themselves the Society of Jesus, but you’ll soon find out that they are the Society of Satan.

Their work was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through theology and deception.

The Catholic Church gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of bringing Protestantism back to the “Mother Church.” Look at the state of today’s liberal Lutheran church, and you know they’ve been successful.

Central to this plan, was the need to deflect accusations that they were the Antichrist beast system.

The Jesuits are a covert military order of the Roman Catholic Church, not just priests.

They use fifth column tactics to infiltrate every institution they seek to destroy.

Instead of attacking from the outside, where everyone can see them, they covertly attack from the inside.

The Jesuits infiltrate the very thing they wish to destroy. They’ve pretended to be Christians and have infiltrated Christian institutions, to implement their deceptions inside the walls of Christianity.

They countered accusations by creating the concept of an end times 70th week of Daniel, featuring a one man Antichrist.

The Roman Catholic Church had Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, a brilliant man with a doctorate in theology, write a 500 page commentary with an opposing view, where he manipulated prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation, to create an end-time 7-year tribulation antichrist.

Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church.

His explanation was that the prophecies apply only to a single sinister man who will arise up at the end of time; instead of a beast, which the Bibles says is a powerful kingdom (the Roman Catholic Church).

He said that the Antichrist would be an infidel from outside the church of God; instead of someone who presents himself as Christ (the Pope, who calls himself the Vicar of Christ).

He said that the Antichrist would make a 7-year peace agreement with the Jews.

The most important passage that they manipulated is the 70 Weeks of Daniel prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27.

They applied the 70th week of Daniel to an end times Antichrist, replacing the 7-year period of Jesus new covenant being offered to the house of Israel from 27-34 A.D.

http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/jesuit-end-times-antichrist-deception/

 

[kyredneck]

"The Jesuits infiltrate the very thing they wish to destroy. They’ve pretended to be Christians and have infiltrated Christian institutions, to implement their deceptions inside the walls of Christianity.

They countered accusations by creating the concept of an end times 70th week of Daniel, featuring a one man Antichrist.

The Roman Catholic Church had Jesuit Priest Francisco Ribera, a brilliant man with a doctorate in theology, write a 500 page commentary with an opposing view, where he manipulated prophecies in the books of Daniel and Revelation, to create an end-time 7-year tribulation antichrist.

Ribera applied all of Revelation to the end time rather than to the history of the church."


Wow, old man, you know what this means? You, the accuser, are the one aligned with Catholicism. Not only are you 'Zionist-driven', your views have their roots from within the Jesuits.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

:smilewinkgrin: That has about the same credibility as Agedman's nonsense.

 

[agedman]

:smilewinkgrin: That has about the same credibility as Agedman's nonsense.

Really, Martin?

You would offer what (that is historically accurate)?

What do Baptists hold that can be aligned with what the RCC also holds?

In particular, what do you personally hold that could also be held as friendly with that of the RCC?

 

[preachinjesus]

The a-mil view comes from Papist doctrine. Such groups as the Lutherns and Episcopalians, who really didn't want to completely unhinge themselves from the Papist influence, are for the most part a-mil holders.

Many Puritans, who had no desire to separate from the Episcopalian, followed the Papist doctrine of a-mil, yet there were some outstanding, highly esteemed (such as Jonathan Edwards) who were staunchly Pre-mil.

This point, about amillennialism, is in error. It isn't a "Papist" (which we can assume to mean Roman Catholic) doctrine but one which arose prior to the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.

Those who hold to it, I'm not one of them, aren't in league with Catholics. It is a historical position on eschatology that predates Roman Catholicism.

So, what other views, doctrines, and such do members of the BB agree that are or could be from the Papists?

Btw, in light of the populace becoming more and more enthralled by the Pope, don't you think a discussion like this would not sharpen the edification so one could be ready to give consistent reasons why Baptists are so different?

The following things (which the list is much longer in reality) I agree with Roman Catholics on:
- Divinity of Jesus Christ
- Sinless life of Jesus Christ
- Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate
- Resurrection of Jesus Christ
- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
- The miracles of Jesus Christ
- The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
- The doctrine of the Trinity
- The nature of sin
- That God the Father sent Jesus Christ into this world

I can keep going if necessary...

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Really, Martin?

You would offer what (that is historically accurate)?

What do Baptists hold that can be aligned with what the RCC also holds?

In particular, what do you personally hold that could also be held as friendly with that of the RCC?

I have answered this already. I hold a belief in the Trinity in common with the Church of Rome. Do you suggest that I should become a Unitarian?

 

[OldRegular]

An examination of the early AnaBaptist and Baptist Confessions of Faith {William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith} shows that these people in general, if at all, did not believe in a snatching away of a "parenthesis" Church.

I expect most Baptist Churches in this country were saved from that false doctrine until sometime after the Scofield Reference Bible was published.

 

[OldRegular]

I have answered this already. I hold a belief in the Trinity in common with the Church of Rome. Do you suggest that I should become a Unitarian?

Since the Classic Pre-Trib-Dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby insists that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is only a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for National Israel perhaps that "parenthesis" will disappear and we will all be left behind.

 

[OldRegular]

This point, about amillennialism, is in error. It isn't a "Papist" (which we can assume to mean Roman Catholic) doctrine but one which arose prior to the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church.

Those who hold to it, I'm not one of them, aren't in league with Catholics. It is a historical position on eschatology that predates Roman Catholicism.



The following things (which the list is much longer in reality) I agree with Roman Catholics on:
- Divinity of Jesus Christ
- Sinless life of Jesus Christ
- Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate
- Resurrection of Jesus Christ
- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
- The miracles of Jesus Christ
- The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
- The doctrine of the Trinity
- The nature of sin
- That God the Father sent Jesus Christ into this world

I can keep going if necessary...

Thank you very much preachinjesus!

 

[Aaron]

I was reflecting on the recent thread(s) about the end time views.

In light of the discussions on those threads, perhaps there are other areas that need to be teased into the open.

The a-mil view comes from Papist doctrine. Such groups as the Lutherns and Episcopalians, who really didn't want to completely unhinge themselves from the Papist influence, are for the most part a-mil holders.

Many Puritans, who had no desire to separate from the Episcopalian, followed the Papist doctrine of a-mil, yet there were some outstanding, highly esteemed (such as Jonathan Edwards) who were staunchly Pre-mil.

This thread isn't so much to do with the a-mil, it is used as an example of agreement between the Papists and groups that were either forced or came to understand they could no longer be in political power and be a Papist, yet held onto the hierarchy, codes, doctrines... of Papists.

So, what other views, doctrines, and such do members of the BB agree that are or could be from the Papists?

Btw, in light of the populace becoming more and more enthralled by the Pope, don't you think a discussion like this would not sharpen the edification so one could be ready to give consistent reasons why Baptists are so different?

I have a feeling you use musical instruments in Christian worship. That wasn't taught by the Apostles, and it came in through the popes.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was reflecting on the recent thread(s) about the end time views.

In light of the discussions on those threads, perhaps there are other areas that need to be teased into the open.

The a-mil view comes from Papist doctrine. Such groups as the Lutherns and Episcopalians, who really didn't want to completely unhinge themselves from the Papist influence, are for the most part a-mil holders.

Many Puritans, who had no desire to separate from the Episcopalian, followed the Papist doctrine of a-mil, yet there were some outstanding, highly esteemed (such as Jonathan Edwards) who were staunchly Pre-mil.

This thread isn't so much to do with the a-mil, it is used as an example of agreement between the Papists and groups that were either forced or came to understand they could no longer be in political power and be a Papist, yet held onto the hierarchy, codes, doctrines... of Papists.

So, what other views, doctrines, and such do members of the BB agree that are or could be from the Papists?

Btw, in light of the populace becoming more and more enthralled by the Pope, don't you think a discussion like this would not sharpen the edification so one could be ready to give consistent reasons why Baptists are so different?

Church of rome holds to the trinity, that the Bible is to a degree from God, in the resurrection, but they always err in heresy regarding the Gospel itself!

 

[Sapper Woody]

Since the Classic Pre-Trib-Dispensationalism of John Nelson Darby insists that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is only a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for National Israel perhaps that "parenthesis" will disappear and we will all be left behind.

OR, I have tried to explain to you before that not all dispensationalists hold to Darby's teachings. In fact, the position itself is not even a theological one. It's a scientific conclusion based on an observation. God dealt differently with different people in different times. It really is that simple. It's not a doctrine, it's not a standard, it's an opinion based upon what we can see.

I, myself, am a dispensationalist, because I believe that God dealt with Abraham differently than He dealt with the nation of Israel. I believe He dealt differently with the nation pre- and post-exile. I believe He dealt with them differently during the New Testament, and I believe He deals differently with us now that the canon is closed. That is the view, independent of any other theology someone (Darby) wants to interject. Darby may have been a dispensationalist, but not all (none that I have ever seen personally) dispensationalists are "Darby-ists". I've not one time (growing up completely in dispensationalist churches) heard a pastor mention or even allude to a "parenthesis church". Not even once.

I don't mean this to be harsh, but your broadbrush, blanket statements about dispensationalists are at the least, inaccurate.

Then we come to Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil. Not connected to dispensationalism at all. While it is true that most Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil believers are dispensationalists, you can be one without the other.

In fact, I will make a very bold claim here. You, yourself, are at least partially a dispensationalist. Unless you believe we should still be making animal sacrifices, you understand that God is working and dealing with people differently today than He did in the Old Testament.

So, please, stop with the broadbrush, blanket inaccuracies that says that all dispensationalists believe in a "parenthesis church". It simply isn't true.

 

[Thousand Hills]

In fact, I will make a very bold claim here. You, yourself, are at least partially a dispensationalist. Unless you believe we should still be making animal sacrifices, you understand that God is working and dealing with people differently today than He did in the Old Testament.

What are you saying the animal sacrifices accomplished, were they saved by doing so?

 

[Sapper Woody]

What are you saying the animal sacrifices accomplished, were they saved by doing so?

No. I'm pointing out that they were commanded to do so as a future look towards a Messiah, and now we don't have to do so. God dealt differently with them then than He deals with us now.

Also, they had prophets, judges, etc. We don't. He reveals Himself through His word. Which He didn't then.

 

[Thousand Hills]

God dealt differently with them then than He deals with us now.

If salvation has always been through repentance and faith, how was he dealing with them differently?

 

[Sapper Woody]

If salvation has always been through repentance and faith, how was he dealing with them differently?

Dealing with people differently has nothing to do with requirements. God has always required Faith and repentance. But His commands, and the way He revealed Himself to people were different.

You are conflating two separate issues: salvation and revelation. Salvation has always been constant. Revelation has changed over the course of Earth's history. It began with one-on-one communication. It changed to prophets and judges. It changed again to inspiration. Then changed again to what it is today.

Again, the issue of Salvation has nothing to do with dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is merely acknowledging that God deals with people differently throughout different time periods.

 

[Thousand Hills]

Dispensationalism is merely acknowledging that God deals with people differently throughout different time periods.

So if mankind is still on planet earth in another thousand years, will he be dealing with them differently then? If so how?

 

[Sapper Woody]

So if mankind is still on planet earth in another thousand years, will he be dealing with them differently then? If so how?

God has been dealing with man the same way ever since the canon was closed. There's no reason to believe this will ever change, until either the rapture or earth is destroyed by Him, whichever happens. (And right there is how dispensationalism isn't tied to Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil.)

 

[Thousand Hills]

God has been dealing with man the same way ever since the canon was closed. There's no reason to believe this will ever change, until either the rapture or earth is destroyed by Him, whichever happens. (And right there is how dispensationalism isn't tied to Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil.)

So he changed the way he dealt with people before, but you don't think he will change the way he deals with people in the future?