What else do members hold in agreement with Papists?

[agedman]

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?

 

[salzer mtn]

Catholics are big on ritual's like burning candles, prayer beads, ect. I believe altars in churches are a form of Catholicism. What's the difference in going to an altar to confess and going into a prayer box to confess. A lot of churches put to much infuses on coming to a altar to repent. America as a whole has there idols as Catholics do. We have to have a image for this and that. Statue of Liberty, A hole in the ground to remind us of 9/11. Replicas of dead presidents, The list could go on and on.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I hold a belief in the Trinity in common with the Church of Rome.
Do you suggest that I become a Jehovah's Witness?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Catholics believe Lucifer is satan, I do not.

Many baptists hold to that view, so that makes them pseudo-catholics.

 

[kyredneck]

....The a-mil view comes from Papist doctrine. ...

The dispensational view, now morphed into what is secularly referred to as Christian Zionism, is a Judaized, idolatrous view. By ignoring plain scripture such as:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

....dispensationalists have elevated Israel after the flesh to a place of adoration and great eminence to the point of utmost stupidity, in that they believe "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us....Never mind what Israel does...God wants this to happen".

Oh foolish Dispensationalists! Who hath bewitched you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The dispensational view, now morphed into what is secularly referred to as Christian Zionism, is a Judaized, idolatrous view. By ignoring plain scripture such as:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

....dispensationalists have elevated Israel after the flesh to a place of adoration and great eminence to the point of utmost stupidity, in that they believe "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us....Never mind what Israel does...God wants this to happen".

Oh foolish Dispensationalists! Who hath bewitched you?

Ohhhhhhhh haha ha!:thumbs:

 

[agedman]

The dispensational view, now morphed into what is secularly referred to as Christian Zionism, is a Judaized, idolatrous view. By ignoring plain scripture such as:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

....dispensationalists have elevated Israel after the flesh to a place of adoration and great eminence to the point of utmost stupidity, in that they believe "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us....Never mind what Israel does...God wants this to happen".

Oh foolish Dispensationalists! Who hath bewitched you?

You apparently didn't read the OP.

This is not a thread on the pro or con of ANY view, rather which items, views, doctrines... do members of the BB view as aligned with Papists.

In the EXAMPLE used in the OP, I referred to the threads dealing with end times as what teased out the question.

Perhaps you should start a thread just for you on the historic pre-mil view and how some dispensation items may be included. That way you can rant on and on about how "bewitched" I or others have become. :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

That way you can rant on and on about how "bewitched" I or others have become. :laugh:

So you can dish it out but you can't take it? You 'rant' with your insinuations that those that don't hold to the the convoluted doctrine of dispensationalism are in alliance with Catholicism. My 'rant' is a fact. Your's is not.

 

[Revmitchell]

The dispensational view, now morphed into what is secularly referred to as Christian Zionism, is a Judaized, idolatrous view. By ignoring plain scripture such as:

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

....dispensationalists have elevated Israel after the flesh to a place of adoration and great eminence to the point of utmost stupidity, in that they believe "Every act taken by Israel is orchestrated by God, and should be condoned, supported, and even praised by the rest of us....Never mind what Israel does...God wants this to happen".

Oh foolish Dispensationalists! Who hath bewitched you?

Other than being completely anti-Semitic can anyone tell me what this post has to do with the op?

 

[InTheLight]

Other than being completely anti-Semitic can anyone tell me what this post has to do with the op?

Dunno, I guess it's been several days since his last rant, the alarm went off, so he let loose.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I think this is almost entirely incorrect. Most Puritans, including Jonathan Edwards, were Postmillennial. Check out an excellent book by Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, published by Banner of Truth.

 

[kyredneck]

Other than being completely anti-Semitic....

So scripture is now anti-Semitic?

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

... can anyone tell me what this post has to do with the op?

This thread is merely a continuance of other rants old man has made:

The Pope driven church must be Amil and reject all dispensation, because if not, the acceptance of the false prophet and joining to the Antichrist would also oblige them to agree that they are the ones being discussed.

All groups that held to the pope driven church (Episcopalians, Lutherans, puritans) rather than separating from that evil, also carried with them the Amil view.

Because the Puritans were actively discrediting the Jews (as was Martin Luther, Bach, and other folks of that age) the contention was that the church replaced Israel (replacement theology) and that the world was going to evolve better and better until the world embraced Christ and there would be heaven on earth. A great deal of prophecy and the revelation is taken as allegory, and already fulfilled. This view is also sometimes referred to as Covenant theology.

None of that thinking aligns with Scriptures when taken literally as possible unlike that of dispensation views.

Therefore, there are more than one reformed assembly that also rejects Covenant theology in favor of pre-mil dispensation views.

https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2258545#post2258545

 

[agedman]

I think this is almost entirely incorrect. Most Puritans, including Jonathan Edwards, were Postmillennial. Check out an excellent book by Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope, published by Banner of Truth.

Certainly as Iain Murry states, that the puritans "held their hope in respect to Christ's work in history with the anticipation of His coming
when history ends." This is in agreement with what I stated of the Puritans clinging to the Papist - Episcopalian view.

However, Edwards considered the Millennium to be a time of "Sabbath rest" for the church and that it was a time spent with Christ.

Here is a quote from Edwards given by John H. Gerstner found here:

"The meek (those that meekly and patiently suffer with Christ, and for his sake) shall inherit the earth: they shall inherit it, and reign on earth with Christ. Christ is the heir of the world; and when the appointed time of his kingdom comes, his inheritance shall be given him, and then the meek, who are joint*heirs, shall inherit the earth…." (taken from the writings of Jonathan Edwards "works")

​

Edwards had much muse on this topic, one which can be found here .

 

[agedman]

This thread is merely a continuance of other rants old man has made:


https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2258545#post2258545

Actually, as the OP clearly stated and you did not comprehend, it is not.

Glad you noticed the remarks I made in the other thread. Noticed no one took issue. Even started a whole new thread so you can do some research on first hand writings of those who actually knew the Apostle John and argue with them.

Bet you won't do it, because it would expose your view as inconsistent with that of the Apostle.

But this is NOT the thread for that discussion.

Go over to the thread I started for that discussion.

As far as "rant"ing, it is you who twice now have attempted to derail THIS thread.

Are you offended by the truth I posted?

If you disagreed, why wait until I open this thread, or why not run to the other thread that I started and vent?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"The meek (those that meekly and patiently suffer with Christ, and for his sake) shall inherit the earth: they shall inherit it, and reign on earth with Christ. Christ is the heir of the world; and when the appointed time of his kingdom comes, his inheritance shall be given him, and then the meek, who are joint*heirs, shall inherit the earth…." (taken from the writings of Jonathan Edwards "works")

Amen! I agree with all that. No mention of a '1,000 year reign' anywhere.
May I just say that I couldn't care less whether the Church of Rome holds any particular view that I hold.
Truth is truth, and even a blind hog finds an acorn sometime. :thumbs:

 

[kyredneck]

...Are you offended by the truth I posted? ...

There's absolutely no truth in your insinuations that non-dispies are of necessity, 'Pope-Driven'. You however, are greatly offended by the fact that dispensationalists on the whole have become 'Zionist-Driven'.

Tit for tat. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

 

[agedman]

There's absolutely no truth in your insinuations that non-dispies are of necessity, 'Pope-Driven'. You however, are greatly offended by the fact that dispensationalists on the whole have become 'Zionist-Driven'.

Tit for tat. You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Give and take are all part of the BB.

However, I did not "give" until you gave. Were you offended by the OP or something I posted after?

Perhaps, you can actually find how your view is not Papist, I can't. I have done much research on the topic of the history of where both the a-mil and the pre-mil were founded, and there is not one credible historian that does not place the typical a-mil and post-mil view in any other light than that I gave.

As far as this thread, perhaps you can show in what area the Baptists are not embracing something Papist?

Do you not find anything that BB members view as Scriptural that can be aligned with that of the RCC teaching?

 

[Revmitchell]

Why do we need tit for tat and dishing it out?

 

[agedman]

Amen! I agree with all that. No mention of a '1,000 year reign' anywhere.
May I just say that I couldn't care less whether the Church of Rome holds any particular view that I hold.
Truth is truth, and even a blind hog finds an acorn sometime. :thumbs:

Perhaps you can see the pre-mil view of Edwards in this report by Kim Riddlebarger from here.

"Edwards argued in his A History of the Work of Redemption (first published in 1773), that the millennial age will not arrive until "Antichrist is fallen, and Satan's visible kingdom on earth is destroyed."[34] However, immediately before this millennial age dawns, which in Edwards' scheme may be immanent, "we have all reason to conclude from the Scriptures, that just before this work of God begins, it will be a very dark time with respect to the interests of religion in the world."[35] This dark period, which Edwards may even have viewed as his own age, will witness the great work of God gradually though powerfully wrought by the Spirit of God, "poured out for the wonderful revival and promulgation of religion....This pouring out of the Spirit of God, when it is begun, shall soon bring multitudes to forsake that vice and wickedness that generally prevails (italics in the original)."[36] But the cessation of evil conduct is not all that is in view. Not only will the Spirit of God restrain evil, but He...​

Shall cause that vital religion, which is now so despised and laughed at in the world, to revive. The work of conversion shall break forth, and go on in such a manner as never has been hitherto....God, by pouring out his Holy Spirit, will furnish men to be glorious instruments of carrying on this work; will fill them with knowledge and wisdom, and fervent zeal for the promoting the kingdom of Christ, and the salvation of souls, and propagating the gospel in the world. The gospel shall begin to be preached with abundantly greater clearness and power than had heretofore been....Before Babylon falls, the gospel shall be powerfully preached and propagated in the world[37]." (bold emphasis mine)
​

Note: I left the hyperlinks active so you could investigate the documentation for the statements made.

 

[agedman]

Why do we need tit for tat and dishing it out?

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