"Always" does not "always" mean right. Your absolute statement is absolutely wrong. It is just like the RCC interpretation of John 3:5 where the word "water" always refers to baptism, which is heresy. The Bible does not teach baptismal regeneration. The Bible does not teach that Eve represents Mary. That also is a heresy. Why post heresy on the board. You have no evidence to back this heretical view up. If you had you would provide Scripture for it. But you can't. It is just surmising, opinion without fact. And that is all. Hinduism is simply a man's philosophy. So is much of Roman Catholicism. It can't be backed up with Scripture.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
When did it all go wrong?
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
You got it backwards. I suggest you find an early christian document that says Mary isn't the 2nd eve. And Mary represents Eve not the other way round. Many things are opinion btw. For instance it is your opinion that baptism is not regenerative but I can show you many scriptures for it. Act 2 for instance. Colosians 2 is another. And thats just two off the top of my head. However, I think you will have to struggle to find scriptural evidence that says baptism isn't regenerational in some respect.
He won't be able to produce any such document. There isn't one! Once again Church history doesn't support DHK. All he can say is that those horid Catholics destroyed the 'truth'.
As to baptism, the best DHK can do is 'spin' those verses. It's so weak.
Yes, I can find "early" and "Christian" documents that teach:
baptismal regeneration,
purgatory,
that Jesus lived to the age of 80 (Ireneus),
that Mary is the 2nd Eve,
gnosticism,
and an abundance of other heresies.
The fact is that false teachers abounded. Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, and all the NT authors warned us that they were there at that time and would also come immediately after their death. Is it not surprising that an unsaved, unchristian organization such as the RCC which has little to no light should choose heresy to believe in rather than truth?
Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
Thinkingstuff has pointed out that this identification of Mary with Eve goes back at least to the second century with the writings of Justin Martyr. There are many others who have drawn this conclusion, the most prominent of which is Augustine. They all point to Mary as the New Eve. This doctrine continued with the reformers. Even today prominent theologians, even Baptists, will tell you that Mary is the New Eve. Consider Genesis 3:15:
Every human who ever walked the earth, but one, has been the seed of a man. Nowhere but here do we read of the seed of a woman. Who was the seed of the woman? Jesus Christ, the second Adam. Who was the woman? The Virgin Mary of course.
It was the disobedience of Eve that gave us the curse. It was the submission of Mary to God’s will that enabled the curse to be reversed. Eve was disobedient, Mary was obedient. Eve consumed the fruit, Mary produced the fruit [of her womb]. “Mary is the New Eve. If we do not see this in terms of its oppositional parallelism, we do not understand the New Testament.” (Albert Mohler) (who states publicly that the pope teaches a false gospel but who also understands sound exegesis). Perhaps if you could venture outside your small circle of fundamentalists, who know nothing but what they teach each other, you would recognize truths like this for what they are--TRUTH.
Looks like some Baptist's are starting to come around!
http://hamptonroads.com/node/336411
Sorry, couldn't resist!!
http://hamptonroads.com/node/336411
Sorry, couldn't resist!!
Last edited by a moderator:
The Holy Spirit gives illumination and understanding to the Bible, not the ECF. I couldn't care less what they say.
The Bible interprets itself, not contradicts itself. I care not about man's opinion and philosophy.
You quote other "heretics." "Saint Augustine" is not a saint, IMO, but a radical. He was steeped in Calvinist thought mixed with Catholic heresy. No wonder he was so confused!
Genesis 3:15, the protoevengelium, speaks of the seed of a woman, or the promise of a Messiah. It is a prophesy, and in no way connects Mary to Eve. It is not that specific. It is simply saying that the Messiah would be born of a woman's seed (indicating a virgin--not which one), and that would be in the future. You don't see the word Mary in there inasmuch as you don't see the word Anne as the grandmother of God, another heresy of the RCC.
Allegorical interpretation was popularized with Augustine. No wonder you mention him. With allegorical interpretation you can make the Bible say anything you want. You can make black white and white, black. That is why the RCC loves this method of hermeneutics.
There are many parallelisms in the Bible.
Here is one I like:
Jael was blessed above all women.
Mary was blessed above all women.
--What conclusion would you like to draw?
Your slam on fundamentalists does not win you any brownie points. It only shows your ignorance. RE: Mohler--he isn't exactly right in his interpretations either, is he?
Study Gen.3:15 again. Go back to the drawing board. You don't seem to know what the verse is even talking about.
There are many conflicting opinions concerning the Bible. The Holy Spirit can't be leading all these people because He is not the author of confusion. Actually I have never discovered where the Bible says the Holy Spirit will give us "illumination and understanding." And don't give me John 16:13. That was spoken privately to the disciples for their benefit, not for ours.
I didn't quote anyone but Al Mohler. Does he qualify as a heretic? As for Augustine, who I did not refer to as "Saint Augustine", I have to meet you half way. He is not my favorite ECF but you've got to admit he was the most prominent, and he was a strong advocate of Mary as the second Eve as well as other Marian doctrines.
No, and you don't see the word Jesus in any of the Messianic prophesies. Do you also reject them?
It's not allegorical. It is literal and as plain as the nose on your face.
Well, they can't both be right, can they, although you have taken some liberties with the paraphrasing.
Well I'm not seeking brownie points but I think it's telling when you almost never see graduates of schools like Princeton or even SBTS teaching in your fundamentalist schools. And it is even more rare to see the graduate of a fundamentalist school teaching anywhere but another fundamentalist school. You learn from each other and wrongly assume that only you have access to the truth.
I don't know him personally but I read his blog regularly and listen to him on the radio. I don't agree with all his opinions but I have never found him in error in scriptural interpretation.
I think I do, since my views on this are consistent with pretty much everyone in the Christian world--except fundamentalists.
We all know you are a very educated man Zenas. You know "pretty much everyone in the Christian world.
You also know that (pretty much every one in the fundamentalist world) disagrees with all the rest of Christianity.
Did you keep tabs on the number of people that would entail. Would you send me a list of all the names of those that would be included in "pretty much everyone in the Christian world." I'd like to run a check on that. Verify your facts, you know.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
CONTEXT!
I am waiting for your context,
and your list of "everyone" in the Christian world. You seem to be avoiding the things that you claim.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Weird, and they have a sex scandal to go along with it. That is the missionary baptist.
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
I'm not sure to whom you are speaking but I put the Jaer quote into context. Just to be fair. I don't know the whole world of Christiandom but I know a lot of people. I know Paul Conn University President of Lee University. I know Jesse Miller the founder of OCSC/Cadence International (He was the House leader when I was in service). I know Roy Entwistle past Principle of RVA. I know Udell Meyers who is a missionary with the Navigators. I know Tony Compollo who is also the benefactor of my Alma Mater. I know my pastor. So, I know a few people but not all of Chrisitanity. I've even met Don Francisco and Greg Volz. Not that anyone now a days know who they are. But there you go. I know a few people. And they are from differing backgrounds. Isn't that cool?
Joshua Patrick
New Member
The church as never gone wrong,when in morale's and the Christian faith. It's been right infront of you for the last 2000 years.
As holy scripture states, "You are Peter(meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
So therefore the original church what was built upon St.Peter, this church cannot be destroyed, nor evil shall prevail against it, although evil may enter this church, it will not prevail against it.
I know this is pretty much suicide entering a baptist forum, being a Catholic. But we are called to preach the truth's of the gospel.
I think the student of the Apostle John, St.Ignatius shall sum this up.
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. " - AD 107
He shorly died in 115 AD, after witnessing the Christian faith. He was the second bishop of Antioch.
God Bless.
As holy scripture states, "You are Peter(meaning Rock), and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
So therefore the original church what was built upon St.Peter, this church cannot be destroyed, nor evil shall prevail against it, although evil may enter this church, it will not prevail against it.
I know this is pretty much suicide entering a baptist forum, being a Catholic. But we are called to preach the truth's of the gospel.
I think the student of the Apostle John, St.Ignatius shall sum this up.
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid. " - AD 107
He shorly died in 115 AD, after witnessing the Christian faith. He was the second bishop of Antioch.
God Bless.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Notice Ignatius said nothing about having to follow Peter's successor (in Rome) to be in the Catholic church, or WTTE "whereever Peter is, there is the Catholic Church". You won't find anything like that in the epistles of Ignatius.
Joshua Patrick
New Member
Brother, this letter is authentic and official.
I did not state, "whereever Peter is, there is the Catholic Church". I clearly stated, " wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." - As stated in the letter I provided.
The letter in question, was, "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans".
The certain part of the letter was, talking about "let nothing be done without the bishops".
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
If you do not believe the website, it references it's source.
"Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight"
Feel free to check it brother.
Although, you did state, "Notice Ignatius said nothing about having to follow Peter's successor (in Rome)" - What is true my friend, Ignatius did not say anything about it, but I can reference other early Christians.
Irenaeus:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian:
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth:
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Cyprian of Carthage:
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. ... ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
May the blessings of Jesus Christ be upon.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joshua Patrick
New Member
St.Augustine was a Catholic, my friend. He clearly taught and lived the Catholic faith. We class St.Augustine, a doctor of the church, he was an outstanding teacher. I learn alot from his theology and many others do.
St Gregory the Great who was the Pope at the time, sent St.Augustine to convert England, through the truths of the gospel and establish a religious institution, for the Catholic Church, in England.
He is venerated in the Catholic Church, as a saint. Also in the Orthodox Church aswell.
God Bless.
Your right.... it is insane.... especially with this moderator. Wait for it mate. :laugh: