Would Baptists even exist without Catholicism?

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by DHK:
Grace,
Australian Baptist didn't make the claim. It was Cardinal Hosius who claimed that the Anabaptists dated back to the early centuries, if not to the time of the Apostles.
DHK

DHK,

Then I kindly retract anything attributing that statement to him. However, the fact remains that he uses this source and statement in his defense of a belief, meaning he obviously holds to that truth value, or he wouldn't have posted it.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Jim,

It has been answered. The Catholic Church of Nicea yes, but not the Roman Catholic Church that has it's origins later.

There was a Roman Catholic pope at the time of the Council of Nicea. Before that also. Trying picking up a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Although the histories or biographies of many of the earliest popes (first fifteen or so) are quite limited, by the time of Constantine, the Papacy was highly developed. St. Sylvester I was the Pope during this Council. It was Constantine who called the council, not the Pope, because it took place in the Arian East. Nonetheless, the Pope was an ardant fighter against Arianism.

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Baptists nor any Protestants owe nothing to the RCC.

So what exactly were they PROTESTING? Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk and a priest. Calvin was Catholic. Which of them WASN'T at some point Catholic? Whatever they didn't keep from Catholic tradition, they opposed, which means, if they are correct, they owe the Catholic Church for being a good example of a bad example.

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Certaintly to the ancient Catholic Church we do as do all denominations be they Protestant, Roman Catholic or Orthodox but the RCC is just a pretender to being that Church and Roman Catholic history propaganda claiming to go back to the apostles has no validity.

Would you like a list of the Popes, written in the first century? Or how about documents about the Bishop of Rome being the final authority? They do exist, you know...

Originally posted by Kiffin:
If you believe there was a pope in the 4th century you must confess he was either inept or senile since the Church of Alexandria led the charge against Arianism and not Rome.

I assume you are talking about Athanasius? Yeah, the eastern churches condemned and exiled him multiple times. That doesn't prove the Church of Rome wasn't involved.

There was no pope in the 4th century? Umm...

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Actually if one was looking simply for a chainlink Ancient Catholic link, the Egyptian Coptic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have more validity since their synodol form of government is closer to that of the ancient Catholic Church of Nicea and Chalcedon.

Can you provide me with some historical info as to how this is true?

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Even the Anglican Communion of Churches are more similar than the papal run RCC.

The Anglican Church? Are you serious? Please tell me you're joking.

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Actually there are no direct succesors in a chainlink sense to the Ancient Catholic churches.

Says who?

Originally posted by Kiffin:
All Christian churches are fruits of their labor and none can exclusively make a direct connection to themselves back to the Ancient Catholic churches.

So if none of them can make that connection, where did they spring from, unless every denomination is original from apostolic times?

 

[Eric B]

The vineyard is the kingdom of God -- national Israel. It is taken away from the Hebrew nation and given to a "new nation". Now to keep within the typology of the parable, the "new nation" is a physical nation which is here on earth just like the Hebrew nation. There is NO INDICATION of any change in the substance of the vineyard, only in the administration.

But it still wasn't to be an earthly government bearing rule over a sinful world of people. Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world. The Church claimed this, but what they crested in a period known significantly enough as the dark ages was anthing but that kingdom.

The idea of an "invisible church" contradicts what Christ came to do in His redemptive work. He came to reinstate the Garden Covenant and restore the unity between God and man which was lost in the Garden. To create a "spiritual church" which is invisible, unseen, and not of this world runs counter to the redemptive purpose of His coming. The restoration of the Edenic covenantal family means that it must be earthly. The only way to deny this is to be a Gnostic (like my younger brother) and declare that the world that Adam and Eve was created in was not physical and on this earth, but "spiritual" and unseen.

The full fruition of this "restoration of eden" is His eternal Kingdom, which begins at the end of all the events in Revelation --it's after the end of this age. Notice there at the end of Revelation we see the Tree of Life once again, for the first time since Eden. Never in the church age! The 4th century to the present
"Christian World" is was nowhere near Eden, even though the leaders were trying to restore it. You admit that there ar escandals and moral peccability, but how can sinful humans like this create of be apart of the actual Kingdom of God (other than in the "invisible Kingdom" sense)?

If God is the Father, and the Church is his bride, then we are the children. Children come from the Church, the bride, the mother, and thus it is this mother that nurtures the children.

God is the Father, Israel was His bride in several Old Testament passages. Christ is the Son, and the Church is the daughter [in Law]-- His Bride. Now, a Heavenly version of Israel or "Jerusalem" [bride of the Father] is our mother (Gal 4:26), not the church, which is the "remnant of her seed" (i.e. daughter) (Rev. 12:17).

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Eric B:
God is the Father, Israel was His bride in several Old Testament passages. Christ is the Son, and the Church is the daughter [in Law]-- His Bride. Now, a Heavenly version of Israel or "Jerusalem" [bride of the Father] is our mother (Gal 4:26), not the church, which is the "remnant of her seed" (i.e. daughter) (Rev. 12:17).

Revelation 12:17
"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."

If "Jerusalem" is our mother in these Revelation passage, which you say is heavenly, why, and how, is the dragon persecuting it?

Rather, coupled with verse 16, it's clear to me that the Church is ultimately protected, but individuals (us, humans, sinners) are still persecuted by the dragon.

 

[Eric B]

If "Jerusalem" is our mother in these Revelation passage, which you say is heavenly, why, and how, is the dragon persecuting it?

"Jerusalem" can be both earthly Israel (as the "bride of God" in the OT and the Woman in Rev. 12) as well as the [future] heavenly one.

 

[jimraboin]

Hello group,

Good to hear from you all!

So here's the kicker. If Baptist institutions all build on and rely upon Catholic authority for a large portion of their Scriptures and doctrines, why is Baptist institution more correct than its Catholic Mother? How do we know for certain that Baptist founders have the most authoritative understanding?

Anybody got ideas?

Jim

 

[Kiffin]

Grace saves said,

There was a Roman Catholic pope at the time of the Council of Nicea. Before that also. Trying picking up a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Although the histories or biographies of many of the earliest popes (first fifteen or so) are quite limited, by the time of Constantine, the Papacy was highly developed. St. Sylvester I was the Pope during this Council. It was Constantine who called the council, not the Pope, because it took place in the Arian East. Nonetheless, the Pope was an ardant fighter against Arianism.

Wrong, There was a bishop over the Church of Rome but no papacy. He must have been senile or lacking leadership if he was a pope since Athanasius and the Church of Alexandria led the charge. One wonders why this pope didn't issue a papal decree on the whole issue but instead let a Roman Emperor and the Eastern Churches take the lead.

So what exactly were they PROTESTING? Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic monk and a priest. Calvin was Catholic. Which of them WASN'T at some point Catholic? Whatever they didn't keep from Catholic tradition, they opposed, which means, if they are correct, they owe the Catholic Church for being a good example of a bad example.

They were protesting, the Apostaste doctrines that had corrupted the ancient Catholic Church when the Roman Church through the power of political power upsurped all the other Churches. Calvin and Luther referred to themselves as Catholics in seeking to Reform what Rome perverted. Anabaptists, Baptists and others of the Free Church sought the same thing but sought to restore back what Rome perverted. We keep the ancient Catholic tradition but not the perverted Roman tradition that took over through the 5th through 8th century. Even the 1689 London Baptist confession confesses it's belief in one Holy Catholic Church. So we owe the RCC nothing for you are not the ancient Catholic Church.

Would you like a list of the Popes, written in the first century? Or how about documents about the Bishop of Rome being the final authority? They do exist, you know...

I have a list of bishops of Rome but they weren't popes. You need to read Dr. Bruce Shelly of Denver Conservative Seminary's Church history History book which shows conclusively that the popes were a later thing. The idea of popes existing til the 1st century has as much valitidy as saying there is a unbroken line of Baptist churches to the first century. None of these Churches took orders from Rome until much later.

The Eastern Churches as well as the Anglicans Church is governed by councils and synods in a similar fashion as the 4th century churches. The RCC is ruled by a pope. Why even have a council if you have a infallible pope in the 4th and 5th century? Because there was no pope.

So if none of them can make that connection, where did they spring from, unless every denomination is original from apostolic times?

Genealogical connection is irrelevant. Any Church that holds to the Apostles doctrine has Apostolic succession in contrast to the RCC that claims it through lordly corrupt princes who called themselves popes. Truly the RCC like Protestants and the Eastern Churches get much of their doctrine from the ancient Catholic Church but the Ancient Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism are no more synomous, than is Apples with Oranges.

[ May 12, 2002, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[Kiffin]

So here's the kicker. If Baptist institutions all build on and rely upon Catholic authority for a large portion of their Scriptures and doctrines, why is Baptist institution more correct than its Catholic Mother? How do we know for certain that Baptist founders have the most authoritative understanding?

Anybody got ideas?

Catholic Mother? The faith of the Ancient Catholic Church is found in Protestanism. Baptists as well as most Protestants look to Jesus Christ as our founder and the Apostles as our foundation in that the RCC abandoned Apostolic doctrine by the 8th century.

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Wrong, There was a bishop over the Church of Rome but no papacy. He must have been senile or lacking leadership if he was a pope since Athanasius and the Church of Alexandria led the charge. One wonders why this pope didn't issue a papal decree on the whole issue but instead let a Roman Emperor and the Eastern Churches take the lead.

You're funny. Not really, though.
You can say what you want, and I can't stop you from going on and on, but there WERE popes back then, and we have histories of them, including that they were in fact called "the pope." And if you bothtered reading, it was Constantine who called the Council of Nicea, in approval with the Pope, who sent two representatives in his stead, and approved the canons after the Council. Constantine was a loyal subject to the Pope, and became ROMAN CATHOLIC officially on his death bed.

They were protesting, the Apostaste doctrines that had corrupted the ancient Catholic Church when the Roman Church through the power of political power upsurped all the other Churches.

And yet they each had their own ideas. Of course, none of their doctrines were apostate, right? As long as it differed from the Catholic Church, it's not heretical, right? That's some twisted double standard.

Calvin and Luther referred to themselves as Catholics in seeking to Reform what Rome perverted.

Yes, and people further reformed Luther and Calvin. Apparently they still had perverted doctrine! Oh, when will it end?

Anabaptists, Baptists and others of the Free Church sought the same thing but sought to restore back what Rome perverted.

If it's so simple, why can't you all agree?

We keep the ancient Catholic tradition but not the perverted Roman tradition that took over through the 5th through 8th century.

And yet the ancient Catholic Church professed Mary to be the Mother of God, had established the doctrine of purgatory, and many other things that you uniformly reject. Even the canon of the Bible was established by the "ancient catholic church," and you reject that! You reject what doesn't suit your tastes.

Even the 1689 London Baptist confession confesses it's belief in one Holy Catholic Church.

Except that they are not ONE with the rest of the Protestant community because they differ greatly on many issues of doctrine.

So we owe the RCC nothing for you are not the ancient Catholic Church.

Good thing you've proved this conclusively!

I have a list of bishops of Rome but they weren't popes.

Amazing.

You need to read Dr. Bruce Shelly of Denver Conservative Seminary's Church history History book which shows conclusively that the popes were a later thing.

The Arians also proved conclusively that Jesus Christ did not have two natures, and that he was purely divine. I guess we should agree with them to, since they did a good job at convincing the entire eastern Roman empire! Try reading the Oxford Dictionary of Popes, which takes a VERY objective, non-pro-Catholic look at the papacy, and yet still recognizes these men as definitely being "popes."

The idea of popes existing til the 1st century has as much valitidy as saying there is a unbroken line of Baptist churches to the first century.

The first is valid, and historical presidence. You just made the second half of that sentence up.

None of these Churches took orders from Rome until much later.

The papacy gradually developed into what it is today, just as Christianity gradually developed, and wasn't an overnight sensation. However, it was developed much, much, much earlier than you claim.

The Eastern Churches as well as the Anglicans Church is governed by councils and synods in a similar fashion as the 4th century churches.

Perhaps that's because they are schismatic churches that seperated itself from the Papacy but conviently held on to particular tradtions. Kind of like modern Protestantism.

The RCC is ruled by a pope. Why even have a council if you have a infallible pope in the 4th and 5th century? Because there was no pope.

You're showing your distinct lack of knowledge of how the Catholic system really works. Councils are lead by/supported by the Pope and the college of Bishops, in order to resolve an issue. Then, at the end, the Pope makes the final call. Your statement above is absolutely ludicrous.

Genealogical connection is irrelevant. Any Church that holds to the Apostles doctrine has Apostolic succession in contrast to the RCC that claims it through lordly corrupt princes who called themselves popes.

Do a quick history on Pope John Paul II. A corrupt lordly prince? Wake up and realize we aren't still living in the Dark Ages, something which the Catholic Church survived. And what is Apostolic doctrine? If you have it, why does it differ from the Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyrterian churches down the street?

Truly the RCC like Protestants and the Eastern Churches get much of their doctrine from the ancient Catholic Church but the Ancient Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism are no more synomous, than is Apples with Oranges.

Nice analogy, but you've yet to make it relavent. You've listed one author, with whom I can toss at you a hundred more that will say something entirely different.

Try backing up your statements.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Calvin and Luther (Ptooooooowie!!!) were rebels who didn't want to pray and work in the Church. Luther was a man with serious mental problems, as evidenced by his inability to have even the simplest faith in God's mercy through the Sacrament of Pennance. Anyone who ties up a priest for 5 hours in a confessional, then after leaving, goes running back because he "forgot something", has a very serious dementia regarding God, mercy, and sin.

Calvin was a lawyer and approached God as if He is not a loving Father full of Grace, but a stern and implaccable judge.

There were abuses of certain doctrines in the Church, but Luther went FAR beyond that. He wanted to change the basic salvational doctrine of the Church by introducing his theological novum called "once saved -- always saved." We know this was what he believed because he is the same one who said that a person could fornicate 100 times in a day and still be justified before God.

NOT in my Bible!!!

My God is holier than that!!

The Church eventually weeded out the corruptions, as she will do again with this current crop of misfits and sodomites which are corrupting Her. Luther and Calvin should have stayed in the Church and worked from within for reform. It is the sign of a rebel when one simply wants to rebel as they did.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Chemnitz]

You know somebody is trying to defend a bad position when they make accusations about people's mental stability.

Brother Ed you really should refrain from such adhoc attacks they only serve to show your ignorance and reliance on biased scholarship.

Luther tried to reform from within but was cut off before he had the chance by the Roman curia.

There were abuses of certain doctrines in the Church, but Luther went FAR beyond that. He wanted to change the basic salvational doctrine of the Church by introducing his theological novum called "once saved -- always saved." We know this was what he believed because he is the same one who said that a person could fornicate 100 times in a day and still be justified before God.

Your statement has no basis, either provide the support for this statement or retract it.

May I suggest you add Luther's Faith by Daniel Olivier(a professor of theology at the Catholic university in Paris)to your reading list

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Luther tried to reform from within but was cut off before he had the chance by the Roman curia.

I know all the fairy tales about Luther. I was told them all in my younger days. However, the real story of Luther isn't so heroic. First and foremost, the Catholic Church gave Luther many, MANY chances to retract the things he said and return to the Church, and he time and time again refused, which is why he was cut off.

Secondly, what Luther was attempting was not reform. Granted, thigns needed reform (sale of indulgences), but this matter alone was corrected (with Tetzel punished) in a matter of a few years, WHILE Luther was still rebelling. No, rather, Luther wanted doctrines completely changed or done away with. It started small, but gradually he kept cutting, and cutting, and cutting, until he had taken away so much of Catholicism that there was no chance of him turning back. First he still accepted purgatory, but then denounced that. Then he took away the books of the Bible that offered support for it. Then he denounced transubstantiation, and invented his own method. Then he did away with veneration of the saints and angels. Then he declared that the Pope is the very antiChrist.

His language and writing became EXTREMELY abusive. Have you read the Lutheran Confessions? Read the Augsburg Confession, and you'll see what started out as reform. By the time you get to the Smalcald Articles, you'll see an entirely different agenda.

Please note that the Catholic Church DID reform, and continues to reform, as evidenced most recently through Vatican II.

Your statement has no basis, either provide the support for this statement or retract it.

This is true and untrue. Luther did not believe in "once saved, always saved," but did believe that we have absolute assurance of our salvation. I know...I don't understand it either. However, he did say to sin and sin boldly, but believe and beleive even more boldly, even though we fornicate and commit murder a hundred times a day.

May I suggest you add Luther's Faith by Daniel Olivier(a professor of theology at the Catholic university in Paris)to your reading list

I'll see if I can get a copy.

 

[Chemnitz]

GraceSaves, I think demonstrated a better knowledge of the confessions, than you have the last time you challenged me on that. BTW yes I have read them all. I own the Book of Concord and the Complete set of Luther's Works.

 

[Kiffin]

I'm still waiting for documentation of a pope at Nicea or any sort of papacy before then. Amazing that there is no hiearchal system existing when you read the Apostolic Fathers (Yes, Ignatius talks about submission to the bishop but that could be claimed he was Anglican, Orthodox etc.. ). Lightfoot, Gibbons, have pointed this out and Dr. Edwin Yaumuchi of the University of Miami, Ohio in his paper on Ignatius (Which can by read in the book Great Leaders of the Christian Church ) points out, that the Church of Rome itself was not ruled by a single bishiop until around A.D. 180. It also appears that Clement in the early 1st century was just one of many bishop/elders that served in a plurality of bishop/elders in the Roman Church. This was certaintly true with Timothy who was a bishop/elder in the Church of Ephesus and was it appears the same with Clement.

The Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria all had jurisdiction over their own areas but none lorded over the others as Rome would later. Certaintly in the first 4 to 5 centuries the early Roman Church was greatly respected but her jurisdiction did not extend beyound her borders.

[ May 15, 2002, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

[CatholicConvert]

Kiffin --

I have a 95 page thesis on this, which obviously is much to long to post here. It answers your request regarding the need for a single earthly head over the Church.

If you will read it, I will send it to you.

Contact me at

stannrlc@mindspring.com

and I'll send it to you.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

[Chemnitz]

I know all the fairy tales about Luther. I was told them all in my younger days. However, the real story of Luther isn't so heroic. First and foremost, the Catholic Church gave Luther many, MANY chances to retract the things he said and return to the Church, and he time and time again refused, which is why he was cut off.

First and foremost the RCC didn't step up to the challenge. He said if they could prove him wrong on the basis of scripture he would retract his statements, but the RCC never even tried to refute him they just excommunicated him.

Secondly, what Luther was attempting was not reform. Granted, thigns needed reform (sale of indulgences), but this matter alone was corrected (with Tetzel punished) in a matter of a few years, WHILE Luther was still rebelling. No, rather, Luther wanted doctrines completely changed or done away with.

Isn't reform the throwing out bad doctrine and changing doctrine that has been warped?

Then he took away the books of the Bible that offered support for it.

The canonical status of those books were up for debate until the Council of Trent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
so you really cannot claim Luther removed them.

Then he denounced transubstantiation, and invented his own method.

He denounced transubstiation because it went to far and the Aristotlian physics did not allow for the fact that the Body and Blood were still refered to as bread and wine.

Then he did away with veneration of the saints and angels.

Praying to dead people, gee, I wonder why that need reform. Could it be that there is only ONE mediator?

Then he declared that the Pope is the very antiChrist.

Again, gee I wonder why the Roman Curia stood against the preaching of the Gospel.

His language and writing became EXTREMELY abusive.

You forgot funny

By the time you get to the Smalcald Articles, you'll see an entirely different agenda.

Duh, I could of told you that, the Smalcald articles were drawn up to help create an alliance between the Princes in anticipation of an invasion by Emp. Charles, which he did soon after Luther's death.

Please note that the Catholic Church DID reform, and continues to reform, as evidenced most recently through Vatican II.

I'll give you that, but they still haven't gone far enough.

 

[CatholicConvert]

Isn't reform the throwing out bad doctrine and changing doctrine that has been warped?

This is to assume that there is actually erroneous or "bad" doctrine in the Church.

I got some news for ya, chief.

THERE AIN'T!!

I was a viriulently anti-catholic Protestant for 25 years and believed all the things I see the non-catholics post in this forum. When I began to study Church doctrine, mainly to answer questions posed by knowledgeable Catholics, I found that every one of the teachings of the Catholic Faith are indeed defensible from exegesis of Scripture. So have thousands of other Protestants of note, such as John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, and a host of others who all came with their guns lined up to sink the Barque of St. Peter.

In the end, truth won out and they climbed aboard.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

PS Quick question. Regarding reform, and your statement that the Church has not gone far enough, WHAT exactly would be far enough in your opinion?

[ May 15, 2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

[Chemnitz]

Adopting the Augsburg confession and the Apology.

I was a viriulently anti-catholic Protestant for 25 years and believed all the things I see the non-catholics post in this forum. When I began to study Church doctrine, mainly to answer questions posed by knowledgeable Catholics, I found that every one of the teachings of the Catholic Faith are indeed defensible from exegesis of Scripture. So have thousands of other Protestants of note, such as John Cardinal Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, and a host of others who all came with their guns lined up to sink the Barque of St. Peter.

I too have studied RCC doctrine and have found it lacking. It is better than it used to be but still lacking.

[ May 16, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[Chemnitz]

Calvin and Luther (Ptooooooowie!!!) were rebels who didn't want to pray and work in the Church. Luther was a man with serious mental problems, as evidenced by his inability to have even the simplest faith in God's mercy through the Sacrament of Pennance. Anyone who ties up a priest for 5 hours in a confessional, then after leaving, goes running back because he "forgot something", has a very serious dementia regarding God, mercy, and sin.

I was a viriulently anti-catholic Protestant for 25 years and believed all the things I see the non-catholics post in this forum

Well at least you are consistant. You must of gotten pretty dizzy going from Catholic basher to Protestant basher.

 

[CatholicConvert]

My patron saint is St. Anthony. He is also known as "The Hammer of the Heretics". During the Protestant Rebellion, he refuted with great clarity the erroneous teachings of the Reformers and was responsible for bringing multitudes back to the Faith.

May I be half the man he was in serving the Lord and His Church.

St. Anthony, Hammer of the Heretics, pray to God for us!

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

PS When I was a "Catholic basher" I used to condemn them all, laity and priests alike, saying that they were ALL -- lock, stock and barrel -- going to hell in a handbasket. Now I will not say such about those who are believers in the Protestant tradition, but those who, like Luther, show real tendency for wrong thinking while bragging about how correct their doctrine is, deserve to be excoriated publically. Remember, if you are going to walk the point, as Luther did, you are going to take the arrows.