Featured Pope Francis gives church hundreds of new saints...

Catholic: Can’t you read history you idiot!
Protestant: Can’t you read your Bible you pagan!
Catholic: Your epistemological independence belies your rebellion against the true church!
Protestant: Your quoting of a dead guy belies your following “the doctrine of men”!
Catholic: your mother was a hamster!
Protestant: Your father smelt of elderberries!
Catholic: Donatist!
Protestant: Pelagian!
Catholic: We should have burned more of you!
Protestant: We should have beheaded more of you!

 

There is no "Catholic word." Where on earth do you get such a ludicrous idea.
Just as the OT came to us through the prophets, so the NT came through the apostles and their close associates. The heretical RCC had nothing to do with it. The apostles and early churches preserved it. There was no "church", only "churches." The only "church" that existed was apostate, and eventually called the RCC.

 

Why is it so important to you that I go into specifics?

 

I got all I need to dust your rear; it's called scripture and NT scholarship.

BTW, "Romanist" is not name calling; it's an apt moniker to describe the church which is based there and claims it is the only true church, the only one established by Christ, a claim which is a lie on its face.

I suggest you need to broaden your narrow, cultic horizon and read more. You might start here with my previous postings and the postings of others who have presented scripture, scholarship, and church history which destroys Romanist claims and debunks any theory of an apostolic succession of monarchial bishops which can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles.

It's funny how Romanists such as you, when challenged to defend your wild and baseless assertions, can only resort to trotting out uninspired writings of men 200 and more years removed from the NT and the earliest churches. Of course the reason you HAVE to do that is because you cannot appeal to scripture, as it utterly destroys your position. It is an incontrovertible scholarly-established FACT, which no Romanist can deny, that the scriptures know of only two orders of ministry, that of pastor and deacon, the words bishop/elder/overseer/presbyter/pastor being synonymous for one and the same office and thus used interchangeably. You cannot get around that fact, no matter how much post-scriptural writing that you pull out. I know these facts makes you writhe in the most violent way and twist your guts into a contorted mess, but scriptural truth is hard to swallow and digest for someone who puts his trust in uninspired men and hierarchies rather than the Word of God. May I suggest a few tablespoonfuls of Milk of Magnesia? It will help you digest the truth, even though it will destroy your man-made idols and systems on its way through you.

Do some studying, if you have the guts and integrity, and let's see if you can admit that what I have said about the two orders of ministry in the NT is true.

John Wesley, an Anglican priest who believed in apostolic succession early on, totally changed his mind after he read Lord King's account of the primitive church and thereafter called apostolic succession a fable.

I am so glad that we have scripture to refute all the man-made bull that came after. At least the Anglicans are honest enough to admit that apostolic succession was a historical development and therefore view it as for the benefit of the church and not of the essence of the church.

So, the vaunted apostolic succession upon which Romanism, and you, make such unsubstantiated claims stops dead in its tracks in the second century. It does not go back to NT times nor to the NT; the NT totally disproves it. And all you've got to support your foolishness are quotes from post-apostolic, uninspired writers. Scripture, being the writings of the apostles and thus the foundation document of the Christian faith, trumps your post-apostolic writings and destroys your argument.

I know you had to swallow a bunch of man-made tripe to convert to Romanism, but perhaps a good dose of a strong purgative would help you to keep it down and digest it while you deny historical facts and scholarship and scriptural truth, all the while sacrificing your integrity to do so.

Okay, I will stop and allow you time for a bathroom break. May I suggest that cherry-flavored Milk of Magnesia might be more palatable.

 

Yes he does have something. Salvation in Jesus Christ. As far as you being able to walk circles around others on church history, baloney.

It does not matter which level of degree TH has, his posts are based on facts. Yours are based on writings of a cult.

These are the facts. Jesus Christ promised to preserve His church. The Roman Catholic Cult does not preserve His church because it practices nothing in the Bible in relation to a saving relationship to Jesus Christ and faith. Cults do not preserve the church as Jesus Christ intended.

I do not know nor care what your level of education is. It might as well be third grade as a PhD in Theology. How worthless is that title from a seminary or whatever you call them when the principles they teach are based on a works salvation and worshipping created beings. You say you are an expert in history??? You do not even know when the RC cult ws founded.

And by the way, you, Walter, and Thinkingstuffed are the masters at calling others names. That is because your theology is weak, and cannot stand the standard of Scripture. The thing is, the term church history, or Catholic history or tradition, is meaningless, since the whole organization was founded for polticial convienience, not to accomplish the work of the Lord.

It is the local autnonmous churches that preserved the church. If Peter and Paul could be ushered to us today, they would take one look at RCC theology, compare it to Scripture and openly cry at what the Gospel had become as practiced by the largest Christian "church." No wonder the pathway is narrow. I believe if Peter or Paul were in Rome, they would march right up to the Pope's throne in the Vatican and puke on him.

 

Yes, you are correct. Romanism is built on a man-made house of cards.

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

 

That is quite untrue.

See the link I posted in response to DHK.

 

More Romanist twisting and misinterpretation of scripture. Jesus did not say He would build His church on Peter, a mere man who would deny Jesus three times. The church is not built on any man.

 

There is no such thing as a Catholic word or concept that has anything to do with what is Holy. Every Catholic document ever produced might as well be a Marvel comic book. Even if there is evidence that Peter is here, or Paul is there, who cares? What matters is salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Your cult emphasizes things, objects, nothing spiritual. That is exactly why the RCC preaches a Gospel of works.

Candles, holy water, beads, costumes, magic acts during the sacraments, elaborate sanctuaries, priests accepting the confessions when they are rotten to the core, praying to saints, etc ,etc do not fill of the gap the RCC has left in preaching the correct Gospel.

So tell us, what is of the Catholic church that we need to accept? The church was founded on a basis of political expediency, not to tell others about Jesus Christ. When your foundation is rotten, the whole organization is rotten, and to the core.

 

You cannot get around the fact that in the NT the words for bishop/presbyter/elder/overseer/pastor were synonyms for the same office.

I will not say anything against you because I know of your struggle, and I believe you are genuine. I also see the fruits of the Spirit in you.

 

You are correct, and even if we were not correct, the mere fact that whether it is Jesus or Peter is the glaring important theme to them. It goes right over their head that Christ promised to preserve His church. The reason it goes right over their head is that the RCC had not one thing to do with preserving the church. All the RCC did throughout history was persecute the ones who were preserving the church, kind of like what John Calvin did.

The RCC was founded on political motives, not out of a concern for lost souls. If it even exists, a concern for the lost is way down on their priority list. They are more worried about which direction to splash the holy water at the start of each service.

 

Which church most closely represents and resembles the teachings and life of a simple carpenter, Jesus? It certainly is not Romanism. Compare the teachings of Romanism to the New Testament. Compare the wealth, pomp-and-circumstance to the lifestyle of Jesus. Compare the murderous, persecutorial history of Romanism to the ethical teachings of Jesus. Anyone see any similarity? I do not.

 

The reason you do not see the Baptist position is that you base your doctrine on the teachings of a cult, ie the RCC. As far as Apostolic Succession goes, the very fact that it is important to Catholics screams loudly that their central theme is not the Gospel or Jesus Christ, but genealogy. What difference does it make if Peter is in your "direct holy line."

Since that does seem more important to you that lost souls, lets put it this way. There is a chance that modern day Baptist churches do go back to Peter through local autonomous churches over the centuries. There is zero chance the RCC has a connection to the Apostles, because if they did, the church would have been founded on Biblical principles, not political motivation. The fact that going back to Peter is important to your cult tells everyone it is a cult. What difference does it make? What makes a difference is faith in Jesus Christ and preaching it.

 

A note to all: I have started using the term "Romanist" to refer to the RCC to distinguish it from other churches which consider themselves "Catholic", such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Old Catholics. I know the RCC would like to monopolize the term, but I refuse to let them do so because this is not factual.

 

AMEN, brother! And I would add, living it. That's kind of hard to do when idolizing an institution and a man.

 

No offense intended.

You have used your credentials several times to establish credibility. It is not unreasonable to ask for further details in order to understand reference points. A degree from Asbury or Gordon-Cornwll comes from a different context than Luther Rice or Southwestern Baptist. Was it a Southern Baptist Seminary, independent Baptist, or other? U.S or foreign?

It is a common question in the workplace, so why not ask it here?