Catholic Inventions?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Living4Him, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would like to take a look at D28guy's charges under the "Do Catholic Priests ever say read your Bible?" topic.

    Actually, this is first mentioned in the Old Testament.
    2 Maccabees, from The holy Bible, King James version (Apocrypha)
    36: Now when they that were with Gorgias had fought long, and were weary, Judas called upon the Lord, that he would shew himself to be their helper and leader of the battle.
    37: And with that he began in his own language, and sung psalms with a loud voice, and rushing unawares upon Gorgias' men, he put them to flight.
    38: So Judas gathered his host, and came into the city of Odollam, And when the seventh day came, they purified themselves, as the custom was, and kept the sabbath in the same place.
    39: And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.
    40: Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.
    41: All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid,
    42: Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain.
    43: And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:
    44: For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead.
    45: And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

    Christians were making the sign of the cross at a much earlier date. The theologian Tertullian, writing in A.D. 211, said that "In all our travels and movements in all our coming in and going out, in putting of our shoes, at the bath, at the table, in lighting our candles, in lying down, in sitting down, whatever employment occupieth us, we [Christians] mark our foreheads with the sign [of the cross]" (The Chaplet [Crown] 3). Making the sign of the cross was already an old custom when he wrote. It may well have been common even while the apostles were alive.

    The most important form of honoring the saints, is the imitation of them in their relationship with God. Paul wrote extensively about the importance of spiritual imitation. He stated: "I urge you, then, be imitators of me. Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I teach them everywhere in every church" (1 Cor. 4:16–17). Later he told the same group: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:1–2). The author of the book of Hebrews also stresses the importance of imitating true spiritual leaders: "Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith" (Heb. 13:7).

    One of the most important passages on imitation is found in Hebrews. Chapter 11 of that book, the Bible’s well-known "hall of fame" chapter, presents numerous examples of the Old Testament saints for our imitation. It concludes with the famous exhortation: "Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us" (12:1)—the race that the saints have run before us.

    Again, this can be found in the Old Testament
    "And the Lord said to Moses, "Make a seraph (snake) and mount it on a
    pole, and if anyone who has been bitten looks at it he will recover."
    Moses accordingly made a bronze serpent and mounted it on a pole, and whenever anyone who had been bitten by a serpent looked at the bronze
    serpent, he recovered."
    Numbers 21:8-9
    GOD clearly said make an image.

    "Make two cherubim of beaten gold for the two ends of the propitiatory,
    fasten them so that one cherub springs direct from each end."
    Exodus 25:17-18
    Another clear message directly from GOD. Did you notice that these gold cherubim were to be mounted atop the most sacred object on earth, the Ark of the Covenant?

    Chapters 5 and 6 of 1Kings tell of the building of Solomon's Temple as
    commanded by GOD, and decorating it inside with..."And he made in the oracle two cherubim of olive tree, of ten cubits in
    height."1Kings 6:23
    Yet another command from GOD to make images. These were huge, as one cubit is about eighteen inches. That makes each one fifteen feet tall.

    I don't understand what the big deal is with this. Are you stating that it is wrong to go to Church, hear God's Word, and worship Him daily?

    Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God: If Mary is the mother of Jesus, and if Jesus is God, then Mary is the Mother of God. There is no way out of this logical syllogism, the valid form of which has been recognized by classical logicians since before the time of Christ.

    Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

    Since denying that Mary is God’s mother implies doubt about Jesus’ divinity, it is clear why Christians (until recent times) have been unanimous in proclaiming Mary as Mother of God.

    Irenaeus
    The Virgin Mary, being obedient to his word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God" (Against Heresies, 5:19:1 [A.D. 189]).

    Hippolytus
    "[T]o all generations they [the prophets] have pictured forth the grandest subjects for contemplation and for action. Thus, too, they preached of the advent of God in the flesh to the world, his advent by the spotless and God-bearing (theotokos) Mary in the way of birth and growth, and the manner of his life and conversation with men, and his manifestation by baptism, and the new birth that was to be to all men, and the regeneration by the laver [of baptism]" (Discourse on the End of the World 1 [A.D. 217]).

    Gregory the Wonderworker

    "For Luke, in the inspired Gospel narratives, delivers a testimony not to Joseph only, but also to Mary, the Mother of God, and gives this account with reference to the very family and house of David" (Four Homilies 1 [A.D. 262]).

    "It is our duty to present to God, like sacrifices, all the festivals and hymnal celebrations; and first of all, [the feast of] the Annunciation to the holy Mother of God, to wit, the salutation made to her by the angel, ‘Hail, full of grace!’" (ibid., 2).

    Peter of Alexandria
    "They came to the church of the most blessed Mother of God, and ever-virgin Mary, which, as we began to say, he had constructed in the western quarter, in a suburb, for a cemetery of the martyrs" (The Genuine Acts of Peter of Alexandria [A.D. 305])


    "We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead, of which Jesus Christ our Lord became the firstling; he bore a body not in appearance but in truth derived from Mary the Mother of God" (Letter to All Non-Egyptian Bishops 12 [A.D. 324])

    Methodius
    "While the old man [Simeon] was thus exultant, and rejoicing with exceeding great and holy joy, that which had before been spoken of in a figure by the prophet Isaiah, the holy Mother of God now manifestly fulfilled" (Oration on Simeon and Anna 7 [A.D. 305]).

    However, long before any of these Elisabeth in Luke 1:43 "And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
     
  2. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Regarding the story in 2Macc --


    #1. The story-book calls them "THE DEAD" not even "The DEAD in Christ" so the RCC by using this is claiming to PRAY FOR the DEAD and in that regard even TO THE DEAD!! What a confession.

    #2. The story-book charges that these DEAD (and not merely their dead bodies) are THEMSELVES ASLEEP!!! This means that the RCC is claiming that THE DEAD being prayed for are NOT in purgatory but are ASLEEP according to this story.

    #3. The story-book charges that THE DEAD receive NO BENEFIT from this prayer APART from the RESURRECTION of the DEAD. The RCC would have to RENOUNCE ALL claims to benefits IN DEATH to claim this "story".

    #4. The story book claims that THE DEAD who die in the MORTAL SIN of IDOLATRY CAN be benefitted by prayers for forgiveness. The RCC today REJECTS the idea that ANYONE can be benefitted IF THEY die in mortal sin which they claim IDOLATRY is!! They would have to change their teaching on MORTAL vs VENIAL sin distinctions where they claim that in Purgatory it is ONLY THE VENIAL sins that are dealt with because those with MORTAL SINS can't be there.

    But except for all that "attention to detail" this is a good text for Catholics!! (And I so love it when they fall for using it). It is "instructive" that they have SO LITTLE in support of their man-made tradition (that so contradicts scripture) that the BEST they can find to support it is this text that so debunks their ideas on death and what happens in death!!

    </font>[/QUOTE]
     
  3. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    The origin is found in the New Testament itself: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (Jas. 5:14–15). This scriptural practice dates from the very beginnings of the Church.

    But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven.

    Nor does ascribing the doctrine to Gregory explain the graffiti in the catacombs, where Christians during the persecutions of the first three centuries recorded prayers for the dead. Indeed, some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both written during the second century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Such prayers would have been offered only if Christians believed in purgatory, even if they did not use that name for it.

    As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

    Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them!

    In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding.

    Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).

    And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.

    If a Catholic said to you"I saw you kneeling with your Bible in your hands the other day. Why do you worship a book?" You would rightly answer that you do not worship a book. Rather, you use the Bible as an aid to prayer. Likewise, Catholics do not worship the cross, images, or relics. They use these physical objects to help them focus their minds and hearts upon Christ and his friends, the saints in heaven.

    The man who keeps a picture of his family in his wallet does not worship his wife and children; rather, he honors them. The woman who keeps her parents’ picture on the mantle does not subscribe to ancestor worship; the picture just reminds her of them so that she may more readily honor them. (Remember Exodus 20:12: "Honor your father and your mother.") No one thinks these pictures are objects of worship.

    In the Byzantine Empire there developed what was known as the Iconoclastic heresy, which held that all images (statues, paintings, mosaics) of saints and of Jesus must be destroyed because they would be worshipped. In 787, at the Second Council of Nicaea, this heresy was defeated, and the old custom (dating to the first century) of permitting artistic representations was again allowed.

    1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

    Oh yeah, let's not forget Jesus.

    Paul was not the first apostle to conclude that celibacy is, in some sense, "better" than marriage. After Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 19 on divorce and remarriage, the disciples exclaimed, "If such is the case between a man and his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). This remark prompted Jesus’ teaching on the value of celibacy "for the sake of the kingdom":

    "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).

    The implication of this is that transubstantiation was not believed until 1215. The facts are otherwise. Transubstantiation is the technical term used to describe what happens when the bread and wine used at Mass are turned into Christ’s actual body and blood. The belief that this occurs has been held from the earliest times. It stems from the sixth chapter of John’s Gospel, the eleventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, and the biblical accounts of the Last Supper. As centuries passed, theologians exercised their reason on the belief to understand more completely how such a thing could happen and what its happening would imply. It was seen that more precise terminology was needed to insure the belief’s integrity. The word "transubstantiation" was finally chosen because it eliminated certain unorthodox interpretations of the doctrine, and the term was formally defined at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. So the use of the technical term was new, but not the doctrine.

    You can’t have a problem with using a new word for an old belief since the term "Trinity" to express the belief that God is one being in three persons, though this word is not found in the Bible. Theophilus of Antioch first used it in A.D. 181 (in his letter Ad Autolycum), though Christians believed in the doctrine from apostolic times.

    Charges like this might make one doubt the good faith of professional anti-Catholics. It would have taken little effort to discover the antiquity of auricular confession—and even less to learn that Catholics do not tell their sins to a priest "instead" of to God, but to God through a priest.

    Origen, writing his Homilies on Leviticus, around 244, refers to the repentant sinner as one who "does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Cyprian of Carthage, writing seven years later in The Lapsed, says,"Finally, of how much greater faith and more salutary fear are they who . . . confess to the priests of God in a straightforward manner and in sorrow, making an open declaration of conscience." In the 300s, Aphraates offers this advice to priests: "If anyone uncovers his wound before you, give him the remedy of repentance. And he that is ashamed to make known his weakness, encourage him so that he will not hide it from you. And when he has revealed it to you, do not make it public" (Treatises 7:4; see the Catholic Answers tract Confession for additional quotations from the early Church Fathers).

    These men, writing almost a thousand years before the Lateran Council of 1215, refer to a practice that was already well-established. In fact, it dates back to the time of Jesus, for Christ commissioned the apostles this way: "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). The Lateran Council did not "invent" the practice; it merely reaffirmed it.

    The implication here is that bishops and priests were trying to keep from laymen something they should have had by rights. But the real situation is not hard to understand. The Catholic position has always been that, after the consecration of the elements, the entire body and blood of Christ are contained in the smallest particle from the host and in the tiniest drop from the cup. One does not receive only the body in the host and only the blood from the cup. If that were so, then for a complete Communion one indeed would need to partake of both. But if the entire body and blood are contained in both, then the communicant needs to receive only one—if there are good reasons for such a restriction, and in 1414 there certainly seemed to be.

    The first reason was that many people misunderstood the Eucharist and thought it had to be received under both forms for the Communion to be complete. By restricting communicants to the host only, the Church would emphasize the true doctrine. The other reason was a practical one. In giving the cup to the laity, there was a chance the contents would be spilled, so out of respect for Christ, the restriction was imposed.
     
  4. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Bob,

    I was raised IFB and have been a member of BB since 2003, mainly I just lurk taking in the conversations and doing my own research and forming my own opinions.

    Being an IFB, I was indoctrinated in the belief world of Jack Chick and David Hunt concerning the Catholic Church without ever objectively studying both sides and with the information forming my own opinions.

    Although I was raised IFB and taught the beliefs of Chick and Hunt, none of my pastors ever considered the Catholic religion as a cult, but my pastor never referred to the Catholics as Christians either, but never a cult.

    What really concerns me is that as I am slowly studying and really trying to understand the Catholic religion, I have seen you, a Seventh Day Adventist, who my pastors will refer to as a cult, bash the Catholic religion.

    I have in the past studied the SDA, but very limited. My wife’s aunt and uncle change religions like the wind and are now SDA.

    I have to say this concerning the Catholic religion is that I have been feed a steady flow of lies over the past and I am slowly finding that a lot of the doctrine of the Catholic church is backed up with scripture and/or is expounded on by early Church fathers.

    So my question to you is why should I believe anything you say about the Catholic religion when your own religion is marred in doctrinal errors? Who would have more likely understood the teachings of the apostles more clearly, those early church writers or Ellen G. White, whom didn’t come on the scene until 1860?

    Not wanting to start a debate with you or offend you, I just don’t understand where you are coming from.
     
  5. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sorry to hear that. There is no substitute for doing your own Bible study and for getting direct sources from the RCC.

    I have "The Faith Explained" by Leo Tress, "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" by Catholic best-selling author and historian Thomas Bokenkotter and a number of articles by Fr. Ken Ryan published in the well known - "Catholic Digest" (among other sources). I have found all these Catholic sources to be very insightful.

    I have also seen catholic sources villanized by Catholics whenver it suits their purpose. One does not have to restrict the list to Jack and Dave books to see the source get villanized.

    What does this have to do with the salient points made from "the details of the text" in 2Macc??

    Is this your "round-about" way of responding to the "points" raised in 2Macc???

    In find this more of a defense "tactic" rather than an actual response.

    Since RC members themselves brought UP 2MACC as a case for us to look at in support of praying for the dead -- why be so fearful about looking at the points IN THE TEXT that the RC members asked us to look at???

    It seems you are being evasive on a text being put forward by Catholics as if it is in fact non-Catholic text being used against you!

    What kind of logic are you using here?

    Misdirection??

    Hello!!

    This is not a "believe anything I say" message board. It is a debate/dialoge board where the texts that YOU (and other Catholics) ask us to look at -- GET LOOKED AT. Then you are asked about DETAILS IN those VERY Catholic TEXTs!!

    You now seem to be hyper-evasive ON YOUR OWN texts!!!

    Hos "instructive".


    "Pretending" not to see the obvious case of a Cathoilic text being put forward as "proof" for praying for the dead -- is not helping you.

    "Pretending" that I AM the author of that text OR That the DETAILS in that text can be "avoided" by bashing my church denomination - also does nothing for your argument.

    All you have to do is honestly step up to the plate and deal with one the RCC's OWN texts to make your case. Why be so evasive about it??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. Rev 5:8 says NOTHINg about "SAINTS IN HEAVEN" offering OUR prayers.

    #2. Rev 5:8 says it is the SAINTS PRAYERS that are offerred - So WE ARE THE SAINTS as WE pray -

    Which is VERY different from the RC notion that WE PRAY TO the saints and THEN they OFFER OUR prayers to God!!

    #3. The sequence is only SAINTS praying TO GOD! in Rev 5:8. Mixing that up so that it is OUR PRAYERS TO The saints -- is the eisegetical exercise "needed" in Catholicism.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry about the quote of yours in my post. My aim (which was a mistake on my part) was to capture your entire quote and not really dwell on the “praying to the dead” theme, but to try and understand your rational mindset when you attack the Catholic religion (which I read a lot of from you), when the very religion you practice is considered more of a cult than that of the Catholics.

    The SDA is a relatively new religion, 1860; I have read where the SDA is a branch off of the Jehovah Witness (not sure if it is true or not).

    I’d still like to hear your answer about who would have more likely understood the teachings of the apostles more clearly, those early church writers or Ellen G. White, whom didn’t come on the scene until 1860?
     
  9. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    You make no sense here Bob. You state in #2 that we are the saints as we pray here on earth. I agree with you, BUT it is the 4 beasts and 24 elders that are falling before the Lamb (Christ) with our prayers! contridict your #1.

    Rev. 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
     
  10. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it wrong for individuals in my bible study group to ask one another to pray for them? 1 Timothy 2:1-5 seems to indicate that intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something that is good and pleasing to God and not something that Paul believes to be infringing on Christ’s role as mediator.

    To expound on this, James 5:16-18 states that God answers the prayers of the righteous, speaking of Elijah. So, then one would think that those in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand before God in His presence than anyone on earth? I would think so, and that their prayers would be even more effective.

    The ONLY thing I have found in the bible concerning the dead is in Deuteronomy 18:10-15, which is basically forbidding the conjuring up spirits, similar to a séance. Again asking a my wife to pray to Jesus for me in dealing with problem or my deceased grandfather for that matter is different than conjuring up his spirit. One is an occult practice and the other is a humble request.
     
  11. Gold Dragon

    Gold Dragon
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    3,837
    Likes Received:
    3
    Not true. Both arose from the Adventist movement lead by William Miller.

    Ellen G. White in 1844 lead the SDAs in one of the more orthodox expressions of Adventism with a few exceptions while Charles T. Russell in 1870 took the JWs in a more unorthodox direction.
     
  12. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not true. Both arose from the Adventist movement lead by William Miller.

    Ellen G. White in 1844 lead the SDAs in one of the more orthodox expressions of Adventism with a few exceptions while Charles T. Russell in 1870 took the JWs in a more unorthodox direction.
    </font>[/QUOTE]I guess I am finding that I can’t trust anything the IFB teaches. I wonder what other falsehoods I’ve been led to believe.
     
  13. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    If you have been taught falsehoods, then it is your fault for not finding them out and taking them to the pastor. It is not the duty of the congregation to be sponges on a pew and simply to warm up their spot.
    Our duty:
    2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    The onus is on you to find out whether or not your preacher is preaching the truth or not. You also must study your Bible. Don't blame it all on the preacher or what you call IFB. Do you even know what IFB means. Every IFB church is different. That is why they are IFB--Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches. If you happened to be in one that didn't teach very good doctrine don't stereotype the rest after that one. That is your fault for not finding a better one, for not going to the pastor when you do see something wrong, for not studying the Bible to find out what is wrong if there be something wrong. You are to blame as much as any one else.
    DHK
     
  14. john6:63

    john6:63
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 2, 2003
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you have been taught falsehoods, then it is your fault for not finding them out and taking them to the pastor. It is not the duty of the congregation to be sponges on a pew and simply to warm up their spot.
    Our duty:
    2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

    The onus is on you to find out whether or not your preacher is preaching the truth or not. You also must study your Bible. Don't blame it all on the preacher or what you call IFB. Do you even know what IFB means. Every IFB church is different. That is why they are IFB--Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches. If you happened to be in one that didn't teach very good doctrine don't stereotype the rest after that one. That is your fault for not finding a better one, for not going to the pastor when you do see something wrong, for not studying the Bible to find out what is wrong if there be something wrong. You are to blame as much as any one else.
    DHK
    </font>[/QUOTE]I know exactly what IFB stands for. I’ve been a IFB for almost 26 years, its easier typing “IFB” than having to type out the whole term every time, seems you picked it up so I’ve been getting my point across.

    You are correct, it is my responsibility to determine what and what isn’t truth. Thanks to a recent Critical Thinking class I had to take where I had to pick topics I disagreed with and objectively write both pros and cons in an essay. Guess what my topic was on? Catholicism.

    I’ve learned a lot and I am now having a much different view on the Church than I once had, all because I took their word for it and believed, when the truth has been staring at me right from the pages of scripture.
     
  15. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Ironically you come across as saying that you have thought through (using a critical thought process) Catholicism, but yet have still stereotyped all IFB churches according to the one that you grew up in. That is not critical thinking.

    On the other hand, I have looked at Catholicism from every possible angle that there is to look at.
    Experientially. I was in the Catholic Church for 20 years, indoctrinated by them, their nuns, their priests, their catechism--throughout most of my life.

    Intellectually--I have debated Catholic apologists on this board before they left. That meant studying the issues in more detail than I had done before.

    Teaching: I teach Roman Catholicism as part of a course on world religions, for it is one of the largest religions in the world.

    Theologically: I have personally done my own comparison of Catholic theology comparing it to both the Bible and to history, and found it wanting. There is much Catholic revisionism in history. They write what they want the world to hear, and not necessarily a true and accurate account of the facts. Of course, with the many threads on this forum you can easily see how their doctrine matches up with the Bible. It doesn't.
    DHK
     
  16. Living4Him

    Living4Him
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    0
    DKH,

    I guess your IFB church must be pretty different than most. What seminary are most of your Pastors from?

    john6:63 is from Indiana and his IFB experience is very similiar to mine and I grew up in Colorado. Our pastors were from HAC, Bob Jones, and PCC. If john6:63 pastors are from any of those school of thoughts, then it would make sense that our experience with the IFB would be the same.

    Now that's rather arrogant, don't you think? We were taught that our pastors were well taught in God's ways and they would not lead us astray. The pastors seemed to hand on all the David Hunt and Jack Chick junk as the gospel truth.
     
  17. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Dave Hunt's books are fairly good sources of information. What do you have against them? Can you document any falsehoods?

    Not many IFB pastors that I know of use Jack Chick's material any longer.

    It has always been the believers responsibility to study the Word for himself, comparing Scripture with Scripture. Not even did the Bereans take Paul at his Word, but checked the Scriptures first.

    Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

    If your pastor does not encorage personal Bible study, I pity you. You ought to find another church. That is not arrogance.
    DHK
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Not true. Both arose from the Adventist movement lead by William Miller.

    Ellen G. White in 1844 lead the SDAs in one of the more orthodox expressions of Adventism with a few exceptions while Charles T. Russell in 1870 took the JWs in a more unorthodox direction.
    </font>[/QUOTE]The Dragon is essentially correct here about the fact that Seventh-day Adventists are in fact a branch off of the Millerites. James White, Uriah Smith, Joseph Bates and Ellen Harmon were all Millerites in 1844.

    However it should be pointed out that "Millerites" as a group were never Seventh-day Adventists since there were about 50,000 Millerites and of those 50,000 only about 50 moved out to form the early Adventist group.

    Ellen "White" was in fact a 17 year old teen in 1844 named Ellen Harmon who had little or no recognition among Millerites OR the early founders of the Adventist movement. Ellen Harmon was not "leading anyone" in 1844. It took years before Adventists as a group recognized the spiritual gift claimed by Ellen White. The framers of the doctrines of the church in the first few critical years came from Joseph Bates, James White, Uriah Smith and few other key leaders.

    But the urban legend given out on wikipedia is a good example of myths that take on a life of their own because they make a "good story" and who wants to let inconvenient facts of history get in the way of a really good story??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Now back to a post on the actual topic -

    That is true. So intead of the Catholic notion that WE on earth "pray to the SAINTS" and so we can then have the saints offer OUR PRAYERS to God" (which is what you claimed)

    It is in fact the SAINTS HERE "praying to God".

    Surely you can see the difference.

    There is no text saying "The saints prayed TO the beasts and the 24 elders".

    Nor are the beasts and the "24 elders" called "THE DEAD" the way we find the term in 2Macc and in 1Thess 4.

    Which means we have NO example of "prayers TO THE DEAD" in Rev 5:8


    Rev. 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.


    See?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. violet

    violet
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    You mean "before they were banned" right?
     

Share This Page

Loading...