1. 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!

Featured is the Catholic Church officially now Apostate?

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, May 24, 2013.

  1. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, please what a bunch of inaccurate, non-scholarly, unbiblical, and unhistorical tripe.

    Tell me, which of these Romanist innovations can you find scriptural support for? Popes, infallible popes, "ever-virgins", immaculate conception, assumption of Mary, "Holy Fathers", transsubstatntiation. etc.? I'll help you: absolutely none!

    My view? You apparently do not know what "my view" is. My view was not concocted 500 years ago. My view is based on actual facts: scholarly, theological, historical, scriptural, instead of Romanist fables invented by a hierarchy to justify its existence. The Roman church is built on a house of cards.
     
  2. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    The fact that most don't understand and that Rome wrongfully appropriates solely unto itself, is that the term "catholic" originally simply meant universal, as pertaining to all the churches everywhere. It had nothing to do with an institutional hierarchy. That's why I refuse to call the Roman church the "Catholic Church". It is inaccurate. I will say the "Roman Catholic Church", but every denomination and local church that is orthodox is a "catholic" church. Further, institutional hierarchical "Catholic" churches also includes the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Old Catholic Churches, including the Polish national Catholic Church of America, a group that split off from Rome many years ago. Thus, the Roman appropriation of the word "Catholic" to apply only to them is inaccurate and a usurpation. It is especially incorrect when they apply it that way to the early churches and to the formation and recognition of the canon.

    There is so much subterfuge involved in the Romanist defense of their institution that I would say one would almost have to be intellectually dishonest or willfully in denial of scholarly and historical facts to accept such bull as being true.
     
  3. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    This would be laughable if it wasn't so harmful. This is a completely false and dare I say deliberately inaccurate use of the word "catholic" in its original meaning.

    When Romanists do this type of thing, I have no hesitancy calling it cultic.

    And to show you that I'm not biased or just Roman Catholic bashing and that I am objective, I would put Baptist Landmarkism is that same category, with one essential difference: They never persecuted, tormented, or murdered others in the name of Jesus.
     
    #43 Thomas Helwys, May 26, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 26, 2013
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian

    Using that logic - then John the Baptist was a Baptist and existed before any Catholics, and was not called "Satan" in Matt 16 when Christ was speaking to Peter - making the Baptist church the one true Church of the Bible because Peter is never called "Peter the Catholic".

    Are you sure this is the logic you want to use here?

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  5. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good points, and, to be fair and to show that I am objective about this, I prefer to adhere to historical accuracy: I also oppose the Baptist form of successionism called Landmarkism, as it is also a fable.

    It's amazing to me that people often can't be truthful and objective when it comes to religion, especially if it concerns their own brand and related presuppositions. The RCC is built on a bogus foundation, the extent of which is much broader than most because of the multitude of fables and falsehoods which comprise that foundation. Its claim to be the one true church is patently false.
     
  6. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Jesus said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church (assembly).” Now, if Christ were going to use the petros as a building material to be built upon the petra, He would have said something about it. But he said nothing of the kind. Rather He went on to talk about the keys. The fact is that you can’t use “petra” in connection with Peter because it is a feminine noun. That is why He used “petros.” In English, it would perhaps best be translated, “You are a rock and upon this rock I will build my assembly.”

    Now I know I need to tread lightly here because I am not a Greek scholar as I believe you are. However, Matthew 16 is contextually different than 1 Peter 2. Indeed, Peter doesn’t even use petra or petros to denote his stones. Instead he uses lithoi. If Peter meant to describe the same thing Jesus was talking about, it would seem that he would have used the same word.

    Surely you’re not serious about the keys in v.19 being characteristic of a building stone? “The keys” is a throwback to Isaiah 22:22 where God presents the keys of the kingdom to his servant Eliakim. “Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder. When he opens no one will shut, when he shuts no one will open.” Peter and the apostles would have understood this presentation of the keys as being the symbol of authority. And this authority was given to Peter alone. The reference to binding and loosing in Matthew 18 is indeed a gift to all the apostles and ultimately to the Church. They all had this authority but their authority was subordinate to that of Peter.

    So yes, you’re right, it can’t get clearer of plainer. So why don’t you get it?
     
  7. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    I see you're not in complete agreement yet, so let’s look at it this way. Most churches can identify their human founder. Lutherans, for example, go back to Martin Luther. Church of Christ/Christian Church/Disciples of Christ come from Alexander Campbell. There is no record of Baptists before Thomas Helwys. And we could give many other examples. History, however, does not identify any founder of the Catholic Church or any date from which it springs. Some say it was Constantine, but we know that Constantine made it legal to be a Christian. We see no church that Constantine started. We see no schism anywhere from which the Catholic Church may have emerged.

    We do, however, see very Catholic doctrines being expressed by the likes of Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr late in the First Century and early in the Second Century. There is simply no reason to believe that the Catholic Church originated anywhere but at Pentecost.

    I would agree that Paul would not have prayed to the Virgin Mary because she would have been alive during most, perhaps all, of Paul’s life. We don’t know where Mary came to the end of her life but there is strong evidence it was in Ephesus after she moved there with John late in his life and hers.
     
    #47 Zenas, May 28, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 28, 2013
  8. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    And where in this diatribe have you rebutted what I said with anything but your rather uninformed opinion? I don’t even see where you have relied on scripture, except to erroneously conclude that it does not support certain doctrines of the Catholic Church. Of course I would submit that it doesn’t have to be in the Bible to be a theological truth. Nevertheless, I will give you these (which I know in advance you will reject but here they are anyway):

    Popes: There is no such office. The Bishop of Rome, as successor to Peter who was the first Bishop of Rome, holds the keys first given to Peter by Jesus. Matthew 16:17-19.

    Infallible popes: What other kind is there? Jesus told His disciples assembled in the upper room, “He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” John 14:26. Jesus also told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.” Matthew 16:18.

    Ever-virgins: I will assume you are talking about the perpetual virginity of Mary. I have provided a rather lengthy explanation of this at least twice on other threads, but here it is again, at least the part that gives this dogma scriptural support.

    1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord.

    2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by language such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

    3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly reasonable.

    4. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

    Immaculate conception: “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!” Luke 1:28. If one of full of grace there is no room for any trace of sin.

    Assumption of Mary: “ And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.” Revelation 12:1.

    Holy fathers: I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I guess it is the Bishop of Rome (pope). There is no more theological significence in that title than to call someone “Reverend” or “Pastor.”

    Transubstantiation: “Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?” 1 Corinthians 10:16. Paul tells us we eat the body and blood of Christ. So does Jesus in all four gospels. We know it is bread and wine when it is placed on the altar. We know it is body and blood when we consume it. Somewhere in the process it has to change. Ergo, transubstantiation.

    I think I do know what your view is and I even know there are scholarly (misplaced but still scholarly) sources to reflect it but you have given us nothing. And yes I stand on the fact that these ideas of yours concerning scripture were concocted less than 500 years ago.
    :jesus:
     
  9. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Harmful? How? The earliest use the word “catholic” in connection with Christ’s church was by Ignatius of Antioch in approximately 107 A.D. “Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church.” Ignatius may not have been the first to use the term but he is the first to leave a record of it. Ignatius no doubt meant “universal” when he said “catholic.” However, the name caught on and that is what the Christians have called themselves for the last 2,000 years.

    The main difference between the Catholic position and the Landmark position is that there are tens of thousands of church historians who adhere to the Catholic position because there are copious documents to prove it is factual. The Landmarkers have nothing but their imagination and they have been soundly rejected by everyone but themselves.
     
  10. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Well there you have it - we have "John the Baptist" as a term used by the Apostles themselves - and we have the "Church universal" as used in the 2nd century by Ignatius of Antioch.

    Looks like - using your rule above - Baptists win that one and the Apostle's document trumps Ignatius by all accounts.

    Which makes me wonder why you would use that argument.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Back to the OP.
    Here is the original article:

    http://www.worthynews.com/12306-pope-francis-promises-redemption-for-do-gooders

    It seems that if Francis contradicts his own Catechism.
     
  12. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    All the points you attempted vainly to make I have rebutted elsewhere, so no need to do it here. All of this is pure fable without one iota of scriptural, historical, or scholarly support.

    You can falsely charge me with uninformed opinion, but I don't deal in opinion, only facts and objective truth. This has been my life's work, for four decades. I hate to keep bringing it up, but I have the credentials to back up what I say, so I am not uninformed. But you are obviously brainwashed to be able to swallow RC tripe as if it were scripturally, historically, and scholarly verifiable. That's a mark of cults.

    If you want to be "Catholic" with a capital 'C', you should have joined the most ancient Catholic church and the one that did not follow the Roman innovations: The Eastern Orthodox Church.
     
    #52 Thomas Helwys, May 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2013
  13. Thomas Helwys

    Thomas Helwys New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only way that anyone can conclude that the the catholic church of the beginning of the second century is the Roman Catholic Church of later centuries is to willfully ignore the facts and drink the kool-aid of RC propaganda.
     
  14. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    Strange. You keep talking about your academic credentials but you neither say what they are and where you got them, nor do you write anything on here that would suggest you actually have them. Go ahead, TH, show us your stuff. If you don't want to say where you went to school, give us a reason to believe you actually went somewhere. By the way, a fable is a genre of fiction in which animals or other non human characters take on human characteristics and the story is played out through them. I don't remember doing that in any of my posts.
     
  15. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    TH, you did it again. I begin to read your post and think, "Yes, he's going to give us some information to support what he thinks about this topic!" And then I realize I will be disappointed again by your vacuous statements.
     
  16. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian


    Not at all. You need to re-read this thread.

    What the pope said in his message for Catholics (as well as for nearly all Christians, as far as I can tell) is a very traditional and not controversial point: Jesus died on the Cross to redeem us all from sin. The Pope went on to say that if atheists and unbelievers will simply follow the natural law that is written on their hearts, and “do good” rather than evil (and even Richard Dawkins claims he does good because it’s the result of “secular, moral philosophy and rational discussion”), then Catholics can “engage them there.” In other words, the Pope is encouraging a “culture of engagement,” a celebration of common ground, rather than a heretical form of salvation by good works. He said all are redeemed, not all are saved. That is all.
     
    #56 Walter, May 29, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 29, 2013
  17. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    redemption IS salvation in the bible!

    catholic teaching here the pope is emphasising is that God overlooks ignornace of Athiests/other faith followers, for IF they do not now what the RCC teaches, and "co operates" with grace extended to all by God, He will save even them by His grace...
    RCC holds that ONLY ex catholics who turned from the church, and those like me who reject what Rome teaches will be lost and damned!
     
  18. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,376
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If he died for everyone...then it stands to reason that everyone is saved.:smilewinkgrin:
     
  19. Walter

    Walter Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2011
    Messages:
    2,518
    Likes Received:
    142
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You are absolutely wrong about what the Church teaches (no surprise, you are generally clueless about what the Catholic Church actually teaches) and that is not what he said at all.

    Read what he actually said, not what the liberal media thinks he said:

    http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...e=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link
     
  20. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    the RCC teaches that God will save thru His Grace those in other faith who are sincere, working with God as they know Him to be, and who ahve not known RCC theology!

    Francis seems to be expanding that to include athiests now also!
     
Loading...