Featured Protestant exclusion from RC communion

You mean all of those Non RCC sect/groups/churches since the time of jesus were n ot real, even though history states they existed?

 

Ohh and just for the record...

To which I replied...

Any honest reader can see the Walter did not state in any way that he was converting to Catholicism, he simply wrote that due to the behavior of some people in his church and some here at BB, he is considering leaving the Baptist faith. Last I looked, there are many Protestant denomoinations to choose from.

You really are a piece of work there Dr. Walt... errrr... I mean The Biblicist.

TM

 

That's the problem... history states the opposite. Excluding the heretics that is. You don't consider them to have been Baptist do you?

WM

 

I think it's about time that you really own up to the fact that you're really a roman catholic

You've lost your ability to discern Apostate church is from real true churches

 

No, that there were saved christians in the RCC during times, as they held to what would be called "baptist doctrines", not those held by the RCC!

And the RCC was NOT teaching full blow heresy during the early times, as it took the formal Council of trent to have the RCC do that!

 

Sooo... who would those groups/individuals be - I mean from the historical record? They should have left tons of writings behind documenting their existence.

Well... that's an arguable point for sure.

WM

 

And you sir are a deceiver! Whether he left for the Catholic church as the clear inferrence was with the reference to TS or some other denomination what I said about him and you is TRUE! Neither are "Baptist" in doctrine but in "NAME" only as Baptist do not believe that regeneration occurs in baptism and no Baptist confession of Faith teaches that as YOU WELL KNOW! You sir are being deceptive and that is the mark of a deceiver.

 

Perhaps.... So, convince me of my error.

WM

 

What more evidence do I need to prove my remarks were correct and you were simply being deceptive and dishonest in your responses.

 

No man can "convince" a person who is deceptive and dishonest and set upon interpreting the scriptures every way possible to avoid the truth!

 

I can see that being proven wrong doesn't agree with you. Oh well... [

WM

 

Lying is also a mark of deceiver and you are lying and it is obvious to everyone reading these posts.

 

Right back at ya!

WM

 

Romans 4:11 condemns sacramentalism as a doctrine proving that remission of sins and imputed righteous which is the "blessedness" defined as justification in Romans 4:6-8 is communicated through ordinances as this "blessedness" was communicated by faith "IN UNCIRCUMCISION".

Abraham existed BEFORE MOSES and the Jewish law and therefore his "works" (Rom. 4:1-6) cannot possibly refer to the works of Judaism or becoming a Jew by circumcision because those kind of works never existed in Abrahams day. Hence, the works that are being denied are "good works" or "works of righteousness" just as Paul says to Titus "NOT BY WORKS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS which we have done."

Rome says that circumucision is sacramentally equal to baptism but Paul denies circucmision is sacramental as it does not convey justifying grace to Abraham or anyone who walks "in the steps" of Abraham (Rom. 4:11-12) and all who are justified are justified by faith as was Abraham.

 

I'm not an expert, but I'm not sure that they hold circumcision equal to baptism. I think it's more that circumcision was a foreshadowing of baptism. However, it doesn't matter to me because I believe it from scripture and from the fact that all of Christendom (with the exception of a few heretics) believed it for the first 1500 years, and a majority of Christians still do today.

From the OT:

Ezekiel: 36 25-27: 25Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

What do we have here? We have someone sprinkled with water and through that action, they are made clean from their filthiness, and they receive God’s spirit. This passage from the Old Testament shows us that God, by his own design and not that of men, uses an outward sign to bring about an inward change in his people – a foreshadowing of baptism in the New Testament. Notice how God in the old covenant was preparing use for what he gives us in the new covenant.

And now, let’s move on to the New Testament to see the correlation.

Acts 2:38 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

See? Plain as day from scripture - born of water and the spirit.


Acts 22:16 16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Scripture plainly tells us that Baptism washes away sin; and through Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit.


1 Corinthians 12:13 13For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body [the body of Christ], whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Galatians 3:27 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Clearly, baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ and thus is the entrance into the new covenant with God, just a circumcision was the entrance into the old covenant with God. Scripture makes this connection for us in the following:

Colossians 2:11-12 11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Baptism is the entrance into the new covenant as explicitly stated in the scripture above. So, is baptism salvific? Once again, let’s go to scripture.

1 Peter 3: 20-21 20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Just as Noah and his family were saved by water, water baptism now saves us. There it is; explicitly stated in the Bible. Further, let's look at Jesus’ own words in John’s gospel…

John 3:5 5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Further, let’s read on in context as follows a few verses later, after he finished his talk with Nicodemus…

John 3:22 22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

What did Jesus do immediately after telling Nicodemus how he can be saved? He sent the apostles went out baptizing with water. See the context? Baptism is the context in which one must be born of water and the spirit. Further, look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

In Matthew 28:19 what did Jesus say in his final instructions to the apostles? Go therefore and make disciples of all nations getting them to accept me into their hearts as their personal lord and savior? No. It says:

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Why is baptism given such paramount importance in Jesus’ final instructions to the apostles if it is only symbolic? Because it is salvific! Scripture simply does not support a symbolic view of baptism


WM

 

Phillip MUST have had it wrong here, as he taught the Eunech about jesus being the person foretold by Isaiah, and when he was asked if he could get baptised...

was told that IF he believed in his heart and had received jesus as messiah, could be!

baptist baptism right there!

 

Anti-Catholics like to play up the times when Catholics killed heretics, but they usually don't notice the times when the heretics attacked the Catholics. Some on this board have clamed that the Albigensians (a particularly pernicious, nasty, anti-human cult) were poor, innocent, and harmless who were just minding their own business when the bloodthirsty Catholics barged in and started slaughtering them.

Albigensianism was not a mere Christian heresy but a non-Christian religion with elements of Christianity and Manichaeanism thrown into the mix.

Among the things they believed are:

1. Jesus was only "apparently" born of Mary.

2. They believed that Christ never had a real human body, and He never really suffered, and His apparent sacrifice was merely instructive, nothing more.

3. There is no resurrection of the body, because all flesh is evil.

4. They considered suicide as commendable since they considered the human body as evil and hence liberation from "matter" is the aim.

5. Matrimonial intercourse is evil, since it propagates the imprisonment of souls in new material bodies. Abandonment of the wife by the husband is good, and so is the reverse. Concubinage is thus preferrable to marriage. In relation, even animal generation is unacceptable.

Can you imagine what it would be like if they would become the majority in any society, especially their last two beliefs mentioned ? Some would say the crusade was a just one.

The disruption it would cause is simply too serious to ignore.

I wonder how the Reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther would have dealt with them had such groups appeared within Protestantism. Probably no differently.

 

Yep, although I think impalement would be their preferred choice of execution. Can't you just 'feel' the love here?:laugh:

 

All of the above is not true, and no doubt comes from one of those revised RCC sources.

Having said that, it still gives Innocent III perfect justification to declare a Crusade against them and wipe them out, exterminate every last one of them. It gives them the right to do what many of the Muslims of today are doing in some of the African nations--murder, rape, pillage, plunder. You have a very high regard for your brand of Christianity. This is what you justify, all in the name of Christ? When did Christ advocate this? Can you back it up with Scripture, NT scripture?

I think you have joined the wrong religion. Have you considered the Taliban? The Al-Qaida?