RC became apostate?-when?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Matt Black, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    To those who assert that the Catholic Church is apostate/ heretical, I'd be interested to know at what point you think the 'rot' set in?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. CalvinG

    CalvinG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't have any good Scriptural authority for this, but I would say that when they changed Baptism in the time of Constantine and went around with Romans forcing folks to "convert" and sprinkling them and declaring them Christians might be a good time to start.

    I have heard from Messianic Jews that "Christianity did fairly well until it became a state religion."

    I'm sure others will have different opinions from mine.

    Yours in Christ,
    CalvinG
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would put it a little later than that. I would see Constantine as less of a watershed than Theodosius' making Christianity the state religion at the end of the 4th century, although I accept that an 'erroneous drift' had started as long ago as Cyprian of Carthage (mid-3rd century). Even after Theodosius, however, there was still purity of doctrine when the churches gathered in council eg: Carthage 397, Ephesus 432, Chalcedon 451. Only after the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 and the consequent rise of the Papacy can we draw a line in the sand.

    Having said all of that, I would not be so bold as to assert that the RCC was apostate or heretical. In my mind I have the Second Baptist London Confession of 1689, which states:-

    "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name. "

    I would place the RCC in the category of "considerably more error than us (smug!) Baptists", but not a "synagogue of Satan", as know that there are many saved individuals within that polity; we also need to recognise (without smugness)that we Baptists are also "subject to mixture and error"

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt,

    I agree. The Roman Catholic Church of today has much to say to Baptists, just as we have much to say to them. Talking and interacting will lead to more truth on both sides. Viva Tradition!

    What in Cyprian's stances do you take issue with? Ecclesiology, sacramental theology, or the primacy of Rome? To me he has both good and bad things to say--maybe coresponding to the good and the bad that further developed in the tradition.

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     
  5. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tend to associate Cyprian with the development of presbyter (elder) to priest a la Old Testament,or even pagan Roman religion :eek: . So, I guess it's a sacramental/ sacerdotal objection or 'deviation' that I don't like about him.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  6. CalvinG

    CalvinG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    594
    Likes Received:
    0
    You two obviously have a better understanding of the early history of the RCC than I do.

    What is your take on the Catholic doctrines that belief in the ascension of the virgin Mary is necessary to salvation? Or the Catholic belief that salvation is so much more difficult as to be extraordinary outside their denomination? Do these qualify for apostacy?
     
  7. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    The departure from Scripture on the part of the Church of Rome was a slow process.

    The one obvious and very serious departure was when the Church married the State under Constantine (~400AD).

    Later the bad marriage resulted in the "Holy" Roman Empire via Charlemagne (~800AD).

    Their doom was sealed when they murdered the first Christian for not bowing the knee to the Pope (~800AD-1000AD).

    Then followed the various blood baths of dissenting anabaptists, Huegenots, Waldenses, martyrs, etc (as well as Jews and muslims) who would not bow to Rome.

    HankD
     
  8. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    Like this?

    Mary, the Mediatrix of all graces:
    Mary the Co-Redemptrix with Christ

    http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/0910-96/articl10.html

    http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/calkins/pontmag1.htm

    Somehow these titles are justified even after :

    1 Timothy 2
    5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

    Acts 4
    11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
    12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

    Not all the Romish apologetics and double-think/double-speak of the Magisterium of Rome can change the simple teaching of the Scriptures above.

    All the children of God honor and love Mary, none should give her these titles because they are not found in the Scripture, indeed these titles oppose the Scripture.

    HankD
     
  9. Bugman

    Bugman
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Catholic church has much to say to Baptists?
    Before I go off on this can you explain what you mean a bit more?

    Bryan
    SDG
     
  10. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    What does the Bible say?

    Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

    Roman Catholicism has been a false cult ever since it's very beginning in the 4th century A.D.
     
  11. In God We Trust

    In God We Trust
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don’t know when it started, but we can see that it is steadily getting worse.

    According to the Catholic Catechism #841 the Muslims are included in the plan of salvation. Muslims do not believe in Jesus. In order to be in the plan of salvation, you must believe that Jesus died for your sins. So how can a Muslims be saved without Christ? But according to the Catholic's the Muslims can be saved without Christ.


    Catholic Catechism;

    #841. "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. 'The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.'[

    Catechism at;

    http://www.christusrex.org/www2/kerygma/ccc/searchcat.html
     
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Still interested in when people are saying it all went Pete Tong (UK rhyming slang=wrong), and for what reason. One of the dates earlier referred to by me, 476, isn't some arbitrary date; there is a lot of merit I think in the rather tongue-in-cheek comment that when the Western Roman Empire collapsed, its civil servants merely transferred their allegiance and talents to the Church. Constantine I guess got the ball rolling here, Theodosius quickened the pace, but 476 really put the top-hat on the process (if that's not mixing too many metaphors!). As a result, you ended up with a very literate and educated, but secularised, compromised and Romanised clergy and church. It's a bit like the SBC suddenly being taken over by the Bureau for Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco :eek:

    Yours in Christ (and with head reeling from images of rolling balls with top-hats on!)

    Matt
     
  13. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    What I meant above when I said that we have much to learn from them is the importance they place on the traditions of the church. Most baptists seem all to happy to replace the wider tradition of the church for a very local or personal set of traditions. The use of tradition in our theology is insuperable. We do not (cannot!) interpret scripture without it.

    Case in point, Psalm 145 3's quotation of Romans reflects what he has been taught. I would say that given the right tradition, a Catholic would say that it is you who are under such a curse.

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     
  14. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But the verse determines who causes hte division by relating it to being contrary to the truth you have learned. That truth is passed down to us in Scripture. It is the RCC that has departed from Scripture, not us. Therefore, it is they who have caused the divisions, not us.
     
  15. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    And it is your tradition that tells you that the truth, thus described, is found in scripture. Tradition is unescapable!

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Danny, I agree with you to a certain extent re tradition, particularly with regards to the Early Church Fathers; the basic premise here is that someone who knew an Apostle or NT author (or even someone who knew someone who knew a NT author)is better qualified to give an interpretation of the NT than we are some 2000 years later. But, I would contend that the RCC has departed from this Early Church tradition in that it has added to it in a way that contradicts what has gone before. So do some Baptists eg those who adopted/ 'imported' from the Brethren pre-millenial dispensationalism; but the vast majority of us like to think of ourselves as 'restoring' NT doctrine (as interpreted, if you like, by early tradition)

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  17. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    There is the truth of history as well as our tradition.

    Baptist have never burned people alive for not being Baptists.

    HankD
     
  18. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt,

    We may be attempting to find that early tradition, but the traditions and culture within which we now live only allow that to a certain extent. We need to recognize the impact of our placement in history. In order to do justice to the early tradition, we must at least take into account the recent tradition--whether it is fully accepted or not another story.

    Furthermore, many of the earliest interpretations of scripture would simply not fly in a postmodern mileu or would be read in such a skewed way that their voice would only serve the purposes of contemporary problems and assertions.

    I think that believing that we can somehow leap over the majority of the Church's history (both good and bad) to reestablish something we see (I emphasize that it comes from our end) at best should be approached with an eye to the interviening time--at worst it is simply arrogance.

    BTW, Hank--don't forget that it we have, as Protestants, persecuted our share fair.

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     
  19. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,158
    Likes Received:
    322
    But Danny, technically Baptists are not Protestants. They preceded both the Protestant and Reformation movements.

    When I went into the US Air Force we had "Catholic", "Protestant" or "Baptist" stamped on our dogtags.

    But you are correct, the Protestant Church of England did persecute other Christians, among them Baptists.

    HankD
     
  20. Daniel Dunivan

    Daniel Dunivan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2002
    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hank,

    I'm sure you are aware that I along with all respectable historians believe that baptist successionism is a farce. We are Protestants!

    Grace and Peace, Danny [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...