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!

Historical Objectivity of Rome

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wow that was a bit confusing. I think I got the jist of what you are saying. The sources I used did their homework and looked at rome critically. Thats my answer I hope to your question.
     
  2. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    I did answer you in post #77. Why not respond directly to my points therein. I showed clearly that you're ignorant of what the RCC teaches. And yes - please take my responses in post #77 and compare them to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches. You made the accusations and I responded point-by-point. Let's get this out in the open right now doc.

    Peace!
     
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Much of your outlook on the history of the "church" has to do with your outlook of the very doctrine of ecclesiology itself. There is no denomination in the Bible, and I don't believe you can demonstrate there is. There is no "church" per se, although we keep referring to one. There is Christianity and Christendom. There are about five different meanings or so for the English word "church". But the Greek work that is translated "church" in the NT has only one meaning, and that is "assembly." The Greek word is ekklesia. It is used 115 times in the Bible; 3 times it is translated "assembly," all three in Acts 19; and all other 112 times it is translated "church." The reason for that was political correctness on the part of the Anglican Church in the 17th century. Translations such as Darby's consistently translate ekklesia as "assembly."

    Paul went on three missionary journeys and established over 100 churches; no one church; no denomination; no universal church; but only local independent churches. That is what history teaches. Read the NT. "To the church at Corinth," to the church at Philippi," to the church at Rome," etc. He writes to churches, and churches send their greetings. Read Romans chapter 16 for that evidence. They were independent churches, and none exercised any control over the other; not until corruption entered into the churches. During the Apostolic era there was nothing but "churches."

    Very early into these churches doctrinal error began to enter. As always God raises up some who will speak against heresy. The movement of the Montanists was a movement against the corruption that had entered into many of the churches, not into "the church" or into a denomination, but into many autonomous churches that were present in that area. He convinced believers to follow him in a life of purity and holiness. That is what he emphasized. Perhaps the pendulum swung too far in some cases. It was a reaction to the corruption that had crept in among many of the churches. It doesn't mean that all the churches were corrupt. Neither does it necessarily mean that all the Montanists were absolutely uniform in their doctrine.

    However, in every age there have been churches, independent of larger organizations and denominations that have been faithful to God's truth. These are the churches that have most often been the object of persecution by the RCC and by others as well.

    There is no such thing as a "universal church." A church is an assembly. It is a contradiction of terms to have an unassembled assembly. How is that possible? The Bible speaks of assemblies not hierarchal organizations made by man. Thus when you read "church history" books that speak of the history of the "church" you know that you have picked up a biased book already. They need to get their ecclesiology straight before they can speak of the history of it.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    You state Catholic doctrine on this board (post #77), you defend it.
    Don't attribute your post to mine!

    http://baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560762&postcount=77

    The above link is your post, a post of the heretical Catholic doctrines that you say you believe in.

    Now defend them with the Bible. If you don't care to do that then don't post here. Notice the title of the Forum: Other Christian Denominations

    Christians post here Billy, Christians! Christians use the Bible, and believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible. If you don't believe that then you don't belong here.
     
  5. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Billy, I cited official Roman Catholic Doctrine from their Catechism. I cited your favorite source of truth ECF. You are not opposing me but you are opposing the very things you claim as sources of truth.

    Am I to understand that neither Catholic doctrine or ECF's or the Bible is your source of truth???? If that is the case, then it seems that YOU are your source of truth?


     
  6. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Billy, here is what you are opposing in post #77 but never addressed.

    "As the all-holy glorious mother of God and ever-virgin Mary........And again she prayed, and said: O Lord Jesus Christ.....in every time and place where there is mention of my name, make that place holy, and glorify those that glorify thee through my name, accepting of such persons all their offering, and all their supplications, and all their prayer......We apostles, threfore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God, who had shown us His wonders at the departure of the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose prayers and good offices may we all be deemed worthy to receive, under her shelter, and support, and protection, both in the world that now is and in that which is to come...." St. John the Theologion, The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers, Vol. VIII, pp. 587, 588, 591, "The Falling Asleep of Mary"

    'The Virgin Mary....is acknowledged and honored as being truly the Mother of God and of the redeemer...She is 'clearly the mother of the members of Christ'....since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its head.' 'Mary, Mother of Christ, Mother of the Church." [/COLOR][/I]- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, p. 251

    The Catechism is quoting from Augustine for support of its dogma on Mary.

    May I remind you, please do not confuse LATER official chuch terminology and confirmation with PREVIOUS belief and practice and don't pit one against the other in your responses because what they believed in and practiced earlier is the foundation for their later confirmation and explanation.

     
    #106 Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Billy, do you believe that Mary gave birth to the Divine Nature of God? If so, then "theotokos" does not merely refer to Jesus but to Mary as well! Did the human nature of Christ come from God's Divine nature or from Mary's human nature? Which nature did Mary supply and which nature did God Supply? No question they were united in Christ's Person but "mother" and "Father" speaks of origin. What originated with the Mother versus the Father???? If the human nature is derived from God's nature than there is no need of Mary. If the divine nature is derived from Mary there is no need of God in this birth. Which is it Billy?

     
  8. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thank you. Foxes book of Martyrs does not support Romes presuppositions against the "heretics" as he does not characterize them as "heretics" but as saints and so he is on my side not yours. What other historians fit the criteria that you say which have critically examined Rome's claims to those evangelical "heretics" (heretics who reject ordinances and the church as means of salvation)?

    What frustrates me with your responses is typified in the response you gave to my two statements concerning Mary and baptismal regeneration.

    There is no question that baptismal regeneration is practiced and believed in the ECF as well as official church dogma now and therefore in regard to the very essence of Gospel salvation they HAVE NOT CHANGED and therefore from ECF till now preached an "accursed gospel."

    However, instead of facing that truth you decided to wave both off and just deny that ECF also believed and practiced Maryoltry, co-redemptrix simply because the official recognition and definitions were not provided by Rome till many years later. However, anyone remotely knowledgabel of Rome's history knows their belief and practice existed long before their official recognition and terminologies were adopted. So why pit eariler belief and practice against later formal recognition and definition???? I posted the historical quotation from ECF to demonstrate what demonstrates their belief and practice toward Mary. I also posted the current Roman Catholic Catechism to demonstrate what they now beleive and practice - NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE.

    Again, there is no possibility that an "accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9) church can be regarded as a "true" church of Christ. Sacramentalism is a fundemental denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Maryoltry as mediator between Christ and man, thus a co-redemptrix is fundementally repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ BY BIBLICAL DEFINITION. This places a double "accursed" upon Rome from ECF to the present as there is NO CHANGE in PERVERTING the very essential of Apostolic doctrine.

    I asked you if WHEN you were professedly saved, did you then or now believe that regeneration occurs in baptism and would you use Acts 2:38 to defend that position? If not, what would you use Acts 2:38.

    Please answer straight as your previous answers are the very basis of my charge that you are a deciever - Please convince me that I am wrong and I will gladly apologize.



     
    #108 Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  9. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well stated and Amen!

     
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Enemy accusations versus accused statements

    Throughout the history of Anabaptists there is a very self-evident contrast between what the enemies of Anabaptists accused them versus what they claimed to believe. What is evident is the nature of the charges were formed by how the enemies perceived the beliefs and practices of the Anabaptists in contrast to how they interpreted Roman Doctrine and practice instead of in light of how the Anabaptists interpreted their faith and practice.

    We can see this clearly in regard to the Paulicians, Waldenses, Swiss Anabaptists, German Anabaptists and Particular Baptists in England and pre-revolutionary American Baptists and later 19th century Baptists.

    I have shown from non-Anabaptist historians already that the Paulicians and Waldenses were falsely accused and painted to be what they openly claimed they were not. Yet in most history books that you buy from the local Christian book store the same Roman false accusations are repeated in parrot fashion as historical fact in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary to anyone willing to take the time and energy to investigate it.

    One of the most grotesque false accusations still repeated in Roman and Protestant histories is that the Anabaptists originated with the Munster rebellion in Germany. The evidence is overwhelming that this charge is an absolute falsehood and historians of credibilty have provided the evidence clearly without any response from Roman biased historians. The Munster people were pedobaptists and the German Anabaptists condemned them peacefully as much as those who opposed them forcefully.

    The origin of the Swiss Anabaptists is another debated issue where one single unsubstantiated document from a foreign source is used to overthrow the very words of those it accuses of administering baptism by pouring.

    The origin of the particular Baptists of England is determined by most historians by the Gould manuscript and statements of their enemies in direct contradiction to how they say their churches were organized and started.

    Opponents of Baptist have tried to give each of the above as the individual true origin of modern Baptists. However, if they originated in Swizterland it could not have been in Germany or England and it occurred in Germany it could have been Switzerland and England as the very dates and places of each do not coincide.

    Cotton Mather and his crowd were persecutors of pre-revolutionary Baptists which they called "anabaptists." Even the Baptists in England were called "Anabaptists" before 1689. Early pre-revolutionary Baptists were publicly beaten and jailed in America for simply preaching the gospel, meeting to worship. They were persecuted by the Puritans, Church of England, and Presbyterians and other denominations here in America prior to the revolutionary war.
     
    #110 Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    you have made a good point - it is senseless to go to the organization accused of doing the crime against humanity - for an accurate "character witness" regarding their victims. It would be like ignoring the Bible accounts of persecution of Christ and the early first century Christian evangelists - and only reading what the opposing Jewish leaders said about them - to get the supposedly objective historic truth.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The other inconvenient detail here is that at no point does any Bible writer refer to Mary as "Mother of God". How odd that those who actually believe Mary to be sinless, mother of God, queen of heaven, co-redemptrix with Christ, assumed into heaven, a being to whom mankind should pray... are so explicit in stating those views (which you expect from someone that really believes those doctrines) - yet not one single word of it from NT authors!

    The deafening silence from the NT on the very points most loudly proclaimed by those supporting mariolotry cannot simply be glossed over and ignored by the serious Bible student.

    Surely this is a sign to someone.

    in Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Lets take a look at another silence in the bible and then ECF's give us more information. We have a possibility of bodily assumption before the Second Coming suggested by Matthew 27:52–53: "The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many." What happened to all those Old Testament saints? Did they die and have to be buried all over again? We don't have any record of that, however the early Church writers say that they were assumed into heaven, or maybe into that temporary state of rest called Paradise. Luke 16:22, 23:43; Heb. 11:1–40; 1 Pet. 4:6 and then brought into heaven.

    And I guess by your reasoning the Trinity is a false belief as well. Just as 'mother of God' doesn't appear, neither does Trinity.
     
    #113 lori4dogs, Jun 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2010
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Lori,

    I fail to find any logical comparison in your argument. The Scriptures do speak about some being raised from the dead at the resurrection of Christ. The Scriptures speak plentifully of the nature of God in regard to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

    Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being a con-redemptrix? Where do the scriptures speak at all about Mary being sinless? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the "Queen of heaven"? Where do the Scriptures speak at all about Mary being the Mother of the Church? Where do Scriptures speak at all about Mary being an eternal virgin? etc. etc. etc.?

    If I followed your reasoning, then I would have to conclude we shouldn't speak at all about Mary in regard to any of these things because the Scripture doesn't.


     
  15. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you don't even understand the difference between the Ascension of Jesus and the assumption of Mary? Right...

    Peace!
     
    #115 BillySunday1935, Jun 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 19, 2010
  16. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Billy, it is wonderful how you simply ignore problems put in your face by simply changing the subject. You don't answer my questions but I am supposed to answer yours? That seems a little one sided don't you think?

    Now, I quoted directly from ECF and directly from the Roman Catholic Catechism and placed squarely in front of you the very language concerning Mary found in both and asked if you believed these things? You responded by denying ECF or the Roman Catholic catechism represented the view of the Catholic Church or you. You could not offer any Scripture because the scripture is completely silent about these specifics although not silen about condemning them in principle.

    Again, my question for you is, if neither ECF or the official Roman Catholic Catechism, nor scripture is final authority for your own belief and practice than what is? Is it YOU?

    Yes, I understand the differences.
     
  17. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Fox's Book of Martrys, The Reformers and the Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin, Martyrs Mirror by Van Braght, Baptist Perpetuity by W.A Jarrell, A Baptist History by J.T. Christian provide a slue of source materials that flatly contradict the Roman Catholic and modern Protestant interpretation of "church" history.

    Now, as my professor of church history (who took your view) confessed, there are two models of interpretation of the source materials in history. There is the Roman Catholic/Protestant model and there is what he called the "free church movement" model. He likened it to two fruit trees that all historians pick from in order to present their own view of church history.

    My plea to those who are truly born again children of God is why would you take the word of those whom we absolutely know for certain had such hatred for their opponents that they would MURDER them in the name of Christ, when there is more than sufficient evidence from their own writings they were biased and there is independent witnesses that those who were being so charged complained such characterizations were not true of them?????
     
  18. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did I say in that post that I believed in all of those doctrines? No! I was simply correcting the good doctor's misunderstanding of some basic doctrines that any third grade student in a Catholic school could easily regurgitate upon demand. If I know what they mean, then surely someone with a Doctorate in divinity (or whatever degree he holds) could invest enough time to learn for himself. This points out just how hypocritical it is for some individuals here to argue against something about which they know little to nothing. How utterly sad...

    You know, DHK - it might helpful if you followed the link a little closer before you start blissfully flailing away at the keyboard. If you had, you would have noticed that I am not the one who posted those "heretical Catholic doctrines" to begin with - that would have been the good doctor - I simply corrected his errors. I mean, if you are going to write about "heretical Catholic doctrines", then you might as well get them right.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560740&postcount=67

    Further it was HE who used sources outside of the Bible (I.e. the Catechism of the Catholic Church AND the ECF's) not me. If you don't want to wade through this garbage to find out what he said, then here is where he admits to it!

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1560821&postcount=105

    So don't start puffing up at me about Sola Scriptura if you are not going to enforce such an arbitrary rule equally.

    Me thinks that DHK might be slightly hypocritical here as well.


    Ok, let's see if I meet your criteria:
    Christians post here Billy, Christians: Check!
    Christians use the Bible: Check!
    [Christians] believe in Jesus Christ who is defined in the Bible: Check!

    Well, it looks like I am where I belong! :thumbs:

    Peace!
     
  19. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since you admit that I posted only ECF and Catholic Catechism, and merely pointed out the language used in those quotations, then, please explain to me how you corrected me or my undertanding, when, I simply pointed out the languague used in these sources????

    Are you saying that ECF and the Roman Catholic Church only have the understanding of a "third grader" since it is their words and not mine concerning these subjects????

    Billy, those words were simply taken from those quotations by ECF and The Catechism of Rome! They are not my words?

    Instead of insulting me, as they are not my words, you are insulting the very sources you quote and use. Does not that reflect more on you than on me because they are not my sources?????

     
  20. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the event that you didn't notice doc, that was meant to be a rhetorical question. In other words, I was neither asking you a question nor was I changing the subject.

    I did no such thing and I defy you to prove that I ever made such a statement. Misrepresenting people seems to have become regular habit with you.

    Upon what planet do you currently reside? I simply corrected your misunderstanding about a few Catholic doctrines, the validity of which, was never at issue (at least not with me) and you appear to be in a snit about it. Well, knock yourself on out there, doc.

    Well, isn't that the crux of the matter there, doc - for all of us? You hold to the man-made idea that scripture is the SOLE authority. Ok - fine! Now, how do you know that your interpretation of that scripture is fully correct? Are you infallible? If not, then you are necessarily putting yourself in the place of final authority, because it is YOUR opinions/interpretations about what scripture means that bolster your belief system. Do you see how intellectually vapid that position is?

    Well, I'll bet you know now. :cool:

    Peace!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...