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!

A look at Matthew 16 vs dogma

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by 1Tim115, Jun 9, 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
    I'm hardly wandering. Evolving I will accept. I press on toward the goal as in Philipians. Also note the church has evolved and the essentials as you put it haven't changed but everything else has. I believe your decieved by your own landmarkist view which has no historical support and you can claim Rome all you want. Well renouned secular and protestant writers hold to actual history contrary to Landmark Baptist view. Archeological finds support my view. Historical documents support my view. Etc... I know that if you considered the reality of History God would some how seem more fluid to you which is a shame for I see fluid history immutable God.
     
    #301 Thinkingstuff, Jun 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2010
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do your well "renouned secular" scholars challenge Romanist interpretations of the Anabaptist groups or just quote them as evidence?

    What archelogical evidence and historical "documents" do you allude to?

    I have taken world history in college and church history in both college and seminary and have done years of historical research into these groups and so I am eager to see the "evidence" for your findings or better yet, can you direct me to an historian whom you think is credible and uses historical sources credibly?


     
    #302 Dr. Walter, Jun 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2010
  3. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now you are zero for two. Nor do I believe that Thinkingstuff is Catholic either, although he has been accused of being Catholic a number of times.
     
  4. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Very few ECF were taught directly by the Apostles. Many of them were led into error, and many of them held to various heresies. Some of them, like Tertullian, changed their views on various doctrines more than once. At one time in his life Tertullian believed in baptismal regeneration. Then he was converted and became a Montanist. His views changed. When defending your particular view of baptism which part of Tertullian's life will you use?

    Origen believed in many heresies. By some he is called "the father of Arianism." He was a heretic even to the RCC.

    Ireneus believed that Jesus lived to the age of 80.

    One can find all kinds of weird and heretical beliefs among the ECF. Being "closer in time" to the Apostles does not guarantee "closer in truth." Every epistle, gospel, and perhaps book in the NT in one way or another warns against false teachers or false doctrine. There were many false teachers and false prophets in the time of Christ and in the time of the Apostles. They wrote their own material. They wrote forgeries. They did everything in their power to disseminate their heresies. It is very possible that some of these ECF were some of those false teachers that the Apostles warned against.

    Thus the only rule of faith and order that we must appeal to is the Bible itself.
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    But of course. You are Catholic and are biased to begin with. I should have reworded my statement: "No baptist on this board believes that BillySunday is truly a Baptist."
     
  6. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Do you think the "false Decretals" bearing the name of Isadore Mercator supposedly written in the seventh century but obviously later in the ninth century reflects poorly upon the Roman Monks objectivity of valid versus invalid authentic records?

    What about the comment by the infidel historian William E.H. Lecky who said in his History of Morals:

    "...no impartial reader can, I think, investigate the innumerable grotesqe and lying legends that, during the whole course of the Middle Ages, were deliberately palmed upon mankind as undoubted facts, can follow the histories of the false decretals, and the discussions that were connected with them, or can observe the complete and absolute incapacity most Catholic historians have displayed, of conceiving any good thing in the ranks of their opponents, or stating with common fairness any consideration that can tell against their cause, without acknowledging how serious and how inveterate has been the evil. There have been, no doubt many nobel exceptions. Yet, it is, I believe difficult to exaggerate the extent to which this moral defect exist in most of the ancient and very much of the modern literature of Catholocism" William E. H. Lecky, History of European Morals, (New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1887) Vol. 2, p. 212

    How about the great historian of the Roman Empire,

    "The Catholics....instead of assuming such honorable pride, the orthodox theologions were tempted, by the assurance of impunity to compose fictions, which must be stigmatized with epithets of
    of fraud and forgery. They ascribe their own polemical works to the most venerable names of Christian antiquity; the characters of Athanasius and Augustin were awkwardly personated by Vigilius and his disciples.....Even the Scriptures themselves wer profaned by their rash hands....the example of fraud must cite suspicion."
    - Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (New York: Peter Fenelon Collier) Vol. 3, pp. 555,556.557

    "The Paulicians sincerely condemned the memory and opinions of the Manichean sect, and complained of the injustice which impressed that invidious name on the simple votaries of St. Paul and of Christ" - Gibbons, Ibid. Vol. 5, p. 387

    What about Sir William Jones and his investigations into the charges brought against the Waldenses by Rome:

    "the names imposed upon them in France by their adversaries, they say, have been intended to vilify and ridicule them, or to represent them as new and different sects. Being stripped of all their property and reduced by persecution to extreme poverty, they have been called 'poor of Lynons.' From their mean and famished appearance in their exalted and destitute state, they have been called, in provincial jargon, "Siccan,' or pickpockets. Because they would not observe Saints days, they were falsely supposed to neglect the Sabbath also, and callled 'Inzabbatati' or 'In Sabbathists.' As they denied transubstantiation or the personal and divine presence of Jesus Christ in the host or wafer exhibited in the mass, they were called 'Arians.'

    Their adversaries, premising that all power must be derived from God through his viceergent, the Pope, or from an opposite and evil principle, inferred that the Waldenses were 'Manicheans' because they denied the Popes supremacy over the empeors and kings of the earth
    ." - William Jones, The History of the Christian Church. (Lousiville: Norwood & Palmer, 1831) vol. 1, p. 300.

    I could fill pages with such reports by other historians that have investigated the historical claims of Rome rather than merely accepted them at face value.

     
    #306 Dr. Walter, Jun 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2010
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    There is sufficient evidence to indicate that Rome used a scorched earth policy in regards to the writings of their enemies and that is why we have very little what they wrote and most quoted in the Romanish historians.

    Rome decided to preserve the so-called "Church Fathers." Ask yourself why did they choose to preserve these and destroy others? Better yet, most evangelicals do not accept the Post-nicene Fathers as reliable because they are so obviously Roman Catholic in doctrine. The Ante-Nicene Fathers show a slow development toward that error so by the time of the end of The Ante-Nicene Fathers and the beginning of the Post-Nicene Fathers there is real consistency.

    My position is that the "Ante-Nicene Church" fathers is the recorded root of error that finally developed into the Post-Nicene" apostasy and that is precisely why Rome preserved these records and destroyed others who refuted their Apostolic origin claims.

     
    #307 Dr. Walter, Jun 17, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2010
  8. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Can't count either? I have taken sides with the moderator.

     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    To clarify, Lori, I know where Thinkingstuff stands. I don't believe he is a Baptist, and have my reasons for that. In fact he has given valid reasons for posting the way he does.

    On the other hand BillySunday has broken the rules in many ways, even to the point where he has admitted to proselytizing if possible. You, if anyone, should know that this is a bannable offense.

    And with this post I must end this thread for it is well over 30 pages in length.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...