I can prove it, but I'm not sure I want to. Weariness has set in. I'm feeling that way now about a lot that's discussed here -- not sure how important it is, after all.
Oh, I am very certain of the historical facts, as I have studied this kind of stuff in-depth for four decades, but I am feeling more and more the desire to simply follow the footsteps of Jesus.
But just to correct one thing -- the source that inspired Wesley concerning his correct view of apostolic succession and monarchical bishops dating back to the apostles as being a fable was his reading of Lord Peter King's "An Enquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, Unity and Worship of the Primitive Church that flourished within the first Three Hundred Years after Christ".
Also, there is no doubt about what I stated concerning the terms bishop/elder/presbyter/pastor as being synonymous in the NT.
Peace to you.
Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Yeshua1, Jul 3, 2012.
Page 5 of 10
-
-
-
I will say this: In spite of what I know to be true about the RCC, it should be understood why the office of the monarchical bishop developed -- the main reason was to try and maintain orthodox teaching against movements like Gnosticism. That was also why it was important to try to discern and determine a canon.
Now the monarchical bishopric also developed for administrative purposes, but that's another story.
As for the RCC murders and persecutions, it seems there is a constant need for the reminder that the Magisterial Reformers were also fond of using the sword to kill Dissenters in the name of Jesus. -
The RCC is universal, visible
The Protestant churches are universal, invisible
Baptist churches are local, visible
Three distinct entities. Granted, Protestants and Baptists are very close. How can you say the RCC is not a threat to the NT church when they claim to be the true church and at the same time worship saints and confess sins to a priest among many other practices?
You are right, we are not to cause dissention within the church. I take that to mean a local church, under the will of the Lord. I do not take that to mean not to point out flaws with a circus that claims to be the one true church. -
-
-
-
The best thing you could do is be truthful about your denomination. -
It seems very odd to me for a person who lists himself as a Baptist to be defending a religion based on a false interpretation of Scripture. -
-
If you think that God is just as pleased with those who do not obey Him, then read about God’s wrath, read about what God is going to do to those who keep sinning against Him.
If there are any Christians in the Catholic Church, they must come out of her.
Revelation 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; -
I have very strong disagreements with the RCC on many things -- but I cannot say they are an apostate church. I can say that about many mainline denominations, such as the Presbyterian Church, USA; the Episcopal Church, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
At least the RCC is a pro-life church and upholds traditional morality. -
What do you think makes a church an apostate church?
The Catholics call their pope “Holy Father,” is that not blasphemous in your eyes? Holy Father is a name reserved for God, Jesus calls God "Holy Father."
The Catholics make statues and pictures in which they bow to them, and stand near them to wait for healing, is that not against the command of God in your eyes?
The Catholics call Mary the mother of Jesus the Co Redeemer and Mediatrix. God’s word says there is only one mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. Do you think the Catholics are doing right by calling Mary Mediatrix?
Do you not think that the Catholic Church has abandoned the Word of God to follow their own way? If you say yes, then that is what makes one apostate. -
-
But to address just one of your points: Yes, I believe it is wrong to call any man "Holy Father", but I think it is also wrong for Baptists and others to call their pastors "Reverend". I am ordained into the "historic episcopate", but I do not accept being called "Reverend", or any such artificial title, especially not anything that should be reserved unto God alone. On this, I agree with the Primitive Baptists, Churches of Christ, and Quakers. -
-
-
Thinkingstuff Active Member
-
Do I sin all day every day? No.
Have I given up sins? Of course, I have.
Do I enjoy sin? No, I am completely changed in the way of sin.
I offer my body as a living sacrifice as my spiritual act of worship that is what true worshipers are commanded to do. -
You've obviously never studied the way scripture defines the church. Maybe that would be a good thread, it seems there is a lot of lack of information on the topic. Historically, biblically, and idealogically, the RCC is closer to what is described than your local baptist church.
And I'm not denigrating the Baptists, I grew up SBC. But, facts are facts.
Oh, and I'm not RCC, I'd rather argue against them than for them. But, wrong is wrong. No one will ever learn otherwise if no one ever shows them there are other reads.
BTW, your comment above, "I take that to mean local church...." Is a great example of eisegetically rewriting scripture to suit your needs. Rome doesn't do that, they have the opposite problem.
There is no reason in scripture, just one in your emotions and hunches, to apply that to a local church not the corporte universal church. If it didn't apply to the universal church, JOHN wouldn't have addressed the gnostic threat, and Paul wouldn't have addressed the Circumcision group. AND you wouldn't be putting down the RCC. Which you do because they cause, in your eyes, a wrong picture of Xianity. The fact you want them to conform, contradicts your claim over the local vs universal church.
Such ironies and contradictions as that, take a LOT away from your argument.
Page 5 of 10