Historical Objectivity of Rome

High level catholic sources quoted in the public press -

============================================================

Debunking the claim that civil authorities being to blame for what happened under the iron fisted rule of the RCC

 

Dr. Walter,

I am glad you have stuck around for this. It is quite informing, and the discourse is quite revealing as to the blind bias that the papist and its sympathizers show.

Thinkingstuff,

You reason that the great weight of historians hold that the papacy is Christianity. Anyone who has ears knows that the view of the world in general is that Catholicism is Christianity. Dr. Walter is showing by history and education how Catholicism cannot be a true Church at all.

My take is more simple and much less academic. I was teaching my children the Scriptures on one occasion and we read:

2 Thess 2
7For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

8And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:

9Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


It struck me that a world that would believe a lie is no indication of truth, but rather of God sending upon them a strong delusion to believe the lie. And this very passage is a prophecy of that coming Antichrist, which is come, and the world indeed has bought the lie as God foretold they would.

 

The passage you quote is a moral passage not a secret passage of distrusting Rome. In other words the world likes to live in iniquity and will decieve themselves. For this I lift up the example of homosexual christians who believe its ok to be homosexual (live that lifestyle) and claim the faith. This is what this passage applies to. Second I reason that the great weight of historians show that the early church emerged into the ancient catholic church which futher evolved into the reformed churches to the churches of today. The classical churches have their problems but at one time they conveyed the Holy Spirit and a few still in those churches may yet receive the Holy Spirit.
I also site archeological evidence to discard the landmarkist view.

 

I didn't expect you to accept the Reformed understanding of the passage. I do. And I believe it accuratley prophesied of the papacy, which is the Man of Sin, spoken of in this passage. And that which retrainded was the Roman Empire, until it was taken out of the way.

 

this passage

refers to the emperor Caligula who did exactly that. It may refer to a future anti Christ. But its unlikely its the pope. What ever happened to the Pope being the false prophet? He can't be both the False prophet and the Anti christ. But the rest of the chapter is about the condition of men under this rule. Which is the moral discussion.

 

I disagree. And am certianly not alone in my view on this, not only among good Christian men who were bible-believers, but even among those who lived at the time of the Roman Empire before it fell. Those who have looked back believed this, and even those who looked forward.

The papacy perfectly fulfills this prophecy.

 

Ok we can agree to disagree though I'm right and your not. Did you see the documentary waiting for armeggeddon?

 

2 Peter 1:20-21

"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

Peace!

 

He will exalt himself, not hasn't. The passage speaks of a future event that still hasn't taken place yet.
You went as far as verse four. What does the rest of the context say:

2 Thessalonians 2:8-12 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

--Has the Wicked (one) been revealed yet (the anti-christ)?
After him shall all the world follow for he comes with all power and signs and lying wonders.
All will not receive the love of the truth that they might be damned.
Therefore God shall send them a strong delusion.
They all will believe a lie--that this man is the anti-christ.
ALL might be damned

Did this happen? No, there are many coming to Christ today. The Anti-christ has not been revealed, not today and not in past history.

As for your reference to other historical sources, one of the sources that you mentioned was "Christianity Today," a widely respected evangelical magazine. Does it have bias? The magazine is new evangelical. It compromises the truth.

I ordered a copy of it (back-ordered) that dealt specifically with the historic evangelism of Asia, especially India. It considers the RCC as evangelical, and as a major player in the spread of the gospel in India. That is about as far from the truth as one can get. "Christianity Today" compromises the truth. It is not an unbiased magazine. It also takes a biased view of history, and when looking at the history of Christianity includes all of "Christendom" not just evangelicalism per se, or those that would spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thus unbiased sources are difficult to come by, even today.

 

Prophesy often has a current meaning and a future meaning. Its like this throughout scripture. So depending on when 2 Thes was writen it could be speaking of both caligula and a like minded future anti christ but I already said that. And I agree the anti christ isn't revealed yet. I'm suggesting its not the pope. The pope can't both be the false prophet and anti-christ. One or the other. If you hold to that view.
And of course a well accepted evangelical magazine "compromises the truth" to a person who basis truth on what they want rather than what is. Also because its new it has to be bad. Right? And if you say all of christiandom you are including Catholicism admittadly in your above statement. And all your sources are "biased" rather than unbiased as you lead us to believe. I would adhere to a secular source as holding an unbiased position between baptist and Catholic with regard to history. However, you think secular sources are Catholic which I find funny since they dislike that church as much as you.

 

I look at the magazine objectively. Is it telling the truth about the history of India? "St Francis Xavier" in the 1540's went to Goa and converted hundreds, if not thousands, of the Goans by peril of the sword. The battle cry of the evangelism of the RCC at that time in India was "Be baptized or die!" That is not Christianity! It is barbarianism. It in itself is more barbaric and pagan than the paganism of the existing Goans. And yet Xavier was made a "saint" for the number of "conversions" he made at Goa. Astounding! Do you still consider it an objective source of truth?

Not so. I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine. I will separate the good from the bad. I read with a critical mind. Catholicism is not and never was a Christian religion.
When the world speaks of "Chrisendom" they speak of all that falls under that great umbrella that calls themselves Christian whether they be J.W.'s, Mormons, or Catholics.

When I pick up an Encyclopedia and look up an article on the Albigenses, what do you think I will find? I no doubt will find an article heavily influenced by Catholic-revisionism. After all, as Dr. Walter has already pointed out to you, not only were the Albigeneses wiped out, but their literature as well, thus any remaining documents about them are difficult to find. What one does find is literature written by their enemies containing accusations of false doctrine attributed to them which are not true. I would rather find the source, as difficult as it may be.

 

If thats what actually happened. Yes I accept it as unbiased. And I agree forcing belief isn't Christianity and Francis Xavier should not have been given and honor. However in 1540's I would say the reformation needed to happen and did happen. If your going to report you might as well report on both bad and good. That is unbaised. However, I looked at his history a bit and he didn't do any killing himself. he requested an inquisition. What he did do was destroy lots of idols.

I entirely disagree with you and I base it on historical accounts.

They might indeed but they are unbiased towards any particular denomination.

Or maybe they were as they were discribed. However I agree I would rather find the source.

 

hahahaha...that reminds me of a picture I saw, like the busienss ones, with the word "Compromise" on it, and the caption "Let's agree to respect each other's views, no matter how wrong yours might be."


HAHAHA

I think I did see that documentary. Somethign I watched off of Netflix dealt mostly with futurists tho.

 

Heb 10

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

 

I like that quote. I think I'll use :laugh:

I thought that was an interesting look at the raputist Point of view. the ones that seemed scarry were those that wanted to make war on the Muslims. How is that any different from the crusades? Though I laughed at the rabbi who believed that Jesus wouldn't make it back a second time. Boy is he going to be disappointed!

 

Amen!

Peace.

 

You didn't understand me did you.
Do you think that "Christianity Today" would dare report anything that Xavier did? Not a chance. They didn't even mention him. What they talked about was the contribution that the Catholic Church made in evangelization of India, though in very general terms. The Catholic Church did not make any contributions in the evangelization of India. They don't know what the gospel is, as I just demonstrated to you by relating to you the history of "their so-called evangelization of Goa."
"Christianity Today" is not being honest in their portrayal of the RCC in picturing them in such a positive light along with other evangelicals such as Pandita Ramabai and Amy Carmichael.

I said: "I have many current sources of history and I am updating my library all the time. Thus I purchased this magazine.[/quote]
And you disagree with me. Do you call me a liar? What is this supposed to mean?

I also said I read with a critical mind. But you don't believe I have that ability either. You are a sad case.

And so am I when I use the word "Christendom," except when I clarify it.