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. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Roman Inquisitor in Bohemia

    "The other is AEneas Sylvius, who wrote the history of Behemia, and afterwards ascended the pontifical chair with the title of pope Pius II. Thus, writes the inquisitor concerning the Waldenses of Bohemia.

    The first error of the Waldenses, says he, that they affirm the church of Rome is not the church of Jesus Christ, but an assembly of ungodly men, and that she has ceased from being the true church, from the time of pope Sylvester, at whch time the poison of temporal advantages was cast into the church, and that they alone live righteously - That they are the true church of Christ, and that the church of Rome is the whore mentioned in the Revelation. They despise and reject all the ordinances and statutes of he church, as being too many and very burdensome. They insist that the pope is the head and leader of all error - That the prelates are the scribes and seemingly religious pharisees - That the popes and their bishops, on account of the wars they foment, are murders - That our obedience is due to God alone, and to prelates, whch they found on Acts iv. 9 - That none in the church out to be greater than their brethren, according to Mat. xx 25 &,- Tha no man ought to kneel to a priest, because the angel said to John Rev. xix 10) 'See thou do it not'.....They condemn all the sacraments of the church. Concerning the sacrament of baptism they say, that the catechism signifies nothing, that the absolution pronounced over infants avails them nothing - that godfathers and godmothers do not understand what they answer to the priest. That the oblation which is called Al wogen is nothing but a mere human invention....They contend that the doctrine of Christ and his apostles is sufficient to salvation without any church statutes or ordinances
    ...." William Jones, The History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, pp. 31,32,34
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Billy, I quoted these things from Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition!!

    Are you goint to tell us that they don't believe what they said????? I simply quoted what they said.

    BTW, our Catholic friend dressed in Baptist attire perverted nearly everything I said as usual. He didn't quote Fox to sustain evidence that there is an evangelical people outside of Rome which they butchered but to sustain his ecclesiastical argument and it is for the same reason he quoted the other books. He never checked the the books he quotes to see if they simple parrot Roman source materials.

    HE REFUSES TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT REGENERATION IN BAPTISM! Why? Because it might get him into trouble with his church???

     
    #82 Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  3. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I would answer each one Billy, but it is too tiresome.
    What can I say, but a post filled with absolute damnable heresies.
    I would like you to defend them from the Bible. That is what we do here.
    We use the Bible and defend our doctrines on the basis of the Bible.
    If you can't defend it on the basis of the Bible then throw it out.
    It is a doctrine of man and not of God.
    The Bible is our final authority. Defend these heresies that you spout off here from the Bible and demonstrate if you can that they aren't heresies. But to do that you will have to use the Bible and the Bible alone.
     
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Nope still hasn't taken up my challenge. Probably hasn't read post 75 either. I say Character is probematic.
     
  5. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    I think your at odds with each other. Have you given a simple answer to a simple question as to whether or not you believe in baptismal regeneration? Why not start there. Then ask your question again in a simple and polite manner and hopefully it will be reciprocated.

    Let's get this conversation down to a civil level--all of us.
     
  6. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    No one asked me about Baptismal regeneration. Do I believe in it. No I was baptised and I wasn't saved. It wasn't until I made a decision to follow Christ that I was saved. However, I'm still owed an apology. I was attempting to be civil but was called filth. Would you put up with that?
     
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    No one asked me about Baptismal regeneration. Do I believe in it. No I was baptised and I wasn't saved. It wasn't until I made a decision to follow Christ that I was saved. However, I'm still owed an apology. I was attempting to be civil but was called filth. Would you put up with that? Read post 75 to get a jist. or just read the thread from the begining.
     
  8. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dr. Augustus Neander's Church History

    It is interesting in reading Dr. Neander's Church History concerning the Paulicians that he repeatedly cautions his readers of misinterpretations and false accusations by Rome against the Paulicians:

    "But we have strong reason for doubting the truth of this whole account.....We find nothing at all however, in the doctines of the Paulicians, which would lead us to presume, that they were an offshoot from Manichaeism; on the other hand, we find much which contradicts such a supposition.....(pp. 244-245).....On the contrary, we may confidently reckon it among the characteristics of the Paulicians, that they knew of no higher distinction than to be in the true sense of the word Christians...(p. 245)...Constantine, if we may credit the account given by opponents.......(p. 248)....If we placed certain realiance on the reports of opponents....But accusations of this sort cannot be received without suspicion.....If, then there is any ground for the assertion....(p.253)"

    Dr. August Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, Vol. 3.
     
    #88 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
    Did I really call you "filth" OR did I say "anyone" who took a certain position fit that?? Are you admitting you fit that criteria I applied to that qualified "anyone"?

    Do you equate baptism at the time you were saved as part of that salvation experience or saving faith?

     
  10. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I admit that I believe the infant church developed and grew and fought and evolved and that the true church was in the covering of the catholic church in the three hundreds but as time went on the things that went wrong were addressed during the reformation as most history books tell you. Including all the non roman one's I've listed. And since that is what I believe I believe you called me filth. I've never said Landmarkism was filth. Just an unsupported fantasy which is much better than filth.

    read post 75 its clear
     
  11. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I read this post and responded to it when talking to Billy as I thought you directed it through another person to me.

    Your response about Fox is the difference between apples and oranges. My question had nothing to do with Fox's ecclesiology but that is what you used Fox for. My question had nothing to do with the ecclesiology of the other source materials but that is what your response had to do with. So, I asked one thing and you were asserting another thing. So you inferred that I called you a Liar to Lori when I only denied you were addressing my question and indeed you were.

    I put in place qualifications for a generic "anyone" concerning the "filth" statement. If the shoe fit, wear it. If not, then don't worry about it.

    I asked you if you agreed with the Roman Catholic view of regeneration in baptism. You never answered.

    I did call you a deceiver on the basis of claimng to be a Baptist but taking up as your own arguments Roman Catholic heresies. I havn't changed my mind because every defensive position you take reaffirms it.


     
  12. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Then take up my challenge. And you asked if I used other sources other than roman and I amply replied which was specific to your question. You're trying to generalize it but I quote you directly. My challenge is still there. You can satisfy yourself if I'm baptist or not. I've got nothing to hide.
     
  13. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    From the ECF Rome has believed in Mary as a co-redemptrix, "Queen of heaven" through which believers come to Christ as it still does as they quote the very ECF as current doctrine - NO CHANGE HERE. From the ECF Rome has believed in regeneration in baptism and still does - NO CHANGE HERE.

    No church can embrace these salvational aspects and not come under the "accursed" of Gal. 1:8-9 as they are inseparable from the gospel of salvation they teach and preach. This is the "filth" I am talking about and it is the "filth" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7:23 "depart from me ye workers of INIQUITY."
     
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    You don't even know what you are saying Co-redemtrix and Mariology wasn't defined until the 1800's long after the reformation. Very little is said with the Ante-Nicean fathers. So again you fail at history. Boy you keep having probems there.

    You ever hear of the document the syllybus of errors?
     
    #94 Thinkingstuff, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  15. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I put the evidence twice on this forum. I quoted directly from Volume VIII of the church Fathers and then I quoted directly from the Catechism of the Catholic church concerning Mary and her intermediate position between Christ and man. Please don't confuse the adoption of later terminology with earlier teaching or formal later adoption of a position and technical explanations with former practice.

    Billy, tried to answer it but just refused to believe it was ECF or Catholic dogma. Perhaps you better take a look before charging me with ignorance of history because I merely quoted the words and they were not my words.

    BTW you never responded to my challenge. I challenged you to look at your great majority of historians and see if they simply accept Roman testimonies as credible sources for their own views or do they exercise any critical investigation to see if they are credible. Just throwing historians and books down at the book store at me is vain unless you can demonstrate their view is not based simply upon assumption of Roman Catholic sources as credible.

     
    #95 Dr. Walter, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  16. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The problem is that some Catholic historians are credible. Don't you site credible sources or only ones that have your view? Anyone who does his homework will have studied Catholic historians as well as other sources as I have. Not everything catholics say is a lie. And you questioned if I used sources other than catholic and I showed you I did. Anything not to apologize.

    Now what question did billy not answer that I must?
     
  17. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is your doctrine not mine. Scripture states that not everything is in scripture. You hold to scripture alone, yet you deny this? The Bible is not my final authority and it NEVER states that about itself. I do not feel inclined to defend that to which I do not hold. That would be your position and one, I might add, that you have consistently failed to defend.

    Peace!
     
    #97 BillySunday1935, Jun 18, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 18, 2010
  18. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    I NEVER said that everything Catholic historians say is a lie. My whole challenge was in the area of those evangelicals whom they called "heretics" and attributed every scum sucking charge they could muster at them in order to bring them under the Codes of Justinian and kill them, which they did kill them. There is evidence among their own writings and among other historians from several different denominations that their charges are riddled with false accusations and misrepresentations and I have already provided more evidence from credible historians in addition to those first listed.

    Historians who have a vested interest in Rome being the "true church" and origin of their own faith will not be motivated to investigate more thoroughly this sphere of evidence. Your typical Protestant historians have a vested interest in just adopting Romes charges in regard to these people instead of critically examining the evidence that IS AVAILABLE AND IS SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT SUSPICION.

    I did not ask you if you used other sources. I asked you if you used other sources that took a critical view of Rome's assertions in this area. You quoted Fox, but not to answer this question. You quoted Fox in order to defend you ecclesiastical theory.

    Again, have you attempted to use other credible sources (not credible by Rome or those who simply adopt Rome's veiw) that investigate the claims of Rome in regard to the accuracy of their charges against those they called "heretics" which fit the evangelical groups (groups that denied the church or sacraments were essential for salvation)?



     
  19. lori4dogs

    lori4dogs New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    1,429
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 'good doctors' fangs have been showing for some time now.
     
  20. BillySunday1935

    BillySunday1935 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2010
    Messages:
    399
    Likes Received:
    0
    This reminds me of current liberal academia - posit a thesis and cite only sources in support of said thesis.

    I think I answered all of them - but I'm not sure if he excepts my answers.

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