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!

Problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Oct 14, 2010.

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

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    That's doubtful. If the RCC treated him as a heretic or persecuted in any way, it would be considered as a compliment historically.
    Baptist history is a history written in blood.
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    The descriptive "free church movement" has been in use by non-roman Catholic historians for some time to describe pre-reformation evangelicals.



    Not so! The termonology may have sprung from certain post-Biblical times but not the doctrine. Those you call "schismatic" such as the "Montanists" even your own historians admit were "orthodox" in doctrine. As I said before, the evils of one or a few are simply transferred to a whole movement in order to trash them. Even Montanus did not attribute the gift of prophecy to anyone other than himself and his two prophetesses. You simply do not have suffient data to accuse the whole movement of everything Montanus is accused of.


    Circular reasoning. The heretics proclaim themselves as orthodox and the orthodox are trashed as heretics. If the Post-Nicene counsels are the evidence of what was preserved by Rome as truth then heresy has no meaning at all. The free church movement preserved the true gospel of Christ while condemning the sacramentalism and idolatrous religion of Rome.

    With all due respect those who followed Montanus and even Montanus was labled a "Montanist" and the movement referred to as Montanism. I don't defend Montanus or his two prophetesses from all the charges. Those churches condemned with Montanism, like those whole groups of churches condemned as Novationists or Donatists or Paulicians or Catharists or Waldenses were simply slandered for the most part and there is evidence to indicate they were simply slandered in order to be brought under the secular condemnation. The free church movement was the holy catholic apostolic church while the apostates were in an adulterous union with the secular state and murderers of the true children of God.
     
  3. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    You mean like purple cows and unicorns?
    That's why I called them schizmatic rather than heretecal.
    I thought I focused on Montanus and not his movement, although I must say that anyone who followed a nut case like that would have to be a little squirelly. It's no wonder they died out.
    I can tell you what heresy is but I would probably be banned for doing so. One of the problems with debating on a board such as this is that you can't come out too strong against the basic beliefs of the management. If you do, you are seen as proselytising or otherwise damaging the purpose for which the board has been put up. So I will simply say that you are no doubt a nice person I would enjoy having as a friend. I know you are sincere in your beliefs but you are sincerely wrong. See Jeremiah 5:21.
    Where are these movements today? All gone, just like the Hittites and the Philistines. You say there has been continuity of the "free church"? Why then did some of them adhere to doctrines that others regarded as anathema? Where are the confessions of faith of these so called "free churches"? What church today identifies with any of them? Mine certainly does not.
     
  4. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    The belief that ECFs like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their Christian faith, were somehow heretical, I find totally obnoxious.
     
  5. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,377
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    totally agree :thumbs:
     
  6. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    You missed my point! They were not followers of him - they were charged as followers of him because like him they demanded a Spirit regenerate membership and a holy life.




    They did not die out. Even the Catholic Encylopedia admits that they continued to the Seventh Century into the very same geographical areas with the Novationists, Donatists and Paulicians who held the very same tenets, the latter of which continued to the ninth century under that particular term into the very same geographical area with the Catharists who in turn continued geographically in the same area holding the same tenets with the Waldeneses who in turn continued in the same geographical area with the Anabaptists many of which contained Waldenses preachers. They are called the "free" church because each of these groups were separate from Rome and liberty of conscience was a major tenet so they became a haven of freedom for other anti-Roman Catholic groups that were heretical. Modern Baptists have their roots in the Anabaptist movement in Europe and the ancient Brittins in Wales.

    Of course Rome and those who swallow Roman Historians hook line an sinker ridicule the "free church" history because it has been and always willl be a threat to their "apostolic succession" heresy theory.
     
  7. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    As I said before, any unbiased reader of the so-called documents that are attributed to the so-called Early church Apostolic Fathers (they were not the "fathers" of anything but the history of error) will freely admit that they are more Apostolic in character such as Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius but as you continue to read there is a clear and evident transition into more and more error.

    For example, these early letters speak of only two kinds of church officers "presbyters" and "deacons" and no pope and no centralized administrative church hiearchy. As you delve further into these writings an ecclesiastical system begins to arise. The seeds of this error can be found in Clement, Polycarp and Ignatius in their over emphasis upon the authority of the ordained members.

    As one continues into the Ante-Nicene writings the errors and myths begin to increasingly manifest and by the time you reach Augustine you have a more developed worldly church in union with the Roman secular state and from that point forward the transformation into error increases dramatically.

    Hence, the ante-nicene, nicene and Post-nicene in totality is the history of the spirit of antichrist. The true apostolic churches are first called "schismatics" and smeared by identification with individuals who are strange or did strange things and then called "heretics" and hunted down like dogs and killed by the so-called "holy" Roman Catholic church.
     
    #87 Dr. Walter, Oct 19, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 19, 2010
  8. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This is actually the basis of your argument. I've shown how little scholarly evidence he provides. Most "evidence" is based on conclusions obtained his his personal observation rather than any real understanding of the objects, religions, etc in question. I'm certain if Hislop mentioned many of his own observation to Zahi Hawaas he would be laughed at. Especially at the modern day diluge of discoveries and modern desiphering of the Ancient world.
     
  9. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    This post tells me you didn't even read the OP. Nowhere on this thread and I repeat Nowhere have I asserted, claimed, or even alluded to "philosophy and the church fathers" as being the answer to the problems facing Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Nowhere did I state that "Paul...invent(ed) a new denomination" etc... It seems you didn't understand the OP thus have spewed nonsense fight a fight that isn't even occuring. What did I acutally say? You really need to improve your reading comprehension. This is what I actually said
    I put in the main points so you can see what it was I was actually saying I left out the other stuff since history is problematic for you. But this is the premise of the argument. See, I can help you with your reading comprehension.
     
  10. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,377
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Wally,

    Fanatics always have perceived legitimate reasons why they are fanatics. If I'm correct Thinkingstuff 1st wanted to elevate this conversation to how philosophy has operated as a substitute or basis for religion, if I'm reading his initial comments correctly.

    As a suggestion, perhaps we should fast forward to the years of European Enlightenment & discuss more tangible issues of religious development....Surely then we have much more historical data to point to & work from. Start with Francis Bacon, Descartes, Hobbs & my favorite Spinoza.
     
  11. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    You think the Paulicians and Cathars were Christians?:laugh:
     
  12. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    As I have said, I find the idea that Ignatius and Polycarp, who were martyred for their faith in Jesus Christ - in Polycarp's case quite horribly - as some kind of heretics, to be quite abhorrent and disgusting.


    I'm sure the martyrs of the Early Church would rejoice to be called the antichrist:rolleyes:
    So, which Montanists, Donatists or Novatianists were killed by the Catholic Church? Bear in mind that the Catholic Church was itself persecuted until the Edict of Milan in 313, which post-dates these movements.

    Your opinions are both ahistorical and revolting.
     
  13. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,377
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Yes....some in here seem to have amnesia when it comes to blood letting & both sides have been complicit. hopefully we have learned from those horrible times & can come together in Christ. Now what the original question on the OP? :wavey:

    Jesus Saves
     
  14. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Unlike Rome I don't lump them all in one category. There were truly saved persons among those lumped into that category. The true churches of Christ could be found among them as well as others who were simply categorized under the same name.
     
  15. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    As I said repeatedly, the errors are minor in these writers as compared to others as you progressively read. I did not say Polycarp or Ignatius or Clement were lost persons. I simply said that they overemphasized the authority of the ordained office. That does not make them "heretics" per se but it does introduce the errors that led to heresies.


    Even Catholic historians admit that the Montanists, Donastists and Novationists existed after long after the union of State and church. The Catholic Encylopedia traces the earliest group (Montanists) to at least the 7th century. So the State church had plenty of time to persecute them.

    They are "ahistorical" from Roman Catholic historian view points. They are no "ahistorical" in regard to the information that is available that many protestant historians from Lutheran (Moshiem) Presbyterian (Neander) and Baptist perspectives.
     
  16. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,548
    Likes Received:
    193
    I see. So, let me get this straight - Gnostic dualists (the 'wolves' that Paul warned Timothy about) were Baptists. Riiiight. And in what way is that not ahistorical?
     
  17. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    33,377
    Likes Received:
    1,568
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No Spinoza??? You guys are no fun :laugh:
     
  18. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wasn't he a rationalist?
     
    #98 Thinkingstuff, Oct 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2010
  19. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    2
    Paulicians are on record for vehemently denying the charge they were Manicheans and Rome admits they denied it but continues to charge them with it anyway. Rome paints the historical picture the way they please in spite of the facts. Rome murders their opponents through the secular arm of government which they have controlled to the point of making a kings bow to their threats of excommunication. Rome lies, distorts the truth of history over and over and you choose to believe them. That is your personal choice and personal problem not mine.
     
    #99 Dr. Walter, Oct 20, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 20, 2010
  20. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    For the record, Paulicians rejected the Old Testament and refused to observe the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper. Genuine orthodox believers, those guys. :rolleyes: Dr. Walter, why do you find it necesary in your posts to devote a sentence or two to the issue at hand and then write a whole paragraph ranting about the evils of "Rome"?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...