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!

The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by jcf, Feb 8, 2005.

  1. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Is it your position that the Catholic church did NOT "divide" into eastern and Roman Catholic schisms?

    Is it your position that Martin Luther was not a Catholic, trained by the Catholic church etc?

    The fact is that the RCC is the "center" of all major schisms in history if not the cause.

    All Christian churches today can trace their roots back to the apostles through some group of other Christians that gave rise to the current set. (No news there).

    The RCC has no more right to claim that Peter was a Roman Catholic than Baptist do to claim that Peter was a Baptist.

    In fact - given the fact that Peter never taught Purgatory, Never called Mary "the Mother of God", Never prayed TO or FOR the dead, never baptized an infant, never claimed to forgive sins... one could argue that though he was not a Southern Baptist - he WAS MUCH MORE Southern Baptist than Roman Catholic!

    Finally - your approach above seems to argue that ALL other Christian groups must fit into ONE church and defennd schisms as just and true WHILE the RCC denomination must only defend its own unified clergy and does not have to take the blame for all the schisms IT started!

    A fascinating kind of argument you make!

    And what about the RCC owning up to the millions of Christians it slaughters BY POLICY of "extermination" see the (Lateran IV council for examples)


    Notice how you try to lump ALL non-RC churches into one giant organization and acccuse them of not all agreeing?? That would be like me blaming RCC because the RCC and Baptists don't agree!!

    How much sense does that make??
    Your argument here is hard to follow. WHY should "WE" expect all non-Catholic churches to behave TOGETHER any different than Catholics and Baptist relate TOGETHER??

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  2. jcf

    jcf Guest

    We do participate in God's nature through His Word and His Word is Christ, the Eternal Logos. We are united with the Word in baptism and are nourished by the Word Himself in the Holy Eucharist.
    [​IMG]
    </font>[/QUOTE]Hi DT,

    What I'm about to say will probably fall on deaf ears.

    The eternal word dwelt in Jesus and Jesus had to be obedient to it, in other words, when Jesus obeyed the word it is said, the word became flesh, it was lived out in Jesus through His obedience.

    Hebrews 5:8 Though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.

    YAHWEH, the eternal word was in Jesus reconciling the world.

    2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

    YAHWEH gave Jesus His Spirit without measure so that Jesus could speak the Father's words.

    John 3:34 God sent Jesus. Jesus speaks the words of God, because God gave him the Spirit without limit.

    YAHWEH said He would send a prophet like Moses for among the brethren to speak His words.

    Deuteronomy 18:18 "I (YAHWEH) will raise up for them a Prophet like you (Moses) from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.

    Now, as far as water baptism goes. We are baptized (washed) with words.

    Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

    This why Paul said, I come not to baptize (with water) but to preach (wash with words).

    1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.

    The literal water baptism was of John as a shadow of what was to come through Christ.

    Mark 11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

    Mark 1:8 "I (John) indeed baptized you with water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

    As far as being spiritually nourished by a cookie this is not so for the kingdom of God is not in what we eat.

    Romans 14:17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

    What we eat can neither make us unrighteous nor can it make us righteous.

    Mark 7:14-19 Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen," he said, "and try to understand. Your souls aren't harmed by what you eat, but by what you think and say!" Then he went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had just made. "Don't you understand either?" he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't harm your soul? For food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the digestive system."
     
  3. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In the beginning was the WORD the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD! (John 1)

    In that SAME context John 1 ALSO says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

    There is no OTHER context in all of scripture in which the statement "the WORD BECAME FLESH" is available so as to find ANOTHER meaning.

    The WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD even BEFORE God the Son was incarnated. (according to the chapter) so when the WORD BECOMES something - it is the SAME WORD of the context set by John 1.

    This is impossible to escape.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  4. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    The RCC is blatantly wrong on so000 many points (Purgatory, infant baptism, Popery, Mariolotry, murdering the saints, infallability, tradition over doctrine...) -- why on earth would you water down a focus on those gross errors with this debate on the Trinity??

    What a perfect ploy for the RCC member to use here to defocus the thread away from the clear and blatant errors of the RCC that all can see.

    Why not put the Trinity discussion in the parking lot for the sake of clear focus - or at least start it as it's own thread??

    Bob
     
  5. jcf

    jcf Guest

    Hi Bob,

    The trinity doctrine is the foundation of the RCC and is why thousands of Christians were murdered for their refusing to receive this teaching. The trinity doctrine was formed by way of the Nicene Creed not the Apostles creed nor the Scriptures. It's a doctrine that interprets verses to make them fit a trinity God. As a result of the Nicene Creed a curse was put on anyone who refused the outcome of the council of Nicea. Those who refuse the Nicene Creed are to be excommunicated from the church and not to be counted as a Christian. Many saints of God were murdered as result. This is the spirit behind the trinity doctrine, it's not of God. Many false doctrine grew from the trinity doctrine such as Mary being the mother of God, Mary being born without sin, the immortal soul, the preexistence of Christ, Jesus not really dying and many others.
     
  6. jcf

    jcf Guest

    In the beginning was the WORD the WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD! (John 1)

    In that SAME context John 1 ALSO says "THE WORD BECAME FLESH"

    There is no OTHER context in all of scripture in which the statement "the WORD BECAME FLESH" is available so as to find ANOTHER meaning.

    The WORD was WITH God and the WORD WAS GOD even BEFORE God the Son was incarnated. (according to the chapter) so when the WORD BECOMES something - it is the SAME WORD of the context set by John 1.

    This is impossible to escape.

    In Christ,

    Bob
    </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Bob,

    It's the words of Jesus' Father that dwelt in Jesus.

    Deuteronomy 18:18 I (YAHWEH) will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my (YAHWEH's) words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I (YAHWEH) shall command him.

    Jesus also had His own words but He did not speak his own words.

    John 7:16-18 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

    John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

    Jesus had His own will but He did not do His own will.

    John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

    Jesus was a man who was born of a virgin as a sign to us that YAHWEH is with us, not that Jesus is YAHWEH. It was the sign of the virgin birth that showed us that YAHWEH was with us.

    Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

    Jesus' name is not Immanuel and he was never called Emmanuel, Jesus' name represents the fact the YAHWEH is with us (for us, not against us).
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    189
    I have to say that I find this statement somewhat bizarre. What about Anglicanism? I think you'll find that that was down to a certain King Henry. What about Methodism (split from Anglicanism)? Pentecostalism (deriving from Methodism)? Plymouth Brethren (from Church of Ireland)? House Churches/ charismatic movement (split from Free Evangelical Churches)? And, of course, the Baptists (split from Anglicanism)? That's just a few of the English-speaking sects and denominations. What on earth had the Catholic Church to do with those schisms?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  8. Claudia_T

    Claudia_T New Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,458
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is the cause of Divisions in the Church?

    Romanists have persisted in bringing against Protestants the charge of heresy and willful separation from the true church. But these accusations apply rather to themselves. They are the ones who laid down the banner of Christ and departed from "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Jude 3. It is they who caused the original division in Christianity.

    However, many Protestants then did their own part in causing even further divisions in the church for various reasons.

    Human theories and speculations will never lead to an understanding to God's word. Those who suppose that they understand philosophy think that their explanations are necessary to unlock the treasures of knowledge and to prevent heresies from coming into the church. But it is these explanations that have brought in false theories and heresies. Men have made desperate efforts to explain what they thought to be intricate scriptures; but too often their efforts have only darkened that which they tried to make clear. For instance, when the Bible plainly says things like: 1Jn:2:3: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." 1Jn:2:4: "He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." Rv:22:14: "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Mt:19:17: "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments" --they do not want to accept such plain statements as truth but instead seek to twist the Word of God, for the same reason the Jewish leaders did, they can see it would involve a cross, if they were to follow the Word of God.

    The priests and Pharisees thought they were doing great things as teachers by putting their own interpretation upon the word of God, but Christ said of them, "Ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God." Mark 12:24. He charged them with the guilt of "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." Mark 7:7. Though they were the teachers of the oracles of God, though they were supposed to understand His word, they were not doers of the word. Satan had blinded their eyes that they should not see its true import.

    This is the work of many in our day. Many churches are guilty of this sin. There is danger, great danger, that the supposed wise men of today will repeat the experience

    Page 111
    of the Jewish teachers. They falsely interpret the divine oracles, and souls are brought into perplexity and shrouded in darkness because of their misconception of divine truth.
    The Scriptures need not be read by the dim light of tradition or human speculation. As well might we try to give light to the sun with a torch as to explain the Scriptures by human tradition or imagination. God's holy word needs not the torchlight glimmer of earth to make its glories distinguishable. It is light in itself--the glory of God revealed, and beside it every other light is dim.

    God does not conceal His truth from men. By their own course of action they make it obscure to themselves. Christ gave the Jewish people abundant evidence that He was the Messiah; but His teaching called for a decided change in their lives. They saw that if they received Christ, they must give up their cherished maxims and traditions, their selfish, ungodly practices. It required a sacrifice to receive changeless, eternal truth. Therefore they would not admit the most conclusive evidence that God could give to establish faith in Christ. They professed to believe the Old Testament Scriptures, yet they refused to accept the testimony contained therein concerning Christ's life and character. They were afraid of being convinced lest they should be converted and be compelled to give up their preconceived opinions.

    The treasure of the gospel, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, was among them, but they rejected the greatest gift that Heaven could bestow.

    "Among the chief rulers also many believed on Him," we read; "but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." John 12:42. They were convinced; they believed Jesus to be the Son of God; but it was not in harmony with their ambitious desires to confess Him. They had not the faith that would have secured for them the heavenly treasure. They were seeking worldly treasure.

    And today men are eagerly seeking for earthly treasure. Their minds are filled with selfish, ambitious thoughts. For the sake of gaining worldly riches, honor, or power, they place the maxims, traditions, and requirements of men above the requirements of God. From them the treasures of His word are hidden.

    Disobedience has closed the door to a vast amount of knowledge that might have been gained from the Scriptures. Understanding means obedience to God's commandments. The Scriptures are not to be adapted to meet the prejudice and jealousy of men. They can be understood only by those who are humbly seeking for a knowledge of the truth that they may obey it.

    Do you ask, What shall I do to be saved? You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God's word.
     
  9. wopik

    wopik New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
    the universal church incorporated all the old pagan religions under its umbrella, that's why it's called the universal church.

    The pagan religions formed a single, catholic faith at Rome.
     
  10. wopik

    wopik New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    1,158
    Likes Received:
    0
  11. Logan

    Logan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Wopick, You stated:

    In what year did the these pagans form this faith in Rome? Who was in charge of the religion? What were some of their beliefs that differ from your opinion of christianity?
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    AS it turns out - the protestants were protesting the church of the "Holy Roman Empire" so "yes" the protestant denominations WERE started primarily by CATHOLIC founders.

    As for England - the name of "Wycliff" comes to mind - a CATHOLIC theologian leading the way for the reformation even BEFORE Luther!

    Knox, Calvin, Luther, Wycliff, Zwingli, Lefevre, Berquin in France, Menno Simons in Holland, Tausen in Denmark all trained by the RCC and most ordained as priests or having obtained the rank of theologian.

    Then again - there is always the entire EASTERN ORTHODOX Church!...

    EVERY church in existence today traces its founding BACK to those groups ALL of which were started by Catholic clergy or theologians.

    And then the RCC has the nerve to pretend that any one SINGLE non-RC denomination must take on "responsibility" FOR ALL splits spawned by Catholicism in order to be non-Catolic "still". What a warpped sense of logic they use!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Wopick stated:

    Hmm lets see what Catholics say ..

    The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic work "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

    Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century
    So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.

    How much influence did this have on the RCC “really”?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  14. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Catholics of the 20th century publish the connection to paganism for the world to see and understand.

    Pagan prayer methods.

    ..


    Paganism missing a commandment
    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  15. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    It has recently been pointed out on another thread that facts like this pagan connection - coming to light - merely makes some Catholics even more delighted with their church.

    To each his own. As long as you are getting what you are looking for ...

    I am just trying to make sure you have the light to make informed choices.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  16. Logan

    Logan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2000
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Greetings Bob,

    That was all very nice but, I was looking for something more concrete. Such as some actual writings from the Christians of those days and prior to Constantine, not just some modern person person's opinion. What did the people like (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Ireanaus, Justin etc..) believe. What did they teach about baptism and other doctrines in dispute among Christians of today?
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    11,512
    Likes Received:
    189
    Bob, you didn't mention any of the denominations cited in my post! Come on: was Methodism started by a Catholic? Was Pentecostalism?

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Matt you didn't mention any of the reformers cited in my post.

    Is it your claim that Wesley did not read from the works of the reformers?

    Is it your claim that that the writings of Catholic reformers did not influence Wesley at all?

    Is it your claim that Welsey would not have been born and trained as a Catholic EVEN without the Catholic reformers having set the stage for him?

    Is it your claim that even without Wycliff the reformation would have started anyway and England would have broken away without any Catholic reformers exposing the errors of the RCC and perparing the people to re-think their loyalty to Rome?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I was just trying to point out the fact that the Roman Catholic experts on history "already" admit to this documented historic problem of paganism and the RCC.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    As for Augustine...

    The pagan influence on the early 3rd and 4th century church is as stated by the RC historians previously quoted.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
Loading...