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 Papal State & Vatican City

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, Nov 24, 2011.

  1. lakeside

    lakeside New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK, no Church ,how can you say that, when Jesus said 'my church' twice He said church not churches. ???

    Cardinal Hosius ,you found that information in your bias anti-Catholic web-sites ,why not show me from a more competent un-biased historical source.
     
  2. lakeside

    lakeside New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    All of the heretical groups that split off in the first century died out. Anyone who claims that there was a line of doctrinally Protestant people going back through history to Jesus doesn't know Church history.

    While some groups, such as you Baptists, sometimes make this claim, they claim descent from heretical groups such as the Montanists (a false-prophecy movement that said the New Jerusalem would descend in Phrygia, on Montanus's home town), the Donatists (who said sacraments are efficacious only if they are administered by someone in a state of grace), and the Albigensians (who said there are two gods, a good god who loves us and an evil god who made the world).Waldeses that believed in infant baptism. There is simply no way that these groups were Baptists under a different name.

    Also incorrect is the notion, seriously offered by some Baptists, that the Baptists are descended from John the Baptist--otherwise, why else would they sport his title?

    (This argument is analogous to the one given by ministers of the Protestant denomination that calls itself the Church of Christ. They say theirs must be the original Church because the name of the Church founded by Christ could be nothing other than "the Church of Christ." Naturally enough, this argument has not found favor with people who do not belong to that denomination.)

    The Baptists are a late offshoot of the English Reformation. Their denomination was started in 1609 by a British man named John Smyth, who was living in Holland at the time. He and his congregation of expatriate Englishmen began the first Baptist church, which later relocated to England, which is why all the early Baptist confessions were drawn up in that country.

    Incidentally, the original Baptists practiced baptism by pouring (affusion) instead of dunking (immersion), although most of them today vigorously deny the validity of baptism by pouring. The founder of the Baptist Church in America, Roger Williams, finding no one qualified to baptize him, decided to baptize himself in 1639.
     
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The quotation by Cardinal Hosius has been independently researched and verified by Carolinee White, Ph.D, Oxford University, Head of Oxford Latin.
     
  4. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    HP: You know DHK that I agree with you that the Roman Catholic system has been at the heart of literally millions of heinous deaths for any and all that stood in its way. It indeed has a dark past and the capability to repeat such atrocities even today. The heart of man has gotten worse if anything, not better, and a system of religion coupled with the power of government is ripe for renewed persecution and abuse. We stand together against papal power as well as the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church.

    I suppose any false belief within the church today could find a source to follow its roots to the NT church in some limited form, because lies and corruption and false doctrine have existed from the garden. With that aside, I would take issue that doctrines, as commonly held in Baptist circles, and some doctrines even in multitudes of other denominational circles, were part and parcel to any recognized and accepted teachings in the early church. In particular the notion of original sin was NOT a doctrine taught in the early church, nor was it found in anything closely resembling the Jewish faith. It was a heathen notion introduced into the church by Augustine, straight from the playbook of his heathen philosophical background, i.e. the false notion that sin lied in the constitution of the flesh and not in the will itself. Hence the introduction of infant baptism etc. formerly unknown to the church. For this cause, well recognized by church historians and scholars, he was rightfully called the 'father of the doctrine of original sin.'

    So, although many similarities in doctrine might have existed within the framework of the church, some doctrines held by Baptists and the majority of denominations today, were not all doctrines taught in the manner as Augustine taught and has subsequently became imbedded in the Christian church world today. There are other notions as well that might be pointed out as notions not widely held or accepted within the early church, such as OSAS, the imputed righteousness of Christ as taught in Baptist circles, grace as taught ny so many including some on this board that is not in keeping with the Scriptural meaning and use of grace, limited atonement, irresistible grace, just for starters. It is NOT my point here to say or indicate your positions on any of these issues, but rather only to point out some issues held and commonly taught in Baptist circles that were not held and commonly taught in Scripture the early churches.
     
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    So.....HP would you then be able to respond to the Biblical evidence I gave Lakeside concerning the connection of a "sign" to the doctrine of Justification by faith??? You and Rome share the same bottom line when it comes to the gospel = If you can lose it by your works then you cannot keep it without your works and therefore one must be ultimately justified by their works to remain and obtain ultimate salvation in heaven.

    Rome simply makes the sacraments the - good works - connection between initial salvation and heaven.
     
    #45 The Biblicist, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
  6. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, IF you are the former Dr Walter, you need to come clean. Either admit it or deny it so as to clear up the rumors. Thank you.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    When John was born his parents did not give him the name "John The Baptist" but just plain old "John."

    However, John was given a mission by God to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord" and the visible symbol of that ministry was "baptism." God called him to the wilderness for separation for the work he would do. Before he immersed one Person the Holy Spirit called him "John The Baptist" (Mt. 3:1). The Holy Spirit did not choose an adjective to describe his person or a verb to describe an action but a proper descriptive noun to describe his Message, Ministry and Method.

    A. His message was the gospel of Christ - Jn. 3:36 compared to Jn. 3:16

    B. His mission - to prepare a people made ready for Christ to take and build His congregation out of - Jn. 1; Acts 1:21-22

    C. His Method - through preaching the gospel of Christ, immersing them by the authority of the Triune God (Jn. 1:33) and teaching them to observe all things God commanded Him = make disciples


    Jesus took the materials prepared by John as His travelling congregation and out of them chose twelve as the first officers to set in the congregation (1 Cor. 12:28).

    Jesus submitted to the baptism of John and then perpetuated the very same ministry (Jn. 4:1-2; Lk. 7:29-30) through the Great Commission (Mt. 28:19-20).

    Every church sent missionary does the very same espousal work that John the Baptist did in preparing a people made ready for the Lord's congregations (2 Cor. 11:2 "I have ESPOUSED you").

    Hence, the constitution of all New Testament congregations are patterned after the ministry of John the Baptist - God sent missionaries that make disciples by preaching the gospel, immersing them and then assembling them around them to be instructed how to observe all things whatsoever Christ commanded.
     
  8. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the list: The comments by Biblicist are founded in either ignorance or malice, one or the other. Which is it? I have never supported any notion that we are saved for the sake of any work period. Biblicist's inability to understand the clear truth that works are thought of in two senses, not one as he falsely supposes, does not necessitate his inference that I believe in salvation by works. I have, on numerous occasions illustrated the clear distinction between works, thought of in the sense of 'not without which', and the notion of works that are thought of in the context of 'that for the sake of' in the prisoner illustration. Such a clear distinction is also seen in the difference between the grounds of salvation, i.e., nothing other than the grace and mercy of God, distinct from the conditions of salvation God calls upon man to do, such as repentance, faith and continued obedience until the end.
    We are not saved by our works, i.e., our works are NOT the grounds of our salvation, but neither will anyone be saved apart from the fulfilling of the conditions God has set forth, which are works (without the least merit to serve as the grounds of our salvation in and of themselves) in the since of being completed by mans will, but thought of only in the sense of a condition to, not the grounds of, our salvation. No work of man, no fulfilling of any condition demanded by God, is ever thought of containing the notion of merit for obtaining salvation.

    It can rightfully be said, none can work for their salvation in any way for it is the gift of God, yet it can also be stated that no man will be saved apart from them willingly, without force or coercion, forming intents and subsequent actions (works in the since of not without which, NOT works in the sense of that for the sake of) of obedience to the conditions God has said are necessary to inherit eternal life.

    Of a truth , when the charge of salvation by works is throw out, it is more often that not just a mere Calvinistic talking point without the least truth in it, devoid of truth or merit completely. Biblicist comments are clear evidence of this fact.
     
    #48 Heavenly Pilgrim, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
  9. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    To the end of dispelling ignorance on the often false charge of 'salvation by works,' I will post again the prisoner illustration I have used before.


    A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions as the grounds of his pardon, not could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

    Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

    What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

    It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

    Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

    Such is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ such works by man, thought of in the sense of 'not without which (NOT in the sense of that for the sake of') no man shall see the Lord.
     
    #49 Heavenly Pilgrim, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
  10. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    You wouldn't know one iota of church history because you would simply look at if from a revisionist source, the way the RCC wants you to look at it. You wouldn't dare look at history from Baptist history books. That would be akin to a Muslim looking for the gospel in the Bible. How foolish that would be! All Muslims know that the truth of the gospel is in the Koran, just as all Catholics know that the truth of church history is written by Catholics. :rolleyes:
    And it is all revisionist history. The names you mention above, their histories skewed by their enemies, filled with falsities and lies and posted as such. You don't know what they believed. Why even try to post it. Instead of posting innuendo and hearsay, document from original sources everything you say about each and every group--not RCC sources, original sources.
    There were Baptists at that time and long before that time. You embarrass yourself on a Baptist board having such a lack of knowledge of Baptist history. You need to study more.
    You should stop posting before you become the laughing stock of the posting board. We know our history. You don't. Apparently you don't even know what a Baptist is!!!! Perhaps read some history books before posting again.
    Well that settles that then doesn't it. There happened to be a world before America was discovered wasn't there. Or were you not aware of any other country but America?
     
  11. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    And there isn't an ounce of Biblical truth to that.
    It is pure philosophy and speculation; you did not support your views with even one verse of Scripture.
     
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Pure double talk and as I said the bottom line is the same with the Roman Catholic view of salvation.

    We are justified by grace through faith WITHOUT WORKS (Rom. 3:24,28; 4:5-6).

    Just like the Catholics, you confuse justification with regeneration. The source of "good works" originates with the new creation within us not justification before God. We are "created" (quickened/regenerated) unto "good works"! What has been created within us by God is created in "true holiness and righteousness" (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10) and it is from thence "good works" originate by the power of the indwellling Spirit - this has nothing to do with justification before God or with gaining or losing eternal life.

    The bottom line is that regardless of the double talk you cannot possibly lose salvation by works unless you are being saved by works.

    Theological gynastics of "ground" versus "conditions" mixed within the term "grace" is a repudiation of the Biblical demand that "if it is of grace then IT IS NO MORE OF WORKS otherwise grace is no more grace...." (Rom. 11:6).

    Justification is "freely" by grace or WITHOUT A CAUSE found in "the ungodly" (Rom. 3:24; 4:5) but found solely by "faith IN the blood of Christ" as the complete and full "propitiation" (satisfaction) of every demand the Law has against the "ungodly."

    The "blood" represents the RIGHTEOUS LIFE of Christ as the SUBSTITUTE being offered up for the "ungodly" to satisfy the wrath of God against the sins of the "ungodly." It is the "ungodly" that is justified before God solely by Christ's life and death, whereas it is the regenerated that is sanctified by the Holy Spirit progressively but never completely until glorification.

    Justification obtains eternal life and guarantees it because it is based upon the GODLINESS of Christ not the "ungodly.

    Sanctification has an entirely different design.

    Hence, the bottom line is that your view and Catholicism is one and the same and both are the "broad way" and "wide gate" theology of the "many" (Mt. 7:13-14) that are reflected on judgement day by the MIXTURE of faith and works - "MANY shall say......LORD, LORD (faith)......HAVE WE NOT DONE (works)" for entrance into heaven.

    However, the Lord's response is "I NEVER knew you" and the only "house" of works that will stand in judgment day are those founded upon the solid "rock" of Jesus Christ and his righteousness (Mt. 5:20;46) rather than the MIXTURE of "sand" and "Lord, Lord" PLUS "have we not done many wonderful works." Take note there is no difference in the houses, the difference is the foundation upon which the house of our life is built (1 Cor. 3:11-15).
     
    #52 The Biblicist, Nov 26, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 26, 2011
  13. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: I did not mention any Scriptural passages specifically in my last posts in particular, but I did mention Scriptural issues such as repentance, faith and continued obedience, all of which are indeed found in Scripture as something man must do in order to be saved and to be found in Him at the judgment. I have posted numerous biblical references in the past in hundreds if not thousands of posts that support my positions. Which ones in specific do you desire for me to relist again for your personal benefit? The ones concerning the condition of repentance, faith, or obedience until the end? Will you accept them and believe if I post them once again?

    No one has produced more philosophical notions on the list than yourself and others of like persuasion. Philosophy and theology are inseparably intertwined.

    Scripture is not the only source of God given, God inspired truth. Scripture is not even the best source for some revealed intuitive truths. If it were not for other sources of revelation of truth by God, intuitively in particular, you could not discern truth from Scripture period. Moral concepts such as justice and love would fall as dead letter..... as evident by the lack of true understanding of moral issues in so many theological circles.
     
  14. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    On repentance as a condition to salvation: First the prophets of the OT came preaching repentance as a condition to salvation:

    Jer 26:13 Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the LORD your God; and the LORD will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.

    Eze 14:6 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Repent, and turn yourselves from your idols; and turn away your faces from all your abominations.


    Eze 18:30 Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

    In the NT, Jesus came preaching repentance. These were the first recorded words of our Lord preaching. : Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

    Mar 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.


    Luk 13:3 & also 5 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

    The disciples message was to repent: Mar 6:12 And they went out, and preached that men should repent.

    Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.


    Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

    Act 26:20 But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. ( there is that old 'works' salvation being preached in Scripture no less :eek:)

    Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.

    Rev 2:16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

    (more still to come on the conditions of salvation and acceptance before God :thumbs:)
     
  15. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    On repentance, it is interesting to note that Edersheim noted in the "Life and Times of Jesus Christ the Messiah,' that according to the Jews, no sacrifice was accepted by God in the forgiveness of sins if it was not accompanied by sincere repentance. Repentance of a truth, in the OT through today, is a condition of salvation, a work that must be done by us in order to receive Gods forgiveness.

    God even goes further. " Mar 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

    Clearly our forgiveness towards others is a clear condition of acceptance by God.
     
  16. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    How am I doing so far DHK? Do you recognize any of these familiar passages of Scripture? Have I ever posted them before to your knowledge? How many times have I posted them over the last several years? Possibly numerous times? It is OK to be honest. :thumbs:
     
  17. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    On faith as a condition of salvation, one simple Scripture should suffice.

    " Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
     
  18. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Repentance and faith are INWARD responses of the heart to the gospel. "with the heart man believeth unto righteousness."

    Faith is inseparable from repentance as repentance is turning from sin and turning to Christ WITH THE HEART.

    You go on to confuse "faith" in connection with the gospel to "faithfulness" in connection with progressive sanctification.

    The former is faith "IN" Christ's faithfulness or in the propitiation for justification whereas the latter is our faithfulness "TO" Christ.

    The former is faith "IN" God through the person of Jesus Christ whereas the latter is a "by" product of faith to God.

    The former is the basis for justification whereas the latter is the product of regeneration.

    Learn the difference my friend.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    No, faith is the CONDITION or STATE of the new heart given by God (Ezek. 36:26) and is a "gift" not of works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 4:16) but of grace whereas faithfulness is a product of regeneration (Eph. 2:10).
     
  20. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    On obedience until the end as a condition of salvation:

    Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but hethatendureth to the end shall be saved.

    Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;

    Act 14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

    Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

    Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

    1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

    1Jn 2:24 Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

    Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

    Heb 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end:

    2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.


    I am certain there are other passages that I have mentioned in the past that speak clearly to the necessity of enduring to the end as a condition of seeing our faith turned to sight and trading the earnest of our faith we hold now for the reality of eternity together with God to be realized in finality at the judgment....... IF we endure until the end.
     
Loading...