Featured True Christianity...

I posted the website because of your nasty cheap shot fired at an Archbishop for which you know nothing about. You implied that he must be a child molestor because he is clergy in the Catholic Church. There was sexual abuse of the worst kind in a Baptist church in the city I was raised. Sexual abuse that was covered up.

Why would you post the nasty remark about the Archbishop if you have the same kinds sins going on in your churches? 97% of all Catholic clergy live out their lives serving Jesus and His Church without falling into the kinds of sins that have been paraded in front of the public by the press for the past few years. The press doesn't give Protestant abusers the same kind of coverage but they are certainly there and statistics indicate in even greater numbers than in the Catholic Church.

As far as Catholic boards, they allow Baptists and other evangelicals to not only join but give them great latitude in posting their opinions. You simply don't know what you are talking about and are only making presumptions.

 

That is where you are wrong again. Members from this board have raided Catholic Boards and lasted about two days with your type of antics.

I do not know why you bring up Protestants. Baptists are not Protestants. You mentioned that 97% of priests are not child molestors. However 100% of priests worship idols, pray to Mary, act on behalf of Christ listening to confessed sin, and do magic acts with the Lords Supper.

Archbishop, is that some kind of big wig in the Catholic hierarchy? Is that the next rank beyond bishop? Where does cardinal come in? Is it evil to spray water on an archbishop? Aside from child molestation, your denomination has a rich history of murder, torture, and bigotry. Sorry, you will not find a web site that talks about Baptists systematically murdering fellow believers.

 

Just one point: Zwingli, an Anabaptist? Surely you jest. Zwingli was a state church persecuting paedobaptist.

 

Tell me which Baptist distinctive I've ripped to shreds? Just one? I assure you I haven't. Now that doesn't mean I don't disagree with certain distinctive views which are in common with all protestants but that is taken for granted because its understood I hold a different view.

Basically what that means if you didn't catch it the first time. Is that I didn't post it rather Walter did and I don't presume to speak for Walter on why he posted it. I also think its generally known all denominations have their own issues.

That is not entirely true. Let me explain. 1) you made a presumption of knowing the Bishops intention. The fact is you don't know the bishops intention therefore it was presumptive of you for making it. 2) Based on your presumption which was he did the debate to seem pious you showed scripture you believe deals with false piety. Therefore your whole premise is based on presumption rather than a fact. Which is to say that if your presumption is wrong which is the premise of your argument. The argument falls apart and therefore your use of scripture becomes moot. Next I did use scripture supplying you a different motive for his actions I chose Matthew chapter 5 and not only Matthew Chapter 5 but two quotes from Pauline epistles and 1 quote from a Peterine epistle. Therefore it isn't true that I didn't supply scripture to support his choice of action.

I never said all Baptist Churches were like Westboro. Read what I actually said which was that just like Westboro is an un-christlike extreme of Baptist so Catholics have their extreme un-christlike groups as well. However as I also said I don't judge all Baptist based on Westboro neither should you judge all Catholics based on Apostate Catholics.

What takes a lot of nerve? Telling the truth as I see it? It is clear that during the reformation and before it that whomever was in leadership of a country or region also felt responsible for the religious beliefs of those under their authority. It is my contention that the killing were done by civil governments who allied themselves to a certain faith. And it is these governments to blame and not the Church as a whole. I did say there were certain clergy that were complicit and these were not in line necessarily with the Church as a whole. And for an example I mentioned the Anglican Church because Foxe was Anglican and much of his writing is used as accusation against the Catholic Church. When the King of England put forward his Act of Supremacy and made all Churches in England under his rule. The Anglicans persecuted and killed Catholics. But I'm not really holding the Anglicans as the faith responsible but rather where the responsibility really lies. On the English government. Let me give you another instance to support my assertion Joan of Arc. Both England and France were Catholics but at war with each other. Joan helped the French defeat the English on certain battles when she was captured the English Bishops declared her a heretic but French Bishops did not. She was tried and killed as a heretic but was it the Catholic Church which killed her or the English government? It was the government who had certain bishops colluding with them. So it wasn't the Church as a whole because the Church has declared her a Saint. Therefore bishops acting not in union with the Church but rather under English authority had her killed for religious reasons. But that was common in Europe at the time. So a lot of things get thrown at Catholics which were actually the fault of Monarchs who called themselves Catholics. I can blame the raid on Iran in 1979 by American Special Forces (which failed) on Baptist because the president at the time was Baptist? No. Of course not. However, the Muslims of that country certainly do and not distinguishing Baptist from any other Christian hold that it was a new Crusade against them this time from America. How accurate is that? Not very. So it is with your view of the persecution in Europe at that time.

My denomination says outside the Church there is no salvation because the salvific truths which people are saved come from the Church. That doesn't mean other people of other denominations won't be saved but that the truths of Salvation which they adhered to which brings them to salvation came first from the Catholic Church. That is what it means. But of course I find it curious that on one hand you accuse us of saying non Catholics won't be saved and on the other hand you accuse us of saying every one will be saved. Which is it? One or the other? If you believe in the Gospel of Christ which leads to salvation how did it come to you? By the Apostolic faith which was written down and kept in perpetuity by Catholics painstakingly copying it and preserving it through out the 1500 years until the birth of the modern protestants. You claim you descend from Waldasenes or Cathars. Well I find it interesting that it wasn't either of these groups which ensured in the many years before the printing press the accurate copying and preserving of the Bible. No. It was monks. There is no such thing as a protestant monk. It was the Catholic Church Which preserved the writings of Sacred Text. So you can thank the Catholics for bringing to you the bible through the long complicated history of Western Europe. Because claiming to be sola scriptura you have to realize that it was the Catholics that kept it for you until protestants came up with the doctrine. So in a sense you got your truth which leads to salvation by what you believe is scripture alone from the Catholic Church. Therefore if you claim you are saved, then you have in part to thank the Catholic Church for preserving the means of it by preserving scripture.

 

The bishop (or whatever rank, makes no difference in the real world) knew exactly what the situtation was, who the group was, and the pattern of the reaction. He had preplanned exactly his response and the article that would be published. It is the same as Christ talking about the Pharisees praying on the street corners, with their eyes squinted to see who is paying attention.

That is just baloney, the whole paragraph. Both the ruling civil government and the prevailing Catholic authority were melded together in one evil entity. It might as well have been a theocrary. By the way, you can stop with mixing the history of Protestants, Anglicans and Baptists. They are distinct in that you cannot cite one instance of Baptists systematically torturing and murdering fellow believers that disagree with them theologically.

Again, you can write all the words you want. The bottom line is the RCC teaches Protestants, Baptists, etc are headed to hell. There is no such belief amongst Baptists. Catholics are saved despite their warped doctrine. Catholics have done nothing, nothing, towards preserving the Inspired word of God. Their hierarchy officials occasionally produce an edict that modifies or amends Scripture, and then it becomes Scripture. The promise of Jesus Christ to preserve His church from your founding in 400 until the Reformation around 1600 was accomplished by local, autonomous churches outside the Catholic Church. After the Reformation, yes Protestants did aid in preserving the church.

Salvation is by grace through faith alone in Jesus Christ. It is not the structure of the Catholic Church, your prayers to idols, your confession of sins to sinful priests, or by your magic acts during communion.

 

Is Michael Wrenn a Catholic?
In his website he uses the word "catholic" but if you know him he is very much opposed to the RCC, yet ironically he traces his "hierarchial lineage" down to Peter just like you do. He is Bishop Wrenn, if you remember. You must have some affinity with him right?

Where you err is that Baptists are independent by nature and by definition. We are not a denomination. Most Baptists would disown Westboro immediately, have no affiliation with them, and tell you that they don't deserve the name "Baptist." Just because an organization calls themselves Baptist doesn't mean they are. I don't consider the church that awaken goes to "Baptist" either, because I don't believe that Baptist dogma and the spiritual gifts of the first century (or adherence to the Charismatic movement today) can be mixed together. It is not Baptist. It can only make a claim to that name in pretense. The same is true IMO, with Michael Wrenn. He claims to be Baptist but has more in common with the Anglicans than the Baptists. All that claim to be Baptists are not.

We are not a denomination. We are independent. So you have a hard time saying "the Baptists" and being accurate at the same time.

 

I have been on other denominational forums, and it is a common tactic to smear Baptists by comparing then to the Westboro Baptists. I'm not saying this is what TS is doing, but to use them as a point of reference has the same effect. Baptist are not a conglomerate with top-down, hierarchy enforced conformity and uniformity.

 

Michael Wrenn and I agree about some things and disagree about others. Just like most people on this board. However, just because he believes in Apostolic Succession doesn't mean I agree he is a bishop in that succession. But this is a forum for discussing Christian ideas and I don't hold that against him. I don't hold the fact that you and I disagree about Catholicism against you either. I think I know where you are coming from and am sympathetic to your view. Though I don't share it.

Baptist are a denomination. They may not be hierarchal but that doesn't disqualify Baptist from being a denomination. A denomination is defined as

And Baptist are certainly that. And Baptist hold to specific "distinctives". Or agreed upon beliefs about Church structure and dogmas held in common by all Baptist such as
Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Ordinances (this can vary)
Individual Soul Liberty

So there is unity in this group though each church is Autonomous. And certain Autonomous churches even band together to support missionary work (a collective) which has rules that can be inclusive or exclusive of which churches may join based on agree upon basic beliefs. So to say Baptist aren't a denomination would be wrong.

It is also wrong to hold that just because the Catholic Church is Hierarchal to assume that people who claim "Catholic" are actually unified with the actual teaching of the Church. There are many people who dissent from Catholic teaching but haven't left the Church both Laity and Clergy. The Winnipeg Statement is one such example where Canadian Catholic Bishops dissented from Catholic teaching. Thus those still holding to that Statement aren't really Catholic but dissenters from Catholic faith. My only use of Westboro was to show a well known Baptist Church that is not in line with the majority of other Baptist just as there are Catholics not in line with the rest of Catholicism. I could mention a small Baptist Church in Tennessee that I know of but who knows that Church? So of course one well known was mentioned. And my point was that to non Baptist who aren't familiar with Baptist may take Westboro as an example for all Baptist, which would be wrong. Just like dissenting Catholics (Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, and many others) shouldn't be assumed to be representative of all Catholics.

 

Interesting that Baptist molesters are gaining ground in the news, along with other protestant denoms and non denoms.

 

Is this who you and DHK are talking about? Says he died in 2008, says he was a Roman Catholic, so I don't get what the two of you are talking about.

http://www.christendom.edu/news/2008/wrenn.php

 

No, there is a poster that goes by that name. I believe he either started or participated in the Celtic Church. I believe he's currently banned.

 

This is a different 'Michael Wrenn'. The one that used to post here on the BB was connected to the CEEC (Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches) by way of his ordination and had established his own jurisdiction.

This is the organization by which Michael Wrenn said he received his apostolic succession:

http://www.theceec.org/

 

Okay...........

 

It is here:
http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/index.html

Some of his odd beliefs may be found in this link:
http://www.celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/principles.html

 

Read Carroll's "Trail of Blood." Though I don't agree with everything he says, his main premise is correct. "There have been believers throughout every age, though called by different names, that have adhered to the same basic principles that Baptists adhere to today. He lists many of them.
There have been dozens of groups that have been called by names other than Baptist that hold to those same principles that you have listed such as the Waldenses to name one.

That puts them outside the realm of a denomination.
I am IFB. I don't have much fellowship with the SBC, ABC, GARB, and many others. Why? We are "independent." We are "autonomous." We practice "separation." We abhor the ecumenical movement and the Charismatic movement. We do not belong to any thing that even resembles a denomination, and cannot be classified as one. To push us into that category is wrong.

 

Thanks. I'll do some reading as I have time.

I am familiar with the CEEC that Walter mentioned. They are part of the so-called convergence movement that tries to unite evangelical, charismatic, and Catholic. During my studies, I met with and interviewed one of their bishops, so I got a firsthand history lesson about them.

 

Wonder why Baal has to do with God though, as paul would say?

 

I posted this on another thread but in regards to the 'Trail of Blood': .. SDA's use the same kind of argument that they are part of a remnant church trying miserably to link themselves to the Apostolic Church. The fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows to them (and many Baptists) how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover-up. Baptist/SDA Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at some time who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this "history" skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics."

Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:


'Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers'. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

 

First they are not intellectually honest.
Secondly, if I had to guess without doing my homework, I would guess that they were liberals or in the very least new evangelicals.
Thirdly, I did say that I didn't agree with everything that Carroll wrote. I know he has some historical inaccuracies. But that doesn't take away from the main premise of his book which has been proven by a wealth of Baptist historians, not just Carroll.

Again, simply put: There have been "Baptists," that is those believers who have held to basic Baptist beliefs throughout every century since the apostles. Though not called by the Baptist name they have held to Baptistic beliefs. A good example would be the Waldenses.
The RCC likes to rewrite and gloss over history.
I gave you some examples of Baptists today that bear the name Baptist but I would never consider to be Baptist. Westboro is such an organization. This is also true of some of the groups mentioned in history. The Albigenses are also another group. They were identified more by their name--those living in the valley of "Albi." As they grew they became diverse in their doctrine and some of them went astray. The RCC would take that extreme group and whitewash the entire group with extremist views, thus rewriting history conforming to their own devices. But in fact that is not the case. For the most part these people were Godly and peaceful living people who believed as Baptists do today. They were massacred by the crusades sanctioned by the wicked Innocent III. Godly people exterminated by a wicked pope under the guise of so-called Christianity.
But true Christianity doesn't act like that. The Albigenses demonstrated in their lives what true Christianity was about, not the RCC.