B
BRB
Guest
Like birth control and abortion … perhaps much of it is moral issues the Church upholds ?
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Was this guy a baptist?
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
How about this guy?
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (c. A.D. 354 - 430)
By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive…gives also the most hidden grace of His Spirit to believers, grace which He secretly infuses even into infants…It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but “salvation” and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but “life.”
Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.
If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this…The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.
(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)
“This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed [rewarded] with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ [John 15:5]…We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, ‘in the good works which’ we have not ourselves prepared, but ‘God hath before ordained that we should walk in them’ [Eph 2:10]. It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense [reward] of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously [freely], even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward; grace is for grace, as if remuneration [payment] for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God ‘shall reward every man according to his works’ [Matt 16:27].” (St. Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 20; NPNF1, volume 5, pages 451-2).
According to St. Augustine:
(1) even a Christian’s “good works” belong to the grace of God
(2) these “good works” are recompensed or rewarded with eternal life
(3) your good life is nothing else but God’s grace
(4) your eternal life, the reward for a good life, is also God’s grace rewarding us (God crowns our merits as his own gifts to us), and is therefore gratuitous or freely given
Along with St. Augustine’s texts John 15:5; Eph 2:10; Matt 16:27, we have Col 3:23-25; 2 Tim 4:6-8; Rom 2:5-11; Matt 25:31-46; etc.
When are the baptists?
Baptist historian McGoldrick in Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994):
“Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body.” (McGoldrick, preface page iv)
“It is the purpose of this book to show that, 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 seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers.” (ibid, page 2)
Phil P*
ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH (c. 110 A.D.)
I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the Bread of God, WHICH IS THE FLESH OF JESUS CHRIST, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I DESIRE HIS BLOOD, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to Romans 7:3)
Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: FOR THERE IS ONE FLESH OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, and one cup IN THE UNION OF HIS BLOOD; one ALTAR, as there is one bishop with the presbytery… (Letter to Philadelphians 4:1)
They * abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that THE EUCHARIST IS THE FLESH OF OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again. (Letter to Smyrn 7:1)
How about this guy?
ST. AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (c. A.D. 354 - 430)
By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive…gives also the most hidden grace of His Spirit to believers, grace which He secretly infuses even into infants…It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but “salvation” and the sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else but “life.”
Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.
If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this…The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.
(Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43 c. A.D. 412)
“This question, then, seems to me to be by no means capable of solution, unless we understand that even those good works of ours, which are recompensed [rewarded] with eternal life, belong to the grace of God, because of what is said by the Lord Jesus: ‘Without me ye can do nothing’ [John 15:5]…We are framed, therefore, that is, formed and created, ‘in the good works which’ we have not ourselves prepared, but ‘God hath before ordained that we should walk in them’ [Eph 2:10]. It follows, then, dearly beloved, beyond all doubt, that as your good life is nothing else than God’s grace, so also the eternal life which is the recompense [reward] of a good life is the grace of God; moreover it is given gratuitously [freely], even as that is given gratuitously to which it is given. But that to which it is given is solely and simply grace; this therefore is also that which is given to it, because it is its reward; grace is for grace, as if remuneration [payment] for righteousness; in order that it may be true, because it is true, that God ‘shall reward every man according to his works’ [Matt 16:27].” (St. Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 20; NPNF1, volume 5, pages 451-2).
According to St. Augustine:
(1) even a Christian’s “good works” belong to the grace of God
(2) these “good works” are recompensed or rewarded with eternal life
(3) your good life is nothing else but God’s grace
(4) your eternal life, the reward for a good life, is also God’s grace rewarding us (God crowns our merits as his own gifts to us), and is therefore gratuitous or freely given
Along with St. Augustine’s texts John 15:5; Eph 2:10; Matt 16:27, we have Col 3:23-25; 2 Tim 4:6-8; Rom 2:5-11; Matt 25:31-46; etc.
When are the baptists?
Baptist historian McGoldrick in Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History (The American Theological Library Association and The Scarecrow Press, 1994):
“Although no reputable Church historians have ever affirmed the belief that Baptists can trace their lineage through medieval and ancient sects ultimately to the New Testament, that point of view enjoys a large following nevertheless. It appears that scholars aware of this claim have deemed it unworthy of their attention, which may account for the persistence and popularity of Baptist successionism as a doctrine as well as an interpretation of church history. Aside from occasional articles and booklets that reject this teaching, no one has published a refutation in a systematic, documented format. The present work is an effort to supply this need so that Baptists may have a thorough analysis of successionism, together with a reliable account of their origins as a Protestant religious body.” (McGoldrick, preface page iv)
“It is the purpose of this book to show that, 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 seventeenth century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the Reformers.” (ibid, page 2)
Phil P*
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
First off don’t use “sleight of hand”, just present the facts. Your not teaching the parent in RCIA for children, you are tasked with catechizing the children. Second, each child must have an adult (at least 16 and Confirmed) sponsor attending with them and it CAN NOT be the parent (according to canon law). So I would just make sure that the child’s Sponsor has the ability to contact you if questions arise outside of the sessions.
A
allischalmers
Guest
Baptist are missing nothing we are crucfity with Christ, never us live, yet not us but Christ lives thriught us
so now can we be missing anything when we have given up our live so that Christ can live in and thriught us. Can you understand that?
P
prodigal-sun
Guest
BOY O’ BOY, has this thread gone of track. If you guys have nothing to add to this thread why not go else where. I’m sure there are many open threads for you to bicker between yourselves.
Peace!
Peace!
P
pnewton
Guest
I think it must be the “vs.” part. Yet, the first few post were right on target. I would add the following three books as references:
Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic - David Currie
By What Authority - Mark Shea
Catholicism and Fundamentalism - Karl Keating (of course)
They each have their own particular area of contribution. KK’s book is the best overview, but I found Shea’s book to single in on the greatest difference between us.
I have one thing to add to the earlier list, OSAS versus not-OSAS is a serious dividing point among Baptist, as are most Calvinistic doctines. Baptist Churchs have split over this issue and the most adament believers can get argumentative over this issue. I would avoid it like the plague until you get to know the man. If you must deal with it, you can fall upon many solid, Baptist theolgians that support either side. This also makes an interesting argument against sola scriptura.
Over all, sticking to common areas of belief is probably the best course. If you have any sticking points, bring them here to kick around. PM me if you wish. I am rather knowledgable in all things Southern Baptist.
A
atmmgraves
Guest
Pastor Jim, summing up the Reformation:
“No, that was the thing where a load of people saw that the church that they cherished had become corrupt and heretical and left in order to gather like minded believers together to get back to following BIblical teaching and reform the church.”
Me:
I’ve been reading your posts, Pastor Jim, and you seem like a charitable sort. A nice guy. I want to be the same way in my reply. But I must be brusque in my reply in that you do not seem to have a good grasp of the Reformation, even less so regarding Catholicism.
Let’s take your statement, “…people saw that the church that they cherished had become corrupt and heretical and left…”
This statement is fundamentally false. The Church (not church, mind you) is holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so. People within the Church can be - and are. The Church itself is pure, as it is Christ’s Church. The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth.
Next statement, same sentence, on why people left the Church: “…in order to gather like minded believers together to get back to following BIblical teaching and reform the church.”
Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices. Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice bore his own name. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years - it is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well. Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot. As far as “get(ting) back to Biblical teachings”, who among Protestants is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentacostal down the street, who belives differently than you, different from the Lutheran, differntly from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin. Wesley, on and on. Each with their own “BIblical teaching.” Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. The truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, and believing what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc) as the True Word - all others false. Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.
One more thing on “Biblical teaching”: the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” arguement. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this is man making the rules to fit his own vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.
One last thing, as a bonus: Western Civilization exists only because of the Catholic Church. You know this, do you not?
Looking forward to reading your response.
“No, that was the thing where a load of people saw that the church that they cherished had become corrupt and heretical and left in order to gather like minded believers together to get back to following BIblical teaching and reform the church.”
Me:
I’ve been reading your posts, Pastor Jim, and you seem like a charitable sort. A nice guy. I want to be the same way in my reply. But I must be brusque in my reply in that you do not seem to have a good grasp of the Reformation, even less so regarding Catholicism.
Let’s take your statement, “…people saw that the church that they cherished had become corrupt and heretical and left…”
This statement is fundamentally false. The Church (not church, mind you) is holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so. People within the Church can be - and are. The Church itself is pure, as it is Christ’s Church. The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth.
Next statement, same sentence, on why people left the Church: “…in order to gather like minded believers together to get back to following BIblical teaching and reform the church.”
Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices. Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice bore his own name. This is why Lutheranism is dwindling away, and will be virtually gone within the next 40/50 years - it is a man’s vision of how he wanted things to be, not how Christ wanted things to be. It was doomed from the start. Anglicanism - formed when a king was not allowed an anullment - is dying, as well. Man-made religion will not cut it. It will rot. As far as “get(ting) back to Biblical teachings”, who among Protestants is to say what the Bible means? On whose authority do you all rely? The Pentacostal down the street, who belives differently than you, different from the Lutheran, differntly from the Episcopal, differently from the 7th Day Adventist, different from the “non-denominational”, different from the…? You get the point (hopefully). It doesn’t end, and never will. God is not the author of this confusion. Protestants often argue that Catholics allow a man to come between them and God when they confess to a priest. What malarkey. Protestants - all Protestants - have done so. Luther, Calvin. Wesley, on and on. Each with their own “BIblical teaching.” Protestantism can be boiled down to one’s own interpretation of the text, which is why the reformers have been reformed, and reformed, and reformed, and will always be reformed. The truest form of Protestantism is one man, alone with a Bible, understanding it as he sees fit, and believing what he reads (if he can read, comprehend, etc) as the True Word - all others false. Christ gave humanity a teacher - the Catholic Church. Eventually, most will realize this (as I hope you do) and will come home.
One more thing on “Biblical teaching”: the Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible. Luther thanked them for it by removing books which did not jibe with his view on things (Macabees - Purgatory). He wanted to remove James (“faith without works is dead”) due to his belief that humans are “dunghills covered with snow” and are incapable of “doing” (works) good. Hence, the “faith alone” arguement. Nowhere in the Bible is this statement to be found, except in James, where it is refuted. Indeed, Luther’s German translation actually inserted the word “alone” to suit his needs. Again, this is man making the rules to fit his own vision - against that of God. Subsequent reformers are just as guilty, because they branched off of Luther’s branch - to each his own.
One last thing, as a bonus: Western Civilization exists only because of the Catholic Church. You know this, do you not?
Looking forward to reading your response.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
PJ, since you seem to be familiar with the Reformation can you help me out some? I had no idea that Baptists came out of the Catholic Church. My recollection of the Reformation was that Baptists came out of a second level protest or ‘reformation of the reformation’ so to speak. Didn’t the Baptists separate from the Church of England in the early 1600s - decades after Luther’s rebellion and a generation or so after King Henry appointed himself the new head of God’s Church in the The Act of Supremacy of 1534 ?
I am also curios PJ, do you consider Baptist religious lineage extending from Protestantism or do you consider your religion extending from Catholicism? In other words, in recognition of the fact that unless there were some early Baptists that are not mentioned in the bible (since it did not exist at the time) that were among the crowd of former believers who left Jesus when he started preaching about “eating his body and drinking his blood least you have no life in you” as recorded ironically in John 6:66 what original Catholic church does your denomination come out of?
Basically I’d like to know if Baptists consider themselves more Catholic or more Protestant?
James
T
tealblue
Guest
Alot of Baptists I talk to don’t consider themselves proteatnt but the real church that grew up hidden along us evil Catholics that have been killing off the real christains for 1700 years. Ever heard of the book called the trail of blood? Jesus never commanded us to follow a bible or his apostles to write anything down. He does tell us he will give us a church. We know its a church in the literal sense because later in matt Jesus describes the church as something we can go to to settle disputes between christians.
As far as OSAS goes Paul makes it clear we can lose our salvation.
That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.
21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.
22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too WILL BE CUT OFF.
23
And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again
As far as OSAS goes Paul makes it clear we can lose our salvation.
That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.
21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.
22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too WILL BE CUT OFF.
23
And they also, if they do not remain in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Why would someone leave the abuse scandals in the Church for the scandals in your churches(hate to bring it up)?
Why would Catholic need to know anything about what you believe? The Catholic response to anything that is not from the head of the Church is the same as that of Peter, “you have the words of everlasting life, to whom shall we go.” Since Christ founded the Church and promised that it would preserve until the end, why would anyone explore any other faith tradition for spiritual growth?
P
peary
Guest
**What is the disfference between ‘infused’ and ‘imputed’??? 
**
**
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
The prior leads to spiritual growth (as in the vine among the branches) and final salvation and the latter is non-biblical and leads to the a mythical condition where a snow covered dung hill can stand up and prevail against the fires of the hell that produced it.**What is the disfference between ‘infused’ and ‘imputed’???
James
T
trrocks03
Guest
Great first post!! I am also looking forward to reading the anti-catholic response!
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
No it’s not. That’s exactly why they split.
I disagree. Not only does history tell us that the church became corrupt, there are many incidents in scripture where the church is rebuked for its corruption, both doctrinal and political.
I agree. And the Reformation was a large part of God’s plan to protect the integrity of the church.
“Legitimate wrongs and practices”? I thought you just said that the church cannot do this. Which is it?
First of all, Luther may have had pride, but I don’t believe that he ever demanded that people kiss his ring or defer to him as God’s representative on Earth.
Second, Lutheranism was not called Lutheranism by Luther.
I disagree. A February 16, 2006 article in Christianity Today noted that, while the number of Lutherans in North America has fallen slightly, it has risen sharply worldwide.
I disagree. Having actually taken the time to study it, I believe it is very much Biblically based.
Again, I disagree. Anglicanism is not dying. There is a rift between two factions of Anglicanism: one following Biblical teaching, one following doctrinal and social liberalism incompatible with Biblical teaching.
I’m following this story pretty closely and while the numbers of that remnant may be small, they are very strong and I believe that their allegience to the Gospel and to sound doctrine will bear a lot of fruit.
It’s not malarkey at all. There is a man in that little booth to whom you must confess.
And that’s simply not true. If it were, then we would not have creeds and confessions, we would not have doctrinal standards, and we would not have discipline for those who violate those doctrinal standards.
Such a person would surely be pointed out as being a “LOne Ranger Christian”, a practice which is very much condemned in Protestant and Baptist sects.
Protestantism revolves around the church. If you’re not aware of this, then you really need to go back and study the Reformation before you criticize others.
My home is in Christ, not in any religious organization. While Christ gave the church to be a teacher (although I do not believe it is your church), He also gave the church His word to guide it in all matters doctrinal and practical.
Yes, I do know that the Catholic church played a large role in Western Civilization. I also know that the Reformation and the Reformers played an equally large role.
CentralFloridaJames:
Here you go:
yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm
Protestant.
Really? Then how do you explain:
“ And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” – Romans 4:22-25
“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”- James 2:23
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:” – Romans 4:11
I disagree. The Bible is clear that the scriptures were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Which part of this passage do you believe says that we can lose our salvation?
SeanBoyle:
Yes, I have heard of people who have left the Catholic church because of the rampant preist sex abuse and because of that institution’s unwillingness to do anything about it.
What scandals are there in our church?
Because it’s foolish to tell somebody that they’re wrong when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
I agree, but we’re not talking about Christianity in general, we’re talking about one organization within Christianity.
Simply put, infused righteousness means that God gives you a measure of righteousness that you either keep or lose, depending on your actions.
Imputed righteousness means that God knows that we are not righteous and considers us righteous, not because of our own works, but because of our standing in Christ.
Imputed righteousness is taught in the Bible in, among other places:
“ And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” – Romans 4:22-25
“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”- James 2:23
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:” – Romans 4:11
P
Pastor_Jim
Guest
Why is it that Catholics refer to anyone who disagrees with them as “anti-Catholic”, but they never refer to themselves as anti-Protestant? Seems a little hypocritical to me.
I don’t know that automatically labeling anyone who disagrees with you as “anti-Catholic” really helps things.
T
trrocks03
Guest
I will gladly accept the title of Anti-protestant! Thanks!
Question for Pastor Jim:
The protestant groups constantly try to prove the Church (CAPITAL C, not little c) has been corupt in its past…
Is the “protestant” or “baptist” church free of coruption? Is either one, “perfect”?
Edit: And by anti-protestant I mean I disagree with the beliefs of the protestant. I am the anti-protestant, because I believe in the true Church
Question for Pastor Jim:
The protestant groups constantly try to prove the Church (CAPITAL C, not little c) has been corupt in its past…
Is the “protestant” or “baptist” church free of coruption? Is either one, “perfect”?
Edit: And by anti-protestant I mean I disagree with the beliefs of the protestant. I am the anti-protestant, because I believe in the true Church
B
BRB
Guest
Cute … I laughed myself. But, CFL. James … the good Pastor has the scriptures to back up his use of ‘imputed’.the latter is non-biblical and leads to the a mythical condition where a snow covered dung hill can stand up and prevail against the fires of the hell that produced it.
James
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
The word “protestant” is anti-Catholic.
You are protesting Christs’ Church. That is offensive. Why would you protest Christ and his Church?
Why would a self-proclaimed christian identify themselves as “protesting (protestant)” Christ and his Church. That is hypocritical.
A
atmmgraves
Guest
Pastor Jim:
I appreciate your response. It appears as though you cannot see the forest for the trees. I will try again.
Point #1 Me: This statement is fundamentally false.
Your Response: No it’s not. That’s exactly why they split.
Me: Wrong, as before. The Church is incorruptable, populated with corrupt people.
Point #2 Me: The Church (not church, mind you) is holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so.
Your Response: I disagree. Not only does history tell us that the church became corrupt, there are many incidents in scripture where the church is rebuked for its corruption, both doctrinal and political.
Me: See above.
Point #3 Me: The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth.
Your Response: I agree. And the Reformation was a large part of God’s plan to protect the integrity of the church.
Me: Here, I must say that I am having trouble following your logic. What “church” having it’s “integrity” protected are you referring to? The 7th Day Adventists? The Methodists? The Presbyterians? What? Which one existed prior to the Catholic Church? Was there more than one? Was there a Reformation, or Reformations? Remember, something had to be “reformed” to have a Reformation. Or…are you actually agreeing that the Catholic Church is The Church, formed by Christ (again, something had to be “reformed”)? And if you are agreeing with this - and you are not Catholic - you need to pray and reflect and join now. RCIA is about to start.
Point #4 Me: Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices.
Your Response: “Legitimate wrongs and practices”? I thought you just said that the church cannot do this. Which is it?
Me: See above. The Catholic Church is incorruptable, as it was formed by Christ himself. People within the Church are corruptable. Again, an easy - yet too often avoided - distinction to make.
Point # 5 Me: Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice bore his own name.
Your Response: First of all, Luther may have had pride, but I don’t believe that he ever demanded that people kiss his ring or defer to him as God’s representative on Earth. Second, Lutheranism was not called Lutheranism by Luther.
Me: There is no “may” to it - he did have pride. He left the Catholic Church that Christ Himself had created to redo it in his own - a man’s - image. He inserted words into the Scripture that were not there. He took books out of the Bible that belonged there. All because of his own - a man’s - beliefs. His vanity and misguided beliefs have led to confusions and divisions and deaths and conflicts that continue to this day. Comparing these horrors to kissing a ring or kissing an arse is to play a child’s game. Further, the Pope is God’s represetantive on earth, as are you, as am I. Finally, it does not matter it Luther himself called Lutheranism Lutheranism. He could have called it Vulcanism and it still would be Lutheranism. Formed by a man, for a man, and named for a man.
To be continued…
I appreciate your response. It appears as though you cannot see the forest for the trees. I will try again.
Point #1 Me: This statement is fundamentally false.
Your Response: No it’s not. That’s exactly why they split.
Me: Wrong, as before. The Church is incorruptable, populated with corrupt people.
Point #2 Me: The Church (not church, mind you) is holy and divine. It is not corrupt, and cannot be so.
Your Response: I disagree. Not only does history tell us that the church became corrupt, there are many incidents in scripture where the church is rebuked for its corruption, both doctrinal and political.
Me: See above.
Point #3 Me: The Church has lasted 2000 years. It has lasted longer than any other human institution or government. And it will continue to do so. It will be here long after all others are gone. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against it. They have not, and will not. Only such divine protection can account for the Church’s survival against endless attacks from within and without. This divine protection will ensure it’s continued survival and growth.
Your Response: I agree. And the Reformation was a large part of God’s plan to protect the integrity of the church.
Me: Here, I must say that I am having trouble following your logic. What “church” having it’s “integrity” protected are you referring to? The 7th Day Adventists? The Methodists? The Presbyterians? What? Which one existed prior to the Catholic Church? Was there more than one? Was there a Reformation, or Reformations? Remember, something had to be “reformed” to have a Reformation. Or…are you actually agreeing that the Catholic Church is The Church, formed by Christ (again, something had to be “reformed”)? And if you are agreeing with this - and you are not Catholic - you need to pray and reflect and join now. RCIA is about to start.
Point #4 Me: Luther headed up a group of people who were upset and bitter over legitimate wrongs and practices.
Your Response: “Legitimate wrongs and practices”? I thought you just said that the church cannot do this. Which is it?
Me: See above. The Catholic Church is incorruptable, as it was formed by Christ himself. People within the Church are corruptable. Again, an easy - yet too often avoided - distinction to make.
Point # 5 Me: Rather than reform the Church (again, not church) from within, Luther was cursed with pride and his new practice bore his own name.
Your Response: First of all, Luther may have had pride, but I don’t believe that he ever demanded that people kiss his ring or defer to him as God’s representative on Earth. Second, Lutheranism was not called Lutheranism by Luther.
Me: There is no “may” to it - he did have pride. He left the Catholic Church that Christ Himself had created to redo it in his own - a man’s - image. He inserted words into the Scripture that were not there. He took books out of the Bible that belonged there. All because of his own - a man’s - beliefs. His vanity and misguided beliefs have led to confusions and divisions and deaths and conflicts that continue to this day. Comparing these horrors to kissing a ring or kissing an arse is to play a child’s game. Further, the Pope is God’s represetantive on earth, as are you, as am I. Finally, it does not matter it Luther himself called Lutheranism Lutheranism. He could have called it Vulcanism and it still would be Lutheranism. Formed by a man, for a man, and named for a man.
To be continued…
- Status