Catholic vs Southern Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pepeluali
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_Pick said:
You can try Yahoo,Google and gippoo and it will not change that the bapitst was not start by Jon the Baptist
Click to expand...
For example, Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579), a Roman Catholic prelate of the sixteenth century, wrote, "For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing." Hosius, Stanislaus Cardinal (1563), White, Carolinne, Ph.D, ed., “Alberto Bavariae Duci”, Liber Epistolarum 150

source

Unfortunately, much of the history was destroyed by another religious group.
 
Masters_Sevant said:
For example, Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579), a Roman Catholic prelate of the sixteenth century, wrote, "For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing." Hosius, Stanislaus Cardinal (1563), White, Carolinne, Ph.D, ed., “Alberto Bavariae Duci”, Liber Epistolarum 150

source

Unfortunately, much of the history was destroyed by another religious group.
Click to expand...
Of course, so you guys should pull together and petition to have it in the history books that John Smith didn’t start it. Sorry man, but you guys can’t pull together long enough to not eat each other alive as it is. I have little faith in the fact that you were from John the Baptist, but you know what, even if you were…maybe you should have been from Christ himself.

Edit: I also think it is rather funny that you would quote a Catholic about anything anyway to prove the truth.
 
Masters_Sevant said:
For example, Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579), a Roman Catholic prelate of the sixteenth century, wrote, "For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing." Hosius, Stanislaus Cardinal (1563), White, Carolinne, Ph.D, ed., “Alberto Bavariae Duci”, Liber Epistolarum 150

source

Unfortunately, much of the history was destroyed by another religious group.
Click to expand...
If you believe John the Baptist had any thing to do with being the first church, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you can buy cheap
 
Teneas said:
Yep, but the one just down the street with the same name on it isn’t right, but mine is. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yeah Baptists are probably tribal like that (I’m not really sure, but when I see them on TV or when I’m in the south for some reason, baptist pastors always seem to be the guys wearning old polyester suits with gold rimmed eyeglasses and slicked back hair, like a car salesman from the disco era).

Gotta give it to the Catholics, like I say, they have the best show of them all. Just gotta have a lay person keep an eye of those alter boys :eek:
 
Masters_Sevant said:
For example, Cardinal Hosius (1504-1579), a Roman Catholic prelate of the sixteenth century, wrote, "For not so long ago I read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who, so we read, were pronounced heretics twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing." Hosius, Stanislaus Cardinal (1563), White, Carolinne, Ph.D, ed., “Alberto Bavariae Duci”, Liber Epistolarum 150

source

Unfortunately, much of the history was destroyed by another religious group.
Click to expand...
I have a differnt take on this, as do most historians by the way.

“For not so long ago I [Cardinal Hosius] read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who [according to the other Prince] ,so we read [from his edict], were **pronounced heretics **twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He [the other Prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.” (Emphasis mine)

This is the opinion of someone that Hosius called “the other Prince” and is not being established as an historical fact by the Cardinal. Even if it were, however, that would be even more problematic because it links the Anabaptists to heresy , which is precicely what the rag “Trail of Blood” does.

Taking this tangent a little further, one must necessarily ask the following question:
To which heretical group would the Anabaptists have belonged?
Let’s do the math: 1563 A.D.-1200 A.D. = 363 A.D. (approx.)

That heresy would have been Arianism (Basically a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ) and was declared thus at the First Council of Nicea of 325 A.D.

Surely, no reasonable Christian (Baptist or otherwise) would want their lineage linked to Arius?:confused:
 
In basketball, put your money with the Southern Baptists.

In footbal, put your money on the Catholics.

Baseball, hard to tell, but if it is hot, go with the Baptists, as they don’t drink and will not likely be tossing down brewskies between innings.

Golf, don’t bet on golf. There is this Buddhist guy…

Swimming, hey, you know where to put your money there!

Rugby, you know those Irish boys will be drawing blood.
 
Usbek_de_Perse said:
In basketball, put your money with the Southern Baptists.

In footbal, put your money on the Catholics.

Baseball, hard to tell, but if it is hot, go with the Baptists, as they don’t drink and will not likely be tossing down brewskies between innings.

Golf, don’t bet on golf. There is this Buddhist guy…

Swimming, hey, you know where to put your money there!

Rugby, you know those Irish boys will be drawing blood.
Click to expand...
The only difference between Baptist and Catholics in regard to drinking is that Catholics will wave to you in the liquor store, and Baptist will pretend they don’t know you.

I live in the south, there are a TONNN of Baptist that drink.
 
AwGusTeen said:
I have a differnt take on this, as do most historians by the way.

“For not so long ago I [Cardinal Hosius] read the edict of the other prince who lamented the fate of the Anabaptists who [according to the other Prince] ,so we read [from his edict], were **pronounced heretics **twelve hundred years ago and deserving of capital punishment. He [the other Prince] wanted them to be heard and not taken as condemned without a hearing.” (Emphasis mine)

This is the opinion of someone that Hosius called “the other Prince” and is not being established as an historical fact by the Cardinal. Even if it were, however, that would be even more problematic because it links the Anabaptists to heresy , which is precicely what the rag “Trail of Blood” does.

Taking this tangent a little further, one must necessarily ask the following question:
To which heretical group would the Anabaptists have belonged?
Let’s do the math: 1563 A.D.-1200 A.D. = 363 A.D. (approx.)

That heresy would have been Arianism (Basically a denial of the divinity of Jesus Christ) and was declared thus at the First Council of Nicea of 325 A.D.

Surely, no reasonable Christian (Baptist or otherwise) would want their lineage linked to Arius?:confused:
Click to expand...
Actually it goes back to some of the Donatist and before, but some church took their property, killed many of them and destroyed nearly all of the historical records in what would be considered today as religious genocide.

Are you typical of the Catholic people in this forum? Jesus does not show partiality for He does not distinguish between Greek nor Jew not Catholic or Protestant either according the the Word.
 
Masters_Servant said:
Actually it goes back to some of the Donatist and before, but some church took their property, killed many of them and destroyed nearly all of the historical records in what would be considered today as religious genocide.

Are you typical of the Catholic people in this forum? Jesus does not show partiality for He does not distinguish between Greek nor Jew not Catholic or Protestant either according the the Word.
Click to expand...
Wait, does Paul say Catholic or Protestant? Does Jesus?

And are you saying that Baptists are Donatists?
 
Masters_Servant said:
Actually it goes back to some of the Donatist and before, but some church took their property, killed many of them and destroyed nearly all of the historical records in what would be considered today as religious genocide.
Click to expand...
So you say - do you care to prove it or just continue to make broad statements of opinion?
Masters_Servant said:
Are you typical of the Catholic people in this forum?
Click to expand...
If by that you mean that I know my faith and can recognize garbage when I read it, then yes - I am like most Catholics in this forum. :rolleyes:
Masters_Servant said:
Jesus does not show partiality for He does not distinguish between Greek nor Jew not Catholic or Protestant either according the the Word.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
ralphinal said:
Wait, does Paul say Catholic or Protestant? Does Jesus?

And are you saying that Baptists are Donatists?
Click to expand...
No, the Donatist do not exist as far as I know, but a few Historians believe that the Baptist history passes through these Donatist; my understanding is their were a few divisions within this group, at least one that holds to the same faith as Southern Baptist. The problem is their is so little remaining records due to destruction, that it is difficult at best to show so much is based off of practices that were seen then and now without little deviation.

I would not be dogmatic because the written records that are available that are easily traceable go back to the 16th century, then you have the tidbits like that of the Bishop. So for historians to be 100% certain there really needs to be more available historical records.

You might find this interesting. It is a short read.

This is short as well.
 
AwGusTeen said:
So you say - do you care to prove it or just continue to make broad statements of opinion?

If by that you mean that I know my faith and can recognize garbage when I read it, then yes - I am like most Catholics in this forum. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that is not what I meant. I’m sure I will know within a few weeks if you are representative of the Catholic people here. May God bless you.
 
Masters_Servant said:
No, the Donatist do not exist as far as I know, but a few Historians believe that the Baptist history passes through these Donatist; my understanding is their were a few divisions within this group, at least one that holds to the same faith as Southern Baptist. The problem is their is so little remaining records due to destruction, that it is difficult at best to show so much is based off of practices that were seen then and now without little deviation.

I would not be dogmatic because the written records that are available that are easily traceable go back to the 16th century, then you have the tidbits like that of the Bishop. So for historians to be 100% certain there really needs to be more available historical records.

You might find this interesting. It is a short read.

This is short as well.
Click to expand...
Actually, neither of those links were helpful. None of them had citations that I could trace and verify. Neither of them used one outside source.

The main two things that made Donatists wrong is that they held that those who leave the faith, for any reason, could never return. At all. Period. Further, if those people were clergy, any sacraments that they performed were invalid and those that received them were in a state of sin. Second, they held that any earthly leadership was evil and to be spurned by the faithful.

On the first point, if you could not ever repent, there is no Gospel. If the minister had to be perfect, there is no hope.

On the second point, Jesus never said that all earthly leadership was evil. He just said that we are not to be evil ourselves.
 
ralphinal said:
Actually, neither of those links were helpful. None of them had citations that I could trace and verify. Neither of them used one outside source.

The main two things that made Donatists wrong is that they held that those who leave the faith, for any reason, could never return. At all. Period. Further, if those people were clergy, any sacraments that they performed were invalid and those that received them were in a state of sin. Second, they held that any earthly leadership was evil and to be spurned by the faithful.

On the first point, if you could not ever repent, there is no Gospel. If the minister had to be perfect, there is no hope.

On the second point, Jesus never said that all earthly leadership was evil. He just said that we are not to be evil ourselves.
Click to expand...
The second link, which gave the bullets was or is much like SB today; so I think there were divisions within the church in Africa among the Donatists, but like you stated it is hard to find a real historical records and I don’t plan on buying a book on it since I really consider myself Christian and really go to a SBC because it is the closest I have seen in regards to the teaching of Word. I really do not see any church in the USA today that is close to the church in the Book of Acts, but that was an infancy stages of the church and we are fortunate to be able to be in a country that allows us to build building to gather. I would venture to say the church that most represents that of Acts is found in countries where great persecution exists against the church of Jesus because the early church was under constant persecution.

Thank you for you insights and opinions on the topic. God bless you to His perfection through Christ.
 
Considering the fact that Southern Baptist believe in Sola Scriptura, and Faith alone, I can in no way see a tie in with the early Christians at all.

Paul Southern Baptist go to boy even wrote: “One is not saved by Faith alone”

Southern Baptist beliefs are far from what the early Christians believed and practiced.

I know to many Southern Baptist, I work around them constantly in the field, and me being me, I bring up my Catholic beliefs. We talk, they hold no resemblance to the Church at Pentecost.
 
Teneas said:
Considering the fact that Southern Baptist believe in Sola Scriptura, and Faith alone, I can in no way see a tie in with the early Christians at all.

Paul Southern Baptist go to boy even wrote: "One is not saved by Faith alone"
.
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific since you decided to paint a broad picture without substantiation.

I hope you realize that James 2, which you refer agrees with **Romans 3:28
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.**and

**Ga 2:16yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. **

and

**Ga 3:2 his only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? **

and

Eph 2 4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly [places], in Christ Jesus:

and many more. I exhort you to reconcile this to James.
 
Masters_Servant said:
Can you be more specific since you decided to paint a broad picture without substantiation.

I hope you realize that James 2, which you refer agrees with **Romans 3:28
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.**and

**Ga 2:16yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. **

and

**Ga 3:2 his only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? **

and

Eph 2 4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), 6 and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly [places], in Christ Jesus:

and many more. I exhort you to reconcile this to James.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you just prove my point about believing in Sola Scriptura? Do I even need to argue the points against it?

You wish do discuss Sola Scriptura? or defend your position that the SB are actually from Pentecost?

Heck even Sola Fide:

1 Cor. 13:13
So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Doesn’t so much sound like faith wins out on that one. Love takes what?..work perhaps?

You find me one spot in the Bible where it says that the Bible is sole authority.

You find me one spot in the Bible where it says we are saved by faith alone.

You find me one spot where it says in the Bible that we are free to interpret scripture as individuals, and that those interpretations are correct.

And since when are the works of God, actually works of the law anyway?

Your reasoning is flawed, and incomplete. You stand with no unity what so ever at all. I am sorry, it’s the truth.

There are to many Southern Baptist down here in Georgia that spill filth from their lips and hate others.

Ever hear about the KKK perhaps? Mostly Southern Baptist.

I am not saying that all are bad, I will freely admit that I have a deep bias against SB faith, as I have witnessed and been subjected to the hate that some have inside.

I can give you the scriptures and reasons why Sola Scriptura is not an accurate belief if you want, but you won’t take them for what my Catholic Church interprets them to be. You will take them as all other Southern Baptist take them…on your own interpretation.

You start unifying as Southern Baptist completely, and we can talk about whether or not you are the one Church from Pentecost. Until then…you have no ground to stand on, I am sorry.

Yeah, I know full well there is a Southern Baptist Coalition and what not…they all disagree even at their meetings. Not to mention there are way to many of your church buildings claiming to have the truth, when you are right next door to another one claiming to have the truth.
 
I will read what is written here from now on, but I have a problem when it comes to Southern Baptist. I will remove myself from this thread.

I am sorry if I offended anyone btw, but they are my true feelings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top