T
trustinyou
Guest
Do Baptists believe that a coming pope will be an antichrist? or just certain sects of the baptist religion? and how many other christian denoms also teach this?
- Status
D
DJgang
Guest
I was raised Southern Baptist and was never taught any of this.
Really, there are no teachings in the Baptist church.
Really, there are no teachings in the Baptist church.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Hi,
I use to go to a Southern Baptist church in NJ (Im sure on the more liberal side) but I never heard a word taught about catholocism. NEVER
I go to a non-denom church now and again NEVER hear anything about catholocism and especially not it being the ant-Christ
The first I ever heard this was here. I also had never heard about the whore of Babylon either until I came here.
I do know someone who belongs to an Independent Baptist church and they are extremely legalistic. Im not sure what they believe about this but I wouldnt be surprised if they thought catholocism was the whore and anti-Christ
They are KJV only fanatics so-----Im thinking it might be more regional like down south:shrug:
Just my :twocents:
M
mark_a
Guest
I’m curious as to why you left the Southern Baptists.Hi,
I use to go to a Southern Baptist church in NJ (Im sure on the more liberal side) but I never heard a word taught about catholocism. NEVER
I go to a non-denom church now and again NEVER hear anything about catholocism and especially not it being the ant-Christ
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Only because the church was dying off and there was nothing there for my kids anymore
Had nothing to do with their theology. Actually my church now has the same exact theology.
My kids were at a critical point in their life and needed a church with youth group and kids programs.
I have also grown in my walk with the Lord–who da thought:thumbsup:
B
BanksOfTheTiber
Guest
I was raised Free Will Baptist and certainly never heard that. No doubt there a few head-cases who do, but I’m sure it’s not “Baptist” belief.
I
IGoALot
Guest
I have a lot ob Southern Baptist friends and have never heard that from any of them or their churches. I have, however, heard it a lot from the Seventh Day Adventists, who appear to be extremely anti-Catholic. Although they like to quote Catholic writers (completely out of context) to suuport their views. Go figure
F
Fisher
Guest
I am a Independent Baptist and I love Catholic people. I just disagree with what is taught. alot of people call us legalistic.Certainly no Bible believing Baptist teaches that law-keeping is part of salvation. We are saved by faith alone. The works of the law do not and cannot either help us gain salvation or help us keep salvation. Salvation is all of grace—none of works. For anyone to accuse us of being legalists then is either to deliberately distort our position on salvation or else to abandon the Biblical concept of legalism and adopt the modern notion advanced by the moderns.I do know someone who belongs to an Independent Baptist church and they are extremely legalistic. Im not sure what they believe about this but I wouldnt be surprised if they thought catholocism was the whore and anti-Christ
The foulest word in the vocabulary of many religionists today is that nasty noun, “legalism.” The most scandalous doctrine afoot is “legalism.” The harshest accusation that can come from some quarters is that of being labeled a “legalist.” Humanists, liberals and neo-evangelicals gladly join forces and raise their voices in unison to chant intonations against the awful dangers and various ills of “legalism.”
“Legalism”: the very word conjures up pictures of Salem witches being burned at the stake and morbid puritans in black coats and stiff collars. It smacks of whipping posts and long sermons and rules against smiling. It is equated with Pharisaism and old fashioned notions long since gone out of style.
Now who might be accused of being a legalist in these enlightened days? Who are these people that can be so mistaken in their doctrines? Why, it is the Baptists, the fundamentalists! It is those old-fashioned, Bible thumping preachers that still talk about sin and tell people what God says they should do and shouldn’t do. It is us! We are the culprits who would rob Christians of their joy and force them to live under a yoke of bondage. We are the insidious teachers who would strip people of their freedom and place them under the restraining shackles of legalism. Outsiders visit fundamental Baptist services and hear preaching against gambling and drinking and movie-going and say, “My, such legalism.” The neo-evangelical crowd looks at our Christian schools with rules and standards demanding that students dress decently, look decent and act decently and says, “My, aren’t they legalistic.” Broad-minded Christians hear us calling sin sin and labeling false doctrine as false doctrine and conclude that such attitudes stem from our narrow-minded legalism.
Now, pray tell, what really is a legalist? There is a false definition of legalism and a Biblical definition. In the thinking of most Christians, any presentation of Christianity which maintains standards, practices separation from the world and has a code of conduct is guilty of legalism. This notion is expressed in the liberal Dictionary of Philosophy which defines legalism as “The insistence on a strict literal or overt observance of certain rules of conduct, or the belief that there are rules which must be so obeyed.” Christians who decry legalism invariably turn to the book of Galatians for a Scriptural indictment of legalism. Galatians is the book that speaks against legalism and warns believers not to let themselves be put under the law. But this “legalism” described and written against the Galatians is not the legalism spoken against today. The Biblical concept of legalism is far different.
R
rtconstant
Guest
I don’t know of any Baptist denomination that teaches this as a denomination. There are individual people or congregations that might hold that the antichrist will be a pope.
The thing to keep in mind with most Baptist denominations is that they are democratic in government and hold strongly to the autonomy of the local congregation. So there can be a very wide variance in what is taught in a Baptist Church outside of certain distinctives. I believe the idea of the antichrist pope is born out of an extreme view of dispensational theology.
M
mark_a
Guest
Maybe I missed it, but do Catholics call Baptists legalists?
Do Baptists think Catholics are saved by works of the law?
J
J_C
Guest
an aside, i don’t mean to change the subject but this southern baptist thread reminded me of a article I read in NY Times, dated yesterday, from the AP, here is the link:
nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25baptists.html?ref=us
nytimes.com/2008/04/25/us/25baptists.html?ref=us
H
happygal
Guest
Although i’m not attending a baptists church, never heard of Pope being the Anti Christ from my church, neither i heard any of such thing for any of my christian frez So i wonder Where is Strange allegation of Anti Christ came from ? Even so, let no one be deceive by message that are not true nor any justification from the common ones…
So i wonder Where is Strange allegation of Anti Christ came from ? Even so, let no one be deceive by message that are not true nor any justification from the common ones…
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Thanks for all the info.
I do believe you teach the right christian doctrines I was talking about stuff like you have to wear dresses to church. Saying that going to movies is sinful(ALL movies) KJV only–stuff like that–not doctrinal issues.We do have some freedoms in Christ.
Of course I dont mean to say ALL IB churches are like this–I only know one and they are. My minister said he grew up like this as well in Minnesota.
I apologize iff I offended you.
B
beeliner
Guest
*I recently found this very interesting exchange on another forum. It was part of a heated discussion between a Baptist and a Catholic, and I have edited out most of the personal references, but am presenting it otherwise complete. Becaue of its length, I’ll have to post it in sections.
I welcome the comments of everyone who has particpated in this thread, or would like to. Is the history of the Baptist Church given by the Catholic in part one accurately stated? Are the objections to the Baptist claims in parts two, three and four warranted?*
A Baptist poster recently cut-and-pasted some material which attempts to support these three theses:
In fact, today’s Baptist Church had its origins in London, England in 1638, missing the Reformation by a century, missing the Dark Ages by the better part of a millennium, and having no connection whatsoever with the Anabaptists, who are known today as Mennonites.
Let’s trace the history of the Baptists FACTUALLY, not fictionally as the Baptists themselves are wont to do, but first, let’s briefly review the history of the Anabaptists, in order to have some idea of from whom the Baptists are NOT descended. Finally, we will examine some of the specific claims made in the cut-and-paste that are among the most outrageous, slanderous, and just plain ridiculous.
THE ANABAPTISTS (no hyphen) were a 16th century, left-wing movement originating in Zurich, Switzerland around 1525. Followers of the reformer Zwingli, they were pacifists and utopian communists, VERY radical, and were opposed not only by Roman Catholics, but also by Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists. As was later the case with the American Mormons, they were very unpopular among their neighbors for their radical views, especially their doctrine of restricting Baptism to adults, claiming that infant Baptism was invalid, hence their name Anabaptists, meaning 'rebaptizers". They finally settled in Munster, Germany, establishing there a highly-structured, communisitc society which did not prove very popular with the indiginous non-Anabaptists. In 1535 the German army (NOT the Catholic Church, nor any other church) moved in, killing most of the Anabaptist leaders. After lying low for a while, the survivors regrouped under the leadership of Menno Simons and became known as Mennonites. Today, they remain pacifists, refusing to serve in the military, and also utopian (not to be confused with Marxist) communists; in fact, when I lived in Evanston, Illinois in the 1970’s there was a Mennonite commune right in my neighborhood, and several of its members were friends of mine.
THE FIRST BAPTISTS, also left-wing and known as ‘General Baptists’ because they affirmed ‘general atonement’, that is, that Christ died for all, were organized in about 1609-1611 by two Anglican priests, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. Smyth was sympathetic to the Anabaptist/Mennonites and recommended union with them. Helwys opposed this and NO SUCH UNION EVER TOOK PLACE. Persecuted in England by Anglicans (NOT Roman Catholics), the General Baptists fled to Amsterdam, where their membership steadily declined through the 17th and 18th centuries. Many of these proto-Baptists became Unitarians, a movement which denied Christ’s divinity and which, in one form or another, had existed since the early history of Christianity.
MODERN BAPTISTS - A few of Helwys’ followers returned to England in 1638, and shortly afterward the first PARTICULAR BAPTIST church (so-called because, unlike the General Baptists, they affirmed the strict Calvinist doctrine of salvation only for the predestined) opened in London. These new Baptists were led by John Spilsbury, about whom little is known, and his connection with Helwys’ General Baptists, IF ANY, is very obscure. In any case, the Particular Baptists, predecessors of today’s Baptists, certainly never had ANY connection with the Anabaptists as they claim. Furthermore, if you mention Spilsbury’s name to a Baptist today you are likely to receive only a blank stare, becaue the Baptist Chruch claims that it has no human founder and can be traced directly back to Jesus Christ (while at the same time insisting that they are successors of the Anabaptists, who make no such claim). Both claims are, of course, patently false and historically unsupportable.
AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES have a long history of fragmentation from theological controversies, often fighting tooth-and-nail over matters that are quite trivial. They have no hierarchy, no accountability, certainly no sense of truthfulness, especially with regard to their non-Baptist fellow Christians. They also have a long, disgraceful history of social injustice, unabashedly supporting racial segregation and terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Many Baptists, to their credit, remain staunch supporters of the separation of Church and State. Other Baptists, however, have constantly attempted to break down this barrier, claiming that the USA is a Christian country and was founded by Fundamentalists like themselves. Of course, every child who has studied American history (except perhaps in Baptist ‘Christian Schools’) knows that the USA was founded by Episcopalians, Unitarians, and Freemasons.
–continued below–
I welcome the comments of everyone who has particpated in this thread, or would like to. Is the history of the Baptist Church given by the Catholic in part one accurately stated? Are the objections to the Baptist claims in parts two, three and four warranted?*
A Baptist poster recently cut-and-pasted some material which attempts to support these three theses:
- That the Baptists were oppressed, persecuted and terrorized by the Roman Catholic Church during the so-called Dark Ages.
- That the Baptists were among the leaders of the Protestant Reformation.
- That the present-day Baptists are the successors of the earlier Anabaptists, which his source always spells with a hyphen: ‘Ana-Baptists’.
In fact, today’s Baptist Church had its origins in London, England in 1638, missing the Reformation by a century, missing the Dark Ages by the better part of a millennium, and having no connection whatsoever with the Anabaptists, who are known today as Mennonites.
Let’s trace the history of the Baptists FACTUALLY, not fictionally as the Baptists themselves are wont to do, but first, let’s briefly review the history of the Anabaptists, in order to have some idea of from whom the Baptists are NOT descended. Finally, we will examine some of the specific claims made in the cut-and-paste that are among the most outrageous, slanderous, and just plain ridiculous.
THE ANABAPTISTS (no hyphen) were a 16th century, left-wing movement originating in Zurich, Switzerland around 1525. Followers of the reformer Zwingli, they were pacifists and utopian communists, VERY radical, and were opposed not only by Roman Catholics, but also by Anglicans, Lutherans and Calvinists. As was later the case with the American Mormons, they were very unpopular among their neighbors for their radical views, especially their doctrine of restricting Baptism to adults, claiming that infant Baptism was invalid, hence their name Anabaptists, meaning 'rebaptizers". They finally settled in Munster, Germany, establishing there a highly-structured, communisitc society which did not prove very popular with the indiginous non-Anabaptists. In 1535 the German army (NOT the Catholic Church, nor any other church) moved in, killing most of the Anabaptist leaders. After lying low for a while, the survivors regrouped under the leadership of Menno Simons and became known as Mennonites. Today, they remain pacifists, refusing to serve in the military, and also utopian (not to be confused with Marxist) communists; in fact, when I lived in Evanston, Illinois in the 1970’s there was a Mennonite commune right in my neighborhood, and several of its members were friends of mine.
THE FIRST BAPTISTS, also left-wing and known as ‘General Baptists’ because they affirmed ‘general atonement’, that is, that Christ died for all, were organized in about 1609-1611 by two Anglican priests, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys. Smyth was sympathetic to the Anabaptist/Mennonites and recommended union with them. Helwys opposed this and NO SUCH UNION EVER TOOK PLACE. Persecuted in England by Anglicans (NOT Roman Catholics), the General Baptists fled to Amsterdam, where their membership steadily declined through the 17th and 18th centuries. Many of these proto-Baptists became Unitarians, a movement which denied Christ’s divinity and which, in one form or another, had existed since the early history of Christianity.
MODERN BAPTISTS - A few of Helwys’ followers returned to England in 1638, and shortly afterward the first PARTICULAR BAPTIST church (so-called because, unlike the General Baptists, they affirmed the strict Calvinist doctrine of salvation only for the predestined) opened in London. These new Baptists were led by John Spilsbury, about whom little is known, and his connection with Helwys’ General Baptists, IF ANY, is very obscure. In any case, the Particular Baptists, predecessors of today’s Baptists, certainly never had ANY connection with the Anabaptists as they claim. Furthermore, if you mention Spilsbury’s name to a Baptist today you are likely to receive only a blank stare, becaue the Baptist Chruch claims that it has no human founder and can be traced directly back to Jesus Christ (while at the same time insisting that they are successors of the Anabaptists, who make no such claim). Both claims are, of course, patently false and historically unsupportable.
AMERICAN BAPTIST CHURCHES have a long history of fragmentation from theological controversies, often fighting tooth-and-nail over matters that are quite trivial. They have no hierarchy, no accountability, certainly no sense of truthfulness, especially with regard to their non-Baptist fellow Christians. They also have a long, disgraceful history of social injustice, unabashedly supporting racial segregation and terrorist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
Many Baptists, to their credit, remain staunch supporters of the separation of Church and State. Other Baptists, however, have constantly attempted to break down this barrier, claiming that the USA is a Christian country and was founded by Fundamentalists like themselves. Of course, every child who has studied American history (except perhaps in Baptist ‘Christian Schools’) knows that the USA was founded by Episcopalians, Unitarians, and Freemasons.
–continued below–
B
beeliner
Guest
Now let’s end by looking at just a few of the apologist writers’ most preposterous claims:
Quote:*
The history of Baptists…was written in blood. They were the hated people of the Dark Ages. Their preachers and people were put into prison and untold numbers were put to death. The world has never seen anything to compare with the suffering, the persecutions, heaped upon Baptists by the Catholic Hierarchy during the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Ana-Baptists, before the Reformation, called the Pope The Anti-Christ.*
Quote:*
The “Dark Ages” begin 426…All semblance of “Religious liberty” dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries… I again call your attention to those upon whom the hard hand of persecution fell. If fifty million died of persecution during the 1,200 years of what are called the “Dark Ages,”*
The ‘Dark Ages’ refers to the period between the fall of Rome in the fifth century AD and the spiritual, economic, political and intellectual revival that began in the tenth century and culminated in the eleventh century Renaissance, a period of about 500 years. The term ‘Dark Ages’ was used by historians because of the relative lack of historical documentation during that period. No one denies, however, that is was, in general, a time of great moral decay. The Anabaptists formed about 1525; the Baptist Church as it now exists began in 1638, both postdating the Dark Ages by 5 or 6 centuries!
Quote:*
Into the “dark ages” went a group of many churches which were never in any way identified with the Catholics. Out of the “dark ages” came a group of many churches, which had never been in any way identified with the Catholics. *
Technically correct, but meaningless. The term ‘Catholic Church’, like the term ‘Baptist Church’, postdates the Dark Ages by several centuries.
Quote:*
Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.” Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.*
I am not familiar with the Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian), nor am I sure what this quote from it, assuming it is genuine, refers to. The Anabaptists were indeed referred to as ‘Baptists’ from time to time. They had no connection whatever with today’s Baptist Church. What ‘leading principle’ is the writer referring to? This is called ‘quoting out of context’. The Anabaptists postdated Tertullian by 1400 years!
Quote:*
The religion of Christ being a religion not of this world, its founder gave it no earthly head and no temporal power. It sought no establishment, no state or governmental support. It sought no dethronement of Caesar. Said its author, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt, 22:19-22; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:20). Being a spiritual religion it was a rival of no earthly government. Its adherents, however, were taught to respect all civil law and government. *
Of course its founder gave it an earthly head! “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rest of the quote is basically correct.
Quote:*
One of the first of its legislative enactments, and one of the most subversive in its results, was the establishing by law of “infant baptism.” By this new law, “Infant Baptism” becomes compulsory. This was done A.D. 416. Infants had been infrequently baptized for probably a century preceding this. Insofar as this newly enacted law became effective, two vital New Testament laws were abrogated–“Believers Baptism” and “Voluntary personal obedience in Baptism.” *
What unmitigated hogwash! There was, and is, no ‘law of infant baptism’. People may be baptized at any age. Infant Baptism dates to the earliest years of Christianity, and of course, it is hardly a Roman Catholic custom. Most Protestants baptize infants also, as they should.
–continued below–
Quote:*
The history of Baptists…was written in blood. They were the hated people of the Dark Ages. Their preachers and people were put into prison and untold numbers were put to death. The world has never seen anything to compare with the suffering, the persecutions, heaped upon Baptists by the Catholic Hierarchy during the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Ana-Baptists, before the Reformation, called the Pope The Anti-Christ.*
Quote:*
The “Dark Ages” begin 426…All semblance of “Religious liberty” dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries… I again call your attention to those upon whom the hard hand of persecution fell. If fifty million died of persecution during the 1,200 years of what are called the “Dark Ages,”*
The ‘Dark Ages’ refers to the period between the fall of Rome in the fifth century AD and the spiritual, economic, political and intellectual revival that began in the tenth century and culminated in the eleventh century Renaissance, a period of about 500 years. The term ‘Dark Ages’ was used by historians because of the relative lack of historical documentation during that period. No one denies, however, that is was, in general, a time of great moral decay. The Anabaptists formed about 1525; the Baptist Church as it now exists began in 1638, both postdating the Dark Ages by 5 or 6 centuries!
Quote:*
Into the “dark ages” went a group of many churches which were never in any way identified with the Catholics. Out of the “dark ages” came a group of many churches, which had never been in any way identified with the Catholics. *
Technically correct, but meaningless. The term ‘Catholic Church’, like the term ‘Baptist Church’, postdates the Dark Ages by several centuries.
Quote:*
Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian): “It must have already occurred to our readers that the Baptists are the same sect of Christians that were formerly described as Ana-Baptists. Indeed this seems to have been their leading principle from the time of Tertullian to the present time.” Tertullian was born just fifty years after the death of the Apostle John.*
I am not familiar with the Edinburg Cyclopedia (Presbyterian), nor am I sure what this quote from it, assuming it is genuine, refers to. The Anabaptists were indeed referred to as ‘Baptists’ from time to time. They had no connection whatever with today’s Baptist Church. What ‘leading principle’ is the writer referring to? This is called ‘quoting out of context’. The Anabaptists postdated Tertullian by 1400 years!
Quote:*
The religion of Christ being a religion not of this world, its founder gave it no earthly head and no temporal power. It sought no establishment, no state or governmental support. It sought no dethronement of Caesar. Said its author, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” (Matt, 22:19-22; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:20). Being a spiritual religion it was a rival of no earthly government. Its adherents, however, were taught to respect all civil law and government. *
Of course its founder gave it an earthly head! “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rest of the quote is basically correct.
Quote:*
One of the first of its legislative enactments, and one of the most subversive in its results, was the establishing by law of “infant baptism.” By this new law, “Infant Baptism” becomes compulsory. This was done A.D. 416. Infants had been infrequently baptized for probably a century preceding this. Insofar as this newly enacted law became effective, two vital New Testament laws were abrogated–“Believers Baptism” and “Voluntary personal obedience in Baptism.” *
What unmitigated hogwash! There was, and is, no ‘law of infant baptism’. People may be baptized at any age. Infant Baptism dates to the earliest years of Christianity, and of course, it is hardly a Roman Catholic custom. Most Protestants baptize infants also, as they should.
–continued below–
B
beeliner
Guest
The Baptist apologist then gives a completely distorted, and in some cases downright fictional assessment of Church councils through the history of Christianity:
Quote:*
The fourth met at Calcedon, A.D. 451, and was called by Emperor Marian; 500 or 600 bishops or Metropolitans (Metropolitans were City pastors or First Church pastors) were present. During this Council the doctrine of what is now known as Mariolatry was promulgated. This means the worship of Mary, the mother of Christ. This new doctrine at first created quite a stir, many seriously objecting. But it finally won out as a permanent doctrine of the Catholic Church…The Seventh Council was called to meet at Nicea A.D. 787. This was the second held at this place. The Empress Irene called this one. Here in this meeting seems to have been the definite starting place, of both “Image Worship” and “Saints Worship.” You can thus see that these people were getting more markedly paganized than Christianized.*
The fourth council met at Chalcedon, not Calcedon, and was called by the emperor Marcian, not Marian (who was, I believe, Robin Hood’s girlfriend). The main business of Chalcedon was to clarify the Church’s teaching on the nature of Christ. Other matters were, of course, studied as well, but these certainly did not include the worship of Mary, the saints, or images, because the Catholic Church has never had any such teaching or doctrine, and anyone who claims otherwise should be challenged to document such a claim from a Catholic source.
Quote:*
That new doctrine is called Purgatory, a place of intermediate state between heaven and hell, at which all must stop to be cleansed from all sins less than damning sins. Even the “Saints” must go through purgatory and must remain there until cleansed by fire… *
The idea of prayers and offerings for the dead goes back to OT times, is still practiced by Jews today, and was very probably practiced by Jesus Christ Himself. In Judaism the practice is known as ‘Yertzeit’. Jesus said, ‘Everyone will be purified by fire as a sacrifice is purified by salt’ (Mark 9:49), and Paul echoed this by stating that if a man’s works are insufficient, the man himself will be saved through fire. This have always been the basis of the Church’s teaching. There was no ‘new doctrine’.
Quote:*
At that time was promulgated the new doctrine of “Transubstantiation,” the intended turning of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper into the actual and real body and blood of Christ, after a prayer by the priest… Auricular confession–confessing one’s sins into the ear of a priest–was another new doctrine seemingly having its beginning at this meeting.*
Transusbstantiation began at the Last Supper. ('This is my body…this is my blood…Do this in memory of me.) Auricular confession began with John 20:22-23. (Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven…). Calling either of them ‘new doctrines’ is about as silly as everything else the Baptists espouse.
Quote:*
At this it was decreed, the Bible, God’s book, should be denied to all laymen, all members of Catholic churches other than priests or higher officials. How strange a law in the face of the plain teaching of the Word, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)*
What absolute nonsense! Very few people could read, nor were there any Bibles available to the public before the invention of mechanical printing. Anyone wishing to study the BIble could do so with a priest or monk, and every Mass including many Bible readings, as today.
Quote:*
From 1320 to 1384 there lived a man in England who attracted world-wide attention. His name was John Wycliff. He was the first of the brave fellows who had the courage to attempt a real reformation inside the Catholic Church. He is many times referred to in history as “The Morning Star of the Reformation.” He lived an earnest and effective life. It would really require several volumes to contain anything like an adequate history of John Wycliff. *
On the contrary, his history can be stated quite succinctly. He was a basically moral but very misguided man who denied practically everything that the Church taught. Amazingly (some might say miraculously), he was never officially condemned by the Church, though he was certainly condemned privately by various members of the Church hierarchy. He died peacefully of a stroke.
–continued below–
Quote:*
The fourth met at Calcedon, A.D. 451, and was called by Emperor Marian; 500 or 600 bishops or Metropolitans (Metropolitans were City pastors or First Church pastors) were present. During this Council the doctrine of what is now known as Mariolatry was promulgated. This means the worship of Mary, the mother of Christ. This new doctrine at first created quite a stir, many seriously objecting. But it finally won out as a permanent doctrine of the Catholic Church…The Seventh Council was called to meet at Nicea A.D. 787. This was the second held at this place. The Empress Irene called this one. Here in this meeting seems to have been the definite starting place, of both “Image Worship” and “Saints Worship.” You can thus see that these people were getting more markedly paganized than Christianized.*
The fourth council met at Chalcedon, not Calcedon, and was called by the emperor Marcian, not Marian (who was, I believe, Robin Hood’s girlfriend). The main business of Chalcedon was to clarify the Church’s teaching on the nature of Christ. Other matters were, of course, studied as well, but these certainly did not include the worship of Mary, the saints, or images, because the Catholic Church has never had any such teaching or doctrine, and anyone who claims otherwise should be challenged to document such a claim from a Catholic source.
Quote:*
That new doctrine is called Purgatory, a place of intermediate state between heaven and hell, at which all must stop to be cleansed from all sins less than damning sins. Even the “Saints” must go through purgatory and must remain there until cleansed by fire… *
The idea of prayers and offerings for the dead goes back to OT times, is still practiced by Jews today, and was very probably practiced by Jesus Christ Himself. In Judaism the practice is known as ‘Yertzeit’. Jesus said, ‘Everyone will be purified by fire as a sacrifice is purified by salt’ (Mark 9:49), and Paul echoed this by stating that if a man’s works are insufficient, the man himself will be saved through fire. This have always been the basis of the Church’s teaching. There was no ‘new doctrine’.
Quote:*
At that time was promulgated the new doctrine of “Transubstantiation,” the intended turning of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper into the actual and real body and blood of Christ, after a prayer by the priest… Auricular confession–confessing one’s sins into the ear of a priest–was another new doctrine seemingly having its beginning at this meeting.*
Transusbstantiation began at the Last Supper. ('This is my body…this is my blood…Do this in memory of me.) Auricular confession began with John 20:22-23. (Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven…). Calling either of them ‘new doctrines’ is about as silly as everything else the Baptists espouse.
Quote:*
At this it was decreed, the Bible, God’s book, should be denied to all laymen, all members of Catholic churches other than priests or higher officials. How strange a law in the face of the plain teaching of the Word, “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39)*
What absolute nonsense! Very few people could read, nor were there any Bibles available to the public before the invention of mechanical printing. Anyone wishing to study the BIble could do so with a priest or monk, and every Mass including many Bible readings, as today.
Quote:*
From 1320 to 1384 there lived a man in England who attracted world-wide attention. His name was John Wycliff. He was the first of the brave fellows who had the courage to attempt a real reformation inside the Catholic Church. He is many times referred to in history as “The Morning Star of the Reformation.” He lived an earnest and effective life. It would really require several volumes to contain anything like an adequate history of John Wycliff. *
On the contrary, his history can be stated quite succinctly. He was a basically moral but very misguided man who denied practically everything that the Church taught. Amazingly (some might say miraculously), he was never officially condemned by the Church, though he was certainly condemned privately by various members of the Church hierarchy. He died peacefully of a stroke.
–continued below–
B
beeliner
Guest
Quote:*
Following tolerably close on the heels of Wycliff came John Huss, 1373-1415, a distinguished son from far away Bohemia. His soul had felt and responded to the brilliant light of England’s “Morning Star.” His was a brave and eventful life, but painfully and sadly short. Instead of awakening a responsive chord among his Catholic people in favor of a real reformation, he aroused a fear and hatred and opposition which resulted in his being burned at the stake–a martyr among his own people.*
“Far away Bohemia”? The Baptists seem to know as little about geography as they know about Church history or Bible history. Hus (one ‘s’) was born and grew up less then twenty miles from the German border, in what is now the Czech Republic. He was executed for heresy, of which he was unquestionably guilty, by the German government, not the Catholic Church.
Quote:*
I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under “History of Baptists in Europe,” Vol. 1, page 210, “The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter.”*
This refers to the Anabaptists, not today’s Baptists; however, it says that they were persecuted by ‘Zwingle’, by which is presumably meant Zwingli. The Anabaptists were, in fact, originally disciples of Zwingli, but later had an acrimonious falling out with him over the issue of infant Baptism, and Zwingli published several pamphlets attacking their position. Perhaps this was the ‘persecution’ to which the writer refers.
For stories of Christianity’s REAL heroes and heroines, I recommend Butler’s Lives of the Saints (many editions from 1756 to the present), or for a more Anglican view, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints from Oxford University Press.
For the REAL history of both the Church and the Holy Bible, go ANYWHERE but to the Baptists!
Following tolerably close on the heels of Wycliff came John Huss, 1373-1415, a distinguished son from far away Bohemia. His soul had felt and responded to the brilliant light of England’s “Morning Star.” His was a brave and eventful life, but painfully and sadly short. Instead of awakening a responsive chord among his Catholic people in favor of a real reformation, he aroused a fear and hatred and opposition which resulted in his being burned at the stake–a martyr among his own people.*
“Far away Bohemia”? The Baptists seem to know as little about geography as they know about Church history or Bible history. Hus (one ‘s’) was born and grew up less then twenty miles from the German border, in what is now the Czech Republic. He was executed for heresy, of which he was unquestionably guilty, by the German government, not the Catholic Church.
Quote:*
I quote a very significant statement from the Schaff- Herzogg Encyclopedia, under “History of Baptists in Europe,” Vol. 1, page 210, “The Baptists appeared first in Switzerland about 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingle and the Romanists. They are found in the following years, 1525-1530, with large churches fully organized, in Southern Germany, Tyrol and in middle Germany. In all these places persecutions made their lives bitter.”*
This refers to the Anabaptists, not today’s Baptists; however, it says that they were persecuted by ‘Zwingle’, by which is presumably meant Zwingli. The Anabaptists were, in fact, originally disciples of Zwingli, but later had an acrimonious falling out with him over the issue of infant Baptism, and Zwingli published several pamphlets attacking their position. Perhaps this was the ‘persecution’ to which the writer refers.
For stories of Christianity’s REAL heroes and heroines, I recommend Butler’s Lives of the Saints (many editions from 1756 to the present), or for a more Anglican view, The Oxford Dictionary of Saints from Oxford University Press.
For the REAL history of both the Church and the Holy Bible, go ANYWHERE but to the Baptists!
J
J_C
Guest
allischalmers, your turn!
- Status