Posted on 06/27/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Salvation
How Old Is Your Church?If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex- monk of the Catholic Church, in the year 1517. If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry. If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded by John Knox in Scotland in the year 1560. If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, your religion was an offshoot of the Church of England founded by Samuel Seabury in the American colonies in the 17th century. If you are a Congregationalist, your religion was originated by Robert Brown in Holland in 1582. If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744. If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your church in London in 1774. If you are a Mormon (Latter Day Saints), Joseph Smith started your religion in Palmyra, N.Y., in 1829. If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1605. If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, you recognize Michaelis Jones as founder, because he originated your religion in New York in 1628. If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865. If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year in which your religion was born and to Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy as its founder. If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as 'Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel." "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Jehovah's Witnesses," your religion is one of the hundreds of new sects founded by men within the past century. If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ the Son of God, and it is still the same Church. |
Why did you stop hitting your husband with a pick mattock?
I’m single. Try again.
Have you read Rome Sweet Home?
Or “The Lamb’s Supper”/
Both are powerful books.
Even YOU get the point by now.
I don’t get YOUR point, no. And if you have to explain it, it probably isn’t very clear. You are playing word games rather than answering direct questions. You don’t want to admit that the ROMAN (as in the institution which has a Pope that resides in Rome except for a brief period in the middle ages and a college of Cardinals who meet frequently in Rome as the center of their organization) Catholic church was indeed the persecutor of other Christians throughout most of history. Did Kings and others persecute? Sure. I didn’t say that they didn’t. Most of these folks were Catholic as well, until you went East.
Yes, the priority goes waaaayyyyyyyy up. lol Thanks for the links - appreciate them.
I’d love to get into Yudan’s Catholic bashing talking points but his “tweaks” may have to wait a little - or maybe not - depends on how the report is going. Intersting how Protestant, Orthodox, Islam and Statists all have the same talking points in regards to the Catholic Church- whlle nothing is said about the Mohammadans, Buddists, Hindu’s etc. I mean, for example, when the Inquision was happening - what else was happening in the world at that time? I’ll bet no one from the aforementioned group can answer that...Sad really as they keep fodder in the fire for Islam and the Statists who are galloping toward the goal line as we speak.
Do the Fathers Support Scott Hahn’s Theory?
Do the Father’s Support Scott Hahn's "Dragon" Theory?
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
Our Father - In Heaven (Dr. Scott Hahn)
An Urgent Note >From Scott Hahn
Why should I "admit" a falsehood?
...Catholic Church was indeed the persecutor of other Christians throughout most of history..."
Too many problems with that statement for me to ever agree with it.
It is a compound falsehood.
They do not direct their mission to Peter - as they would if they believed Peter was the authority instituted by Jesus himself - but to the group.
Furthermore, another account of this meeting is found in Galatians 2. It reads:
"1 Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.
6 As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance — those men added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do."
Notice, they went in response to a revelation, not because the Bishop at Jerusalem or anywhere else called them or had authority over them.
Paul calls them "those who seemed to be leaders" - he does not in any way suggest that they actually held authority over him.
He doesn't cite Peter alone, but "James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars" - neither yielding that they WERE pillars instituted by Jesus, nor giving Peter primacy over James or John - if anything, James is mentioned more prominently that Peter.
It would be very hard to justify, from this council, the idea that Peter was appointed as Head Bishop over the Church. If anything, it indicates he was NOT. Certainly Paul did not think so, for Paul goes on:
"11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12 Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?
15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified."
There is nothing in Galatians 2 to suggest in any way that Peter had primacy over Paul as an Apostle. And if anything, the New Testament seems to indicate Jerusalem was held in highest regard of any location - not Rome.
Also - if Jesus had made Peter primary over all others, why would he be "afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group"?
I spent my life in the military. I assure you - if a 3-star General sent representatives to a 4-star General, the 4-star does NOT fear or back down from the 3-star!
As I said, I enjoyed reading your post. However, I think it is fair to say a different interpretation IS possible, and those of us who do so are not violating any clear direction in scripture. Truth is, I think an unbiased person, having no reason to believe Peter either is or isn't primary, would agree with my take.
The Catholic College of Cardinals?
I don't think so.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Whatever Petronski. Good evening.
I understand.
Puget, I’m not an adherent of the Church of Rome. I can’t speak for them.
For the record, the word “heresy,” properly defined, simply means something along the lines of “incorrect teaching.”
APOSTASY, on the other hand, is something a little stronger.
I grew up Southern Baptist and am converting to Holy Orthodoxy. Let me assure you that I have heard many, MANY evangelical Protestants make unilateral declarations about who’s going to hell and why.
Of course she meant the “Roman Catholic Church.”
The “Catholic Church” includes all Christians, whether they submit to the Pope or not. The “Roman Catholic Church” is the denomination of Christians whose head is found in Rome.
In one sense, I am “Catholic.” I am a member of the universal Church. But in another sense, I am not “Roman Catholic,” as the Pope is not my authority; Christ alone is my ultimate authority.
Listen, if she meant the “Catholic Church,” she would not have talked trash about other “Catholic Churches” such as the Lutherans, the Baptists, and so on (all of whom are part of the “universal” Catholic Church).
Again, this bigotry about Rome is sickening. I’m confident Christ is sick of the fixation with Rome as well, and desires for His people to look to Him as Lord, rather than to some place and some person in Italy.
May Christ increase. May Rome decrease.
Yes, I read Lamb’s Supper — and in fact referenced it in an earlier post on this thread. I have not yet read Rome Sweet Rome. I also read “Hail Holy Queen”, “Reason to Believe,” and “Answering the New Atheism” — all of them outstanding books. Very entetaining to read, but at the same time revealing a great depth of understanding regarding scripture. He’s so clear and friendly to read, it’s easy to take for granted the outstanding scholarship behind it.
Yes it does.
The “Roman Catholic Church” is the denomination of Christians whose head is found in Rome.
Really?
His Holiness Pope Benedict lives in Vatican City.
In one sense, I am “Catholic.” I am a member of the universal Church. But in another sense, I am not “Roman Catholic,”
Me too. I've never been to Italy.
May Christ increase. May Rome decrease.
I doubt Christ, leader of the Catholic Church, bears any ill will to the capital municipality of Italy.
Yes, and you’ll find many MORE Protestants telling them why they’re scripturally wrong. Not so much on this thread, in terms of why a non-Orthodox or non-Roman Catholic isn’t a Christian.
Good to know, though, that so many “Christians” here will sit in judgement as Christ would, especially when the Bible provides no scriptural basis or command of Christ to establish a hierarchy of succession.
We’ll never agree. You owe allegiance to the Pope. I owe allegiance to Christ. Christ, who was crucified, bought my salvation and reconciled me with the Creator; Rome did no such thing.
Christ’s Church was built on the foundation of Christ and His apostles, not on Peter or Rome.
I will conclude our fruitless conversation with this: May Christ increase. May Rome go to hell. May Mary the blessed mother of Jesus be honored; may those who talk with her come to the realization that she is worshiping the Lord, not listening to human’s prayers.
Sheesh, I hate the heresy of Rome. And love the truth of the gospel as relayed through the gospels and discussed by wonderful Christians through the ages.
May the Catholic Church be prepared for Christ’s return. May the Roman Catholic Church diminish to make way for Christ’s Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.