Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: one Lord one faith one baptism; metmom; boatbums; caww; smvoice; presently no screen name; Quix; ...

no “polemical statements”, just showing what the historical, orthodox Christian Faith is, as opposed to the new 16th century gospel so many on here seem to believe.

Actually you are just engaging in assertions, and not interacting with the Scripture evidence presented against this being New Testament faith, and thus more is not warranted, while as for historicity in the post apostolic age, most Roman Catholics are ignorant of what recent research has evidenced, such as on the early papacy.

Jesuit Father Klaus Schatz on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:

..if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably “no” (page 1)

.. if we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer. (page 2)

"If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top). More

Catholic historian and political conservative Paul Johnson in his 1976 work “History of Christianity” states:

By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius…– “A History of Christianity,” pgs 53 ff.)

American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown says, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.) More

Patrologist Boniface Ramsey admits that the current Roman Catholic teachings on Mary and the papacy were not taught in the early Church:

Sometimes, then, the Fathers speak and write in a way that would eventually be seen as unorthodox. But this is not the only difficulty with respect to the criterion of orthodoxy. The other great one is that we look in vain in many of the Fathers for references to things that many Christians might believe in today. We do not find, for instance, some teachings on Mary or the papacy that were developed in medieval and modern times.' — Boniface Ramsey, Beginning to Read the Fathers (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1986), p. 6.

And what for what it is worth, the fallible CFs can be seen as opposing Rome, and not settled or unified in all things, and the claimed and requiredunanimous consent of the fathers for Rome is not a literal reality (and thus the EOs for one enlist them against Rome).

As for the Reformation being novel, the New Testament is the standard which exposes the deviation of Rome which autocratically is its own standard, while as one researcher states,

"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity...— Jaroslav Pelikan, (Lutheran scholar who later converted to Eastern Orthodoxy) The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959) p. 46

If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. pp. 46-47).

...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.”

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" ( 48-49).

In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (pp. 51-52).

so anyone today who believes the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith is attacked. we understand this, we have been attacked by Gnostics, Arians, Nestorians, Muslims, Jews all thru history, so Protestantism was nothing new.

What is new is Rome not physically persecuting those who dissent from her, as she has the most blood on her hands, as it is Rome which exalts herself as the OTC, and claims power to punish those members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws by physical means, and universal jurisdiction and then cries victim after a history of making souls such. But you left out some Catholic persecuters: http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html

one final note, Jesus takes attacks against the Church very personally. read Acts 9:4-5 to see how personally.

Indeed, and thus the pope should apologize for the persecution and murders it sanctioned, and not just for erring children, and for exalting itself as the one true church with its demigod popes, and “every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Lk. 18:14) And we all need to more.

2,373 posted on 12/03/2011 7:23:37 PM PST by daniel1212 (Our sinful deeds condemn us, but Christ's death and resurrection gains salvation. Repent +Believe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2301 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212
Nuts!


2,374 posted on 12/03/2011 7:24:46 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2373 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; CynicalBear; metmom; smvoice; Iscool; RnMomof7; MarkBsnr; rzman21; Natural Law; ...

LOL, i will ignore the attacks on the Church to concentrate on what you didn’t repsond to, namely the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Christians have believed baptism is for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit ever since Peter preached the first Pentecost.

now, i understand a 16th century tradition of men is still followed to this day that says baptism is a “work”, it is done as a first act of obedience and it is an outward display of something that has happened inwardly already.

that all sounds good, except as hard i try, i can’t find Scripture to support it ( i am not alone, no one else believed this before the 16th century )

daniel, you seem to think you know the Bible pretty well, so i think you are just the man to help me out.

can you show where the Bible teaches the following:

1. that baptism is not for the remission of sins
2. that baptism is not for receiving the Holy Spirit
3. that baptism does not save us
4. that baptism does not place one “into Christ”
5. that baptism is done out of obedience
6. that baptism is a “work”
7. that baptism is an outward “sign” of the salvation that has occurred already.
8. that baptism is called “water baptism” anywhere in the NT
9. that baptism is called “spirit baptism” anywhere in the NT
10. that the NT teaches anywhere there are “two” baptisms for Christians and not one.

Let’s leave the attacks and polemics aside and see what the Scriptures teach about baptism and what it is.


2,701 posted on 12/04/2011 7:23:37 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2373 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson