Are Catholic Beliefs and Practices Biblical?

[ItalianScallion]

Any person who studies scripture can see the following Baptist errors are undeniable heresies:
-SELF appointed ecclesiastical authorities as the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
-Rejection of Mary
-Rejection of the Saints
-Obsesion with baptism beyond what it is in the scriptures
-Faith based salvation that is exactly the bapitist faith, never meet a bapitist, you're going to hell boy.
Please most baptist are NOT like you, I do NOT see the difference between us as some heresy.
But, it appears like Italian Scallion, and many Islamic Fascist of the middle east, you are still in the Dark Ages and know for a fact the will of god and the truth.

Dude, stick to politics. You're much better at it than at this...

 

[SeekYeFirst]

Hello, the Space Shuttle was invented in 1980, obvously the only reason the common man has NOT had a ride on it is because baptist have plotted to keep it from the common people.

Like most new technologies, they do improve and reduce costs, but NOT right away it is gradual. It was hundreds of years after the printing press before common people could have books, and very few at that, and the first ones were the bible. Lets NOT forget, very few people could read in Dark Ages, so what is the point of giving them books?

The Catholic Church went through a period of reformation. Yes, there were abuses and custom from wrong head thinking, in every aspect of life in Europe, government, culture and religion. Why do you think they call it the DARK AGES?

Any person who studies scripture can see the following Baptist errors are undeniable heresies:

-SELF appointed ecclesiastical authorities as the final authority in matters of faith and practice.

-Rejection of Mary

-Rejection of the Saints

-Obsesion with baptism beyond what it is in the scriptures

-Faith based salvation that is exactly the bapitist faith, never meet a bapitist, you're going to hell boy.


Please most baptist are NOT like you, I do NOT see the difference between us as some heresy.

But, it appears like Italian Scallion, and many Islamic Fascist of the middle east, you are still in the Dark Ages and know for a fact the will of god and the truth.

Hi Mongo.

First of all I hope you realize there's a big difference between Baptist and Anabaptist. The Anabaptists, ancestors of the modern Mennonites and other groups, were not Protestants at all. They were a radical group that broke away from the Catholic and Protestant churches in the 1500s in central Europe, denounced by both as heretics for their belief in adult believers' baptism. For several hundred years they were imprisoned and killed for their faith. The Baptists on the other hand, are a Protestant denomination that emerged later in England with a slight Anabaptist influence.

As for your "Baptist heresies..."
-SELF appointed ecclesiastical authorities as the final authority in matters of faith and practice.
Anabaptists believe in the sole authority of Scripture, especially the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The governing of our churches is laid out in the book of Titus. No leader or authority in a church is the "final authority" in any matter. To be so would be a violation of Scripture.

-Rejection of Mary
We accept and believe in Mary as the virgin mother of Christ. She was a role model of faith and submission to God for all Christians. But she wasn't sinless or a perpetual virgin. She isn't an intercessor or the Queen of Heaven. None of that can be found anywhere in the Bible.

-Rejection of the Saints
Are we not all Saints?
1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

-Obsesion with baptism beyond what it is in the scriptures
Baptism seems to be fairly important in the Scriptures.
Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

-Faith based salvation that is exactly the bapitist faith, never meet a bapitist, you're going to hell boy.

(I've met plenty of Baptists who think I'm going to hell. )

The Catholics err on one side (works & tradition) the Protestants on the other ("Faith Only")... According to the Bible, it takes God's grace and our faith (which is manifested through repentance and true works) to be saved and then to endure in our salvation.

 

[Mongo53]

Ask a Baptist.

I only ask, because you personal seem to have picked up where the Catholic Church left off and are carrying on the best thinking of the Dark Ages.

You will have to show that since that is Catholic doctrine. Exodus 34:7? "Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."

That's not a reference to individual sin, but rather judgment for sin.

With all due respect, you're a crackpot, catholic doctrine does NOT hold children responsible for their parents sin.

The command to repent is applied logic that the baptized person must be able to repent of sin. All instances of baptism in scripture are adult believers that repented.

Ummm, applied logic, so it is your interpretation. Which, if that is your interpretation, that is perfectly fine, you should act accordingly, I don't have a problem with that.

The scripture teaches we are born with an inherited sin nature, not sin itself. Do you allege that a dead unbaptized infant would face judgment for having the sin of Adam?

In Catholicism, quite the opposite. Do you allege that a dead baptized infant would face judgment for having NOT repented his/her sins? Or an baptized adult that repentance for his sins after his/her baptism? A baptized adult that repented before his/her baptism and then sinned after baptism and had NOT repented before death?

Correct.

So, the exact example of salvation taught in CCD is Correct? But Catholic beliefs in salvation is Heresy?

 

[Mongo53]

Hi Mongo.

First of all I hope you realize there's a big difference between Baptist and Anabaptist. The Anabaptists,...

...-Faith based salvation that is exactly the bapitist faith, never meet a bapitist, you're going to hell boy.

(I've met plenty of Baptists who think I'm going to hell. )

The Catholics err on one side (works & tradition) the Protestants on the other ("Faith Only")... According to the Bible, it takes God's grace and our faith (which is manifested through repentance and true works) to be saved and then to endure in our salvation.

Thank You SeekYeFirst, I hope you realize that was a sarcastic rebuttal to anabaptist individual points, thus the at the end, NOT a condemnation of anabaptist or baptist. I've met baptist that thought I was going to hell as well, but most are more tolerant and enlightened, and realized they have no more corner on the truth than others they disagree with.

Yes, as you can tell, I thought the screen name "anabaptist" was some sort of variation on Baptist, not the actual religion Anabaptist. I'll confess that I ignorantly thought those calling themselves Anabaptist (NOT Mennonite, Amish, etc) were so rare in this country, that it didn't even occur to me it was an actual Anabaptist, but instead someone using some sort of combination of their religion name and something else of significance to them. e.g. a person named "ana" that was a "baptist".

 

[SeekYeFirst]

Thank You SeekYeFirst, I hope you realize that was a sarcastic rebuttal to anabaptist individual points, thus the at the end, NOT a condemnation of anabaptist or baptist. I've met baptist that thought I was going to hell as well, but most are more tolerant and enlightened, and realized they have no more corner on the truth than others they disagree with.

Yes, as you can tell, I thought the screen name "anabaptist" was some sort of variation on Baptist, not the actual religion Anabaptist. I'll confess that I ignorantly thought those calling themselves Anabaptist (NOT Mennonite, Amish, etc) were so rare in this country, that it didn't even occur to me it was an actual Anabaptist, but instead someone using some sort of combination of their religion name and something else of significance to them. e.g. a person named "ana" that was a "baptist".

Someone earlier on on this thread was complaining that Catholics are always having to defend your faith and the rest of us get a free pass. I realize you were being sarcastic about the Baptist faith part (although it gets a little too close to the truth for some I know!) My personal belief is that God gives grace for different interpretations of Scripture to an extent, but there are certain fundamentals of salvation that can't be tampered with. The belief that we are saved only by the grace of God and not by our own works is one of them. So is the belief that repentance and good works are necessary fruits of a true Christian.

We do not agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic church because they do not line up with Scripture which is our final authority. We know we (maybe!) don't have the corner on truth, but the Bible says to confront heresies contrary to what has been passed down to us.

Anabaptist is my boyfriend, and like his username says, we really are Anabaptists. Not Mennonite or Amish (although I come from a Mennonite family, my background is evangelical and his actually is fundamental Baptist) as we believe that too much empty tradition has crept into those churches over the centuries and clouded the zeal they once had. A lot of people from the old churches are experiencing revival and many who are disillusioned with the mainstream Protestant churches are seeking a more basic, practical Christianity. The Anabaptist movement in North America is small but growing.

 

[Mongo53]

Someone earlier on on this thread was complaining that Catholics are always having to defend your faith and the rest of us get a free pass.

Maybe in religious forums, anywhere else, its from anti-religious zealots, just the same as all the other Christians. Only in places that attract passionate religious people have I ever seen any kind of anti-catholic sentiment, and only a few die-hards that insist on telling people Catholics aren't Christians or something nearly as insulting. Usually, their interpretation of Scriptures and the differences, leads them to this conclusion. As well as an obsession with medieval period and taking history out of context, as if the church was the only entity suffering massive dysfunction during the period, which it was all elements of medieval society.

Look at the mid-east, that region has never left the medieval period, and it is NOT just their religious institutions, its all elements of their society and their medieval attitudes that create the massive dysfunction you see there.

The belief that we are saved only by the grace of God and not by our own works is one of them. So is the belief that repentance and good works are necessary fruits of a true Christian.

The Catholics teachings are worded differently, but is essentially the same as you say.

We do not agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic church because they do not line up with Scripture which is our final authority. We know we (maybe!) don't have the corner on truth, but the Bible says to confront heresies contrary to what has been passed down to us.

That is where Catholics differ with many denominations, our interpretations of scriptures is more liberal, more focused on the central truth then a by the word interpretation.

Catholic teachings, although it evolved like the other denominations over the centuries, for the last 50 years, if someone from another denomination accepts Jesus through baptism, they are to be considered our brothers.

...we really are Anabaptists. Not Mennonite or Amish (although I come from a Mennonite family, my background is evangelical and his actually is fundamental Baptist)... ...The Anabaptist movement in North America is small but growing.

Out of curiosity, how large? Several thousand? Ten's of Thousand?

Honestly, I thought Anabaptist were extremely rare, I thought (probably incorrectly) only the Mennonite and Amish remained in any real numbers.

 

[Anabaptist]

With all due respect, you're a crackpot, catholic doctrine does NOT hold children responsible for their parents sin.

Name calling is a sign of having no credible argument. If what you say is true, the burden of proof is on you to describe why an infant needs to be baptized to wash original sin if sin is not inherited.

Ummm, applied logic, so it is your interpretation. Which, if that is your interpretation, that is perfectly fine, you should act accordingly, I don't have a problem with that.

And it's your interpretation to add to God's Word as the serpent did in the garden.

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)

In Catholicism, quite the opposite. Do you allege that a dead baptized infant would face judgment for having NOT repented his/her sins? Or an baptized adult that repentance for his sins after his/her baptism? A baptized adult that repented before his/her baptism and then sinned after baptism and had NOT repented before death?

By your own admission the infant baptism is meaningless.

 

[Anabaptist]

Thank You SeekYeFirst, I hope you realize that was a sarcastic rebuttal to anabaptist individual points, thus the at the end, NOT a condemnation of anabaptist or baptist. I've met baptist that thought I was going to hell as well, but most are more tolerant and enlightened, and realized they have no more corner on the truth than others they disagree with.

Yes, as you can tell, I thought the screen name "anabaptist" was some sort of variation on Baptist, not the actual religion Anabaptist. I'll confess that I ignorantly thought those calling themselves Anabaptist (NOT Mennonite, Amish, etc) were so rare in this country, that it didn't even occur to me it was an actual Anabaptist, but instead someone using some sort of combination of their religion name and something else of significance to them. e.g. a person named "ana" that was a "baptist".

To be fair, anyone could call themselves an Anabaptist. Many apply that title to themselves and many of them believe completely different!

 

[Anabaptist]

Out of curiosity, how large? Several thousand? Ten's of Thousand?

Honestly, I thought Anabaptist were extremely rare, I thought (probably incorrectly) only the Mennonite and Amish remained in any real numbers.

Well, the Mennonites and Amish alone could easily add up to tens of thousands, but the various Independent Anabaptists movements probably number in the thousands.

 

[SeekYeFirst]

The Catholics teachings are worded differently, but is essentially the same as you say.

That is where Catholics differ with many denominations, our interpretations of scriptures is more liberal, more focused on the central truth then a by the word interpretation.

Catholic teachings, although it evolved like the other denominations over the centuries, for the last 50 years, if someone from another denomination accepts Jesus through baptism, they are to be considered our brothers.

Out of curiosity, how large? Several thousand? Ten's of Thousand?

Honestly, I thought Anabaptist were extremely rare, I thought (probably incorrectly) only the Mennonite and Amish remained in any real numbers.

We would accept someone as a brother if he confesses Christ and he shows evidence of rebirth and a changed life, even if we don't necessarily agree with all his doctrines.

Honestly I couldn't even tell you how large. A. might know better. Most independent Anabaptists believe in the authority of the local church rather than denominations or any hierarchy. There are Anabaptist churches, some loosely connected by shared beliefs, scattered all across the continent. Some are fairly large, others are small house churches of a few families. And then many individual people and families share our beliefs but don't have an official church to go to.

You see the movement of Anabaptists outside the old Anabaptist churches (Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite, Brethren etc.) is fairly new in the last generation or two. It was helped along by the Charity Christian Fellowship church and their Gospel tape ministry (a lot of Anabaptist churches that share beliefs with them are informally called "Charity churches," even though they're not connected at all) and the books of David Bercot and others.

 

[Mongo53]

Name calling is a sign of having no credible argument. If what you say is true, the burden of proof is on you to describe why an infant needs to be baptized to wash original sin if sin is not inherited.

I responded to your obsession with the Dark Ages by asking you if Scriptures told you that children inherited the sins of their fathers. Seriously, you come across as if you blame today's Catholics for what went on 600 years ago.

Do you see why I sarcastically remarked you're obsessed with the sacrament of baptism. Yes, it is very important. But when I imply you're blaming people for the sins of their predecessors hundreds of years ago, through inheritance, and you then understand that as a statement of original sin and baptism, do I NOT have a point?

If you did mean, Catholic Doctrine is Children inherit the sins of their Fathers (which is what I stated), that all the argument I need, that is an absolute crackpot idea.

If you misunderstood and thought I was somehow talking about original sin. I apologize, but it is still the result of your misunderstanding.

AFA Original Sin:
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience."

Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners--for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam.

Human are born with original sin; it is NOT a personal act, but rather the condition of humans, Baptism washes away that sin and welcomes the person into the light of Christ.

And it's your interpretation to add to God's Word as the serpent did in the garden.

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)

And it's your interpretation to twist the central truth by a letter to letter interpretation of a Translation of the original text and NOT the original text itself. The devil quoted scripture verbatim as well.

By your own admission the infant baptism is meaningless.

I admitted nothing of the sort. That is your interpretation of scripture, that is fine, you should follow that, I follow my interpretation of scriptures.

 

[Radiant1]

I find it funny that later posters refer to me as a troll for stating the Roman Catholic's role in the Dark Ages and as late as the 1600's with historical accuracy.

You aren't historically accurate. Take the following as an example.

Also, it was 1229 A.D. that scripture was officially forbidden to be in the hands of laymen at the Council of Valencia.

There was no council of Valencia. There couldn't have been, for Valencia in 1229 was held by the Moors and had been for 500 years. I don't know where you are reading your anti-Catholic propaganda, but I highly suggest you double check your information before spreading it. Revisionist history indeed. :amused:

Before the Protestant Reformation the Catholic church politically ruled Europe. The rising Protestants did little for the cause of religious liberty as well. God's truth has always been preserved through His remnant. Anyway, under Catholic rule it was a capital crime to adhere to any other belief than that of the Catholic church. People were imprisoned, tortured, and put to death for having doctrine contrary to the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, Catholic was the state religion with Constantine. After the fall of Rome, all bets were off. Historically, there were pockets of "heathen" cultures and territories. Yes, God promises His truth will always be preserved. As for the "Captial crime" accusation, I assume you are referring to Spain and the inquisition? You do realize that the Catholic Church had no rights to put anyone to death, that was the monarchy that made such decisions. King Henry VIII (and others) did their share of the same, and they weren't Catholic. As I stated previously, that was the culture of the day.

The printing press was invented in 1440; therefore, in the latter end of Catholic rule there was full capability to give scripture to the common man. Yet it was only legal to have God's Word in Latin. Bibles in the native tongues of the people were burnt and those possessing them were punished, often with death. William Tyndale gave his life to give the English speaking people the scripture in a language that they can read.

Take a read and get enlghtened. This guy says it more succinctly than I could. Bible Burning and other Allegations

And what about the theological scare tactics that were used to sell indulgences? How about the selling of false relics?

What about them? It was an abuse, it was corrected. That doesn't make the Catholic Church less "true" (which was your original assertion).

The Roman Catholic Church having direct lineage to the Apostles is a lie formed by Catholic revisionists. The Roman Catholic Church began with Constantine when he adopted Christianity as his religion and made it the state religion of the Roman Empire. This marriage of church and state began the reign of the Roman Catholic Church.?

A lie? Funny, because there is historical documented evidence for such. The Catholic Church began with Jesus. All Christians were Catholics up until 1055 when the Orthodox split, and even then they have very, very similar theology. It wasn't until the Protestant Revolt 1500 years later that we see a radically different Christian theology.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it. Whether you think Jesus was talking about Christians (the church) or an organized body (the church), you're still calling Jesus a liar. But, that's your conundrum, not mine, because you don't think the Catholic Church is "true".

Jesus said "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

Yes, and? I suggest you get with the program.

God's people are not whole kingdoms or political giants. God's people are a remnant, and they seek a city whose builder and maker is God. This world is not there home. They belong to the kingdom of God.

Why do you limit God and His kingdom? God's people are BOTH/AND.

Btw, this repeated "remnant" talk is used by those who are on the edges of Christian theology. They have to tell themselves they're the remnant in order to justify themselves, i.e. Anabaptists.

Any person who studies scripture can see the following Roman Catholic errors are undeniable heresies:

-Human appointed ecclesiastical authorities as the final authority in matters of faith and practice.

-Adoration of Mary

-Prayers to the Saints

-Infant baptism

-Work based salvation

-Prayer for the dead

-Purgatory

And more more . . .

Oh, and here's where I call you out on your pride. I've studied scripture for the majority of my adult life (22 years), and I don't see the problem you do. So, I'd have to ask, by what authority is your interpretation correct? I'll answer for you, you have none.

You see Anabaptist, you can act like The Accuser and point your finger all you want, but it won't make a difference. Let me clue you in on something that will save a lot of on both sides. Every dialogue/debate will always come down to interpretation and authority. So, you might be wise to stick to that instead of wasting everyone's time with the other stuff.

 

[Radiant1]

First of all I hope you realize there's a big difference between Baptist and Anabaptist. The Anabaptists, ancestors of the modern Mennonites and other groups, were not Protestants at all. They were a radical group that broke away from the Catholic and Protestant churches in the 1500s

You protested the protesters (and isn't that the nature of Protestantism?) Sorry, but like it or not, that makes you a Protestant.

According to the Bible, it takes God's grace and our faith (which is manifested through repentance and true works) to be saved and then to endure in our salvation.

Correct! Catholics believe we are saved by grace, Sola Gratia. That whole "works-based" salvation is a misnomer perpetuated by anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda. And, you fell for it. Shame on you.

 

[Radiant1]

The belief that we are saved only by the grace of God and not by our own works is one of them. So is the belief that repentance and good works are necessary fruits of a true Christian.

Fancy that, you agree with the Catholic Church!

We do not agree with many of the teachings of the Catholic church because they do not line up with Scripture which is our final authority. We know we (maybe!) don't have the corner on truth, but the Bible says to confront heresies contrary to what has been passed down to us.

So you know you don't have the corner on truth, but yet are sure that your interpretation of scripture is so correct as to call Catholicism heresy. May I suggest you think and pray on that a bit?

 

[libby]

R1-you still rule! That said, it sure is nice to hear some new voices here on the forums, regardless of their positions!

 

[Radiant1]

And it's your interpretation to add to God's Word as the serpent did in the garden.

No, it's your opinion that something was added. Catholic interpretation is what it is. You don't have to agree with it or like it, and we don't particularly care if you do or not, but let's get real here. Your intepretation and opinon has no weight or authority with anyone but yourself.

"Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1)

You're not as subtle.

You see the movement of Anabaptists outside the old Anabaptist churches (Mennonite, Amish, Hutterite, Brethren etc.) is fairly new in the last generation or two. It was helped along by the Charity Christian Fellowship church and their Gospel tape ministry (a lot of Anabaptist churches that share beliefs with them are informally called "Charity churches," even though they're not connected at all) and the books of David Bercot and others.

So, it's a neo-Anabaptist movement protesting the Anabaptist movement. If you are basing your beliefs on the books of David Bercot and others, wouldn't that be considered extra-biblical?

 

[Anabaptist]

I responded to your obsession with the Dark Ages by asking you if Scriptures told you that children inherited the sins of their fathers. Seriously, you come across as if you blame today's Catholics for what went on 600 years ago.

Is it truly an obsession with the Dark Ages if most of what I'm speaking of took place after 1500 A.D.?

If you did mean, Catholic Doctrine is Children inherit the sins of their Fathers (which is what I stated), that all the argument I need, that is an absolute crackpot idea.

If "original sin" is inheriting the sins of Adam, then it would be passed through parents. Your own verse says, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." I'll deal with that further down.

AFA Original Sin:
Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me."

We take that to mean that all people are born with a sin nature. The idea that paedobaptism washes away original sin would indicate that an infant would die in sin unless they were baptized. We believe a person comes under condemnation for their personal sins, not the sins of someone else.

The Bible does not teach a baptism that washes away sin. "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" (1 Peter 3:21)

But assuming the original sin is reality, there are no examples on infant baptism in scripture. Baptism always followed belief and repentance.

Ephesians 2:2 says that all people who are not in Christ are "sons of disobedience."

"And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy;

Son

, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee." (Matthew 9:2)

What that a man or a child (son)?

Ephesians 2:3 also establishes this, saying that we are all "by nature children of wrath." If we are all "by nature children of wrath," it can only be because we are all by nature sinners--for God does not direct His wrath towards those who are not guilty. God did not create the human race sinful, but upright. But we fell into sin and became sinful due to the sin of Adam

And I agree with that completely. Being a sinner by nature does not equate original sin as in inheriting the sin of Adam. If original sin was merely being born with a sin nature, the Catholic infant baptism would have to wash away that sin nature.

The Catholic Encyclopedia defines original sin as "Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam." CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Original Sin

Human are born with original sin; it is NOT a personal act, but rather the condition of humans, Baptism washes away that sin and welcomes the person into the light of Christ.

And an infant who is not sprinkled with the right type of water at the right type of church is under condemnation if they die?

And it's your interpretation to twist the central truth by a letter to letter interpretation of a Translation of the original text and NOT the original text itself. The devil quoted scripture verbatim as well.

I find it ironic that people quote that Satan and the Pharisees quoted scripture as some avenue to get out of what the scripture is saying. If one holds to the truth they will quote scripture. Also, everything I say can be backed up with the originals.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

[Anabaptist]

You aren't historically accurate. Take the following as an example.There was no council of Valencia. There couldn't have been, for Valencia in 1229 was held by the Moors and had been for 500 years. I don't know where you are reading your anti-Catholic propaganda, but I highly suggest you double check your information before spreading it.

I have researched this further and found that information to be flawed. Ironically, the same Catholic websites that refute that also admit that there was a banning of books later in history that included non-Latin versions of the Bible. Despite all that, most of what I said can be verified by any source of history. The Roman Catholic Church did imprison, torture, and kill those that did not agree with them. Poor Galileo was tried for teaching a heliocentric universe.

As for the "Captial crime" accusation, I assume you are referring to Spain and the inquisition? You do realize that the Catholic Church had no rights to put anyone to death, that was the monarchy that made such decisions. King Henry VIII (and others) did their share of the same, and they weren't Catholic. As I stated previously, that was the culture of the day.

The Spanish Inquisition was only the latter massacre. Before that there was the Medieval Inquisition that ran from 1184-1230s A.D. Much of these persecutions were administered by local bishops, but the Episcopal Inquisition of 1184 A.D. itself was commanded by a papal bull (order of the Pope) to rid France of the Cathars. inquisition history All through Europe their is accounts of persecutions being executed by local bishops. My question is this: if the Pope did not authorize this carnage, did he vocally condemn it?

What about them? It was an abuse, it was corrected. That doesn't make the Catholic Church less "true" (which was your original assertion).

Selling random teeth, hair, body parts, chips of wood etc., as "holy relics" and using indulgences as a way to financially benefit is fraudulent and should not be so easily swept under the rug. These individuals were no more credible religious leaders than our famous Dr. Shine of Southern Maryland.

A lie? Funny, because there is historical documented evidence for such.The Catholic Church began with Jesus. All Christians were Catholics up until 1055 when the Orthodox split, and even then they have very, very similar theology. It wasn't until the Protestant Revolt 1500 years later that we see a radically different Christian theology.

According to Roman Catholics. There is little valid historical proof of the Popes before Constantine. They fill in dots to make it fit. There was a church and it gained political power in Rome, spread itself around, and was corrupted by the heresies of Augustine. That same church then began to assume that it was the church that always was. If one studies the writings of the post-Apostles Christian leaders, the church was more "catholic" in some ways than the ones that came out of the Protestant rebellion (merely reforming an apostate church to make new apostate churches), but they were not what the Catholics are today. It's also worth noting that some of the same doctrinal controversies we may have today, were present in the early church; therefore, you can conflicting messages in early writings. The Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot take an unbiased look at their teachings.

I'm sorry, but there's just no way around it. Whether you think Jesus was talking about Christians (the church) or an organized body (the church), you're still calling Jesus a liar. But, that's your conundrum, not mine, because you don't think the Catholic Church is "true".

Nope. Jesus had a lineage of believers from then and now. It's assumed that everyone was Catholic at one time and that is simply not true. You assume the lineage is through what you see as the church and all others were heretics, but the Apostle Paul struggled with churches going corrupt in his day. Are the Pauline Epistles nothing but lies?

If one has a large universal church with great political power they call Jesus a liar. Jesus said "few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:14)

Yes, and? I suggest you get with the program.

What program? The one with over a billion followers? That doesn't sound like a narrow way to me.

Why do you limit God and His kingdom? God's people are BOTH/AND.

It's limiting according to your logic. "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." (John 18:36)

Did Jesus limit his kingdom?

Btw, this repeated "remnant" talk is used by those who are on the edges of Christian theology. They have to tell themselves they're the remnant in order to justify themselves, i.e. Anabaptists.

What does being on the edge mean anyway?

Oh, and here's where I call you out on your pride. I've studied scripture for the majority of my adult life (22 years), and I don't see the problem you do. So, I'd have to ask, by what authority is your interpretation correct? I'll answer for you, you have none.

I try not to be prideful, but I'll speak the truth of God's word plainly. My interpretation is based on believing that God's word is true without man's opinion as my guide, prayer to be lead in truth, and the guiding of the Holy Spirit.

I studied scripture for over 20 years through Baptist goggles. It was after prayer and searching that I found Baptist theology has many errors. I'm open to being wrong, but I feel what I see as Catholic errors are indeed extra-biblical.

As long as you "love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength," (Mark 12:30) I cannot condemn you personally for having doctrines that I disagree with.

Let me clue you in on something that will save a lot of : on both sides. Every dialogue/debate will always come down to interpretation and authority. So, you might be wise to stick to that instead of wasting everyone's time with the other stuff.

I've been there done that. I'm feeling the water at this point. I might not stick around. Some debates can be a waste of both people's time. I obviously disagree with you on authority and interpretation based on authority, so most discussions will come back to that. I've talked with a lot of Catholics, but the Lord taught me to be nicer than I was back then.

 

[Anabaptist]

You protested the protesters (and isn't that the nature of Protestantism?) Sorry, but like it or not, that makes you a Protestant.

By Catholic use of the word, but not a reformer. We believe in separating rather than reforming. But I can almost predict the answer.

Correct! Catholics believe we are saved by grace, Sola Gratia. That whole "works-based" salvation is a misnomer perpetuated by anti-Catholic Protestant propaganda. And, you fell for it. Shame on you.

It probably doesn't help that the average Catholic that you meet is defensive about the Catholic Church, but know very little about true Catholic theology.

 

[Anabaptist]

No, it's your opinion that something was added. Catholic interpretation is what it is.

If you have theology and it's practice is found no where in scripture it is either:

1. Theology with no scriptural basis.

2. Created by combining multiple scriptural principles.

Your intepretation and opinon has no weight or authority with anyone but yourself.

That's true and I choose to believe that the Bible is the word of God; therefore, I should "let God be true, but every man a liar." (Romans 3:4)

You're not as subtle.

When considering that we are speaking of Satan, that is a compliment.

So, it's a neo-Anabaptist movement protesting the Anabaptist movement.

Much of the people she is speaking of would be shy to even use the term Anabaptist, but they would hold many of the Amish and Mennonites to be dear brethren. The issue with these churches is their loss of Anabaptist fire. The Anabaptists went all over Europe preaching the gospel; whereas, the modern leftovers of the Anabaptists stay in their own little communities. (evangelism is even forbidden in some Amish communities) Some of these church hang rigorous rules on the people and make them fear leaving the church. Many trust in obedience to the church for salvation. These Anabaptist movements, especially the "Charity," have many ex-Amish and Mennonites among them. It's for of an Anabaptist revival movement.

If you are basing your beliefs on the books of David Bercot and others, wouldn't that be considered extra-biblical?

Only if you allow those books to influence you beyond the clear teachings of scripture. David Bercot has many interesting insights on the teachings of the early church, some have made him unpopular in Anabaptist churches. All in all, the Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.