Testimony

John 16:13...

Just one verse among many of course.

You...

Oh, my word.

You are deluded, my friend.

 

Can you back your view up?
Did the Crusades liberate people? How about the Inquisitions? Have you read "Foxes Book of Martyr's" lately? You should. Rome liberates souls? How do you come to that conclusion?

When the Bible distinctly says that the Holy Spirit is our teacher, how do you say he isn't?

1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
--The verse is speaking of the Holy Spirit.

"Fantasize over Scripture"? Is this a euphemism that indicates that you just don't read your Bible?

 

Two of the crudades did if fact liberate the citizens of Jerusalem from the rule of Muslims. 1st and 5th (if my memory serves me correctly). Liberated from the jizya and multitudes of other persecutions for simply claiming identity with Christ and the church.

 

One of them decimated a peace-loving Bible-believing group known as the Albigenses.
Do you condone the spread of Christianity by the sword?
Is this the way you would preach the gospel?
The Crusades went forth in the name of Christ! What they did in the name of Christ was blasphemous--far more blasphemous than any doctor today praying over an infant and performing an abortion in the name of Christ. Would you agree with that as well? What kind of Christians advocate such murderous and barbaric methods of "spreading the gospel"?

 

No, I dont....and more importantly YOU KNOW I dont.
Was it not the Albigenses who practiced infanticide in order to use the ashes of those burned alive for religious practices?

 

No I don't believe so. Even if they were the J.W.'s of today does that give the RCC the right to exterminate them? Is Christianity spread by the sword no matter what a person believes? Whatever happened to soul liberty? Oh yeah, I forgot; The RCC does not believe in that Biblical concept, also one of the foundational principles that America was founded on called "freedom of religion" and "tolerance for others."

 

There is no right of anyone to spread any "faith" anywhere anytime by the sword. The Crusades, was as much about politics and world influence and power etc. The involvement of the "catholic church" took more than 400 years of Islamic persecution before Crusades were called.

 

No. That is false. The Crusades were instituted at will whenever they deemed it necessary to do so. They were fully intended to spread Christianity by force. Let me give you an example:

http://janamejayan.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/the-inquisition-francis-xavier-sonias-upa-government/

I can give you many references about the Crusade, rather the Inquisition that Xavier ordered at Goa, India. This is how he spread Christianity. It was be baptized by the sword, or die. They were forced conversions. The only reasons for the pain, sufferings, and death was that they would not be baptized, would not convert to the RCC brand of Christianity. This was Xavier's method of bringing "Christianity" to India, and sadly he was made a "saint" for it.

The native Indians lived peaceably with the Muslims. It was the RCC that was their enemy, so-called Christianity.

 

I don't call myself a Landmarker, but I do admit to having some Landmark tendencies.

I hold to church perpetuity, but would not go to the mat over succession. Although the evidence is thin, I do think succession is possible. My former pastor said it this way:
"If you see wagon wheel tracks going into a pond, and tracks coming out of the pond, you can be pretty sure the wagon was in the pond."

Because Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against his church, I believe that there have always been true New Testament churches, and Baptist can rightly claim kinship with them.

Baptists were around before the Reformation. Most others were not. That's why Baptists are not Protestants.

 

I believe basically the same thing.
Carroll in his book "The Trail of Blood" says that God never left himself without a witness; that in every generation from the apostles onward there were believers that held to the same basic beliefs as Baptists do today, though they were called by other names.

That is the position of most IFB pastors that I know, and they aren't Landmarkist.

 

Guess I am a bad landmarkist........I came up through the Church of England, was baptized by the Plymouth Brethren and became a baptist by decree of the National Baptist Churches of England........

Maybe I can slip in.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim, it is a pretty dry cut simple position. I think you would agree that there are minimal essentials for a person to be recognized as a Christian by Baptists. A profession of an experience with God where there was true repentance and faith in the gospel manifested by a changed life. Pretty basic!

Likewise, there are some minimal essentials for saved persons to recognized as a New Testament assembly. Where there is no true gospel there is only an "accursed" church (Gal. 1:8-9). Where there is no true baptism there is no true church as there is no church in the New Testament consisting of unbaptized believers. Where there is no essential faith and order there is only a departure from "the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 3:6).

 

Doc, I left your entire post here quoted. It's clear that the the inablitity to answer my question reasonably (which in truth I expected better of you.) and your responce to my post has left me with one conclusion of your reply. Cop-out. You can niether explain to me how your interpretation of scripture is superior. You seem not to grasp the exception to the rule yet you don't hold Calvin to that standard for in fact he has no exception to the rule. Circular reasoning that Priccilla accused washed out because she starts with the Catholic Church rather than the apostles.
Unfortunately, unlike myself you can't seem to debate the catholic question honestly. I can even give an atheist a fair shake with out resulting in insults. Catholicism has its problems so that there is no need to invent problems that are only existant in the mind of the accusor rather than in reality. Choose the real issues before making others.

 

In order to discuss each of these issues you first need to understand what each is talking about. Once you've determine what is actually being said then you can speak against it in a reasonable fashion. Let me take the first one off the list.
Papal infalliblity. What is it really? Simple. First I will tell you what it is not. It doesn't mean 1) the pope is a good person or perfect 2) doesn't mean he doesn't make mistatakes. 3) Doesn't meant he won't say off the wall things. 4) Doesn't even mean he understands things perfectly. Now that is out of the way what is it saying? That when the pope teaches something or makes a statement of something regarding faith and morals that have been consistently taught over the centuries and he does so ex cathedra or from the chair that it is done so infallibly. What are the requirements? I've bolded them for you. Anyone of these failing the teaching does not meet the requirement of infallibility. In otherword the Pope is prohibited by what he can teach. He cannot teach anything apart from the deposit. What are the scripture verses Catholics use for this?

Now that was just the first doctrine imagine the rest. Transubstantiation is too easy. The rest can also be addressed.

Also I would say the majority of Catholics don't even know their own faith. In Fact my father was lamenting about this to me. He has been a life long catholic and has studied at Jesuit universities. Most Catholics are secular unfortunately and aren't even properly Catachized. So what is practiced and believed by most catholics are what I call the Myth of the Church rather than what the church actually teaches. This is why you have a gazillion catholics looking for Mary in oil slicks. The church teaches against this. This is why the majority of Catholic practice birth Control against the teachings of the church. This is why the majority of Catholics see no problem in supporting abortion and become incensed when a bishop prohibits them from recieving communion like Palosi, or Biden. The plain truth is the Majority of Catholics don't believe the Catholic Church and believe and do what they want carrying the vestiges of belief. But they are no more Christian than an atheist. If you want me to go in detail about each of these matters I will show you what the catholic church believes. Not what people think it means. Big difference.

 

So you can confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is lord and then murder people and you're saved? Or have tons of illigitament children and your saved? Get drunk and drive and kill a family and are saved? I think this type of salvation is an affront to Christianity.

 

You obvously have no Idea about babylonian mystery religions. I do however. I 've read the ancient summerian text. I've read zoharatrian works. You have a lot of research to do before you can compare two things you know absolutely nothing about.

 

Unfortunatley, Most Catholics I know find themselves in this mess. They are just secular people kind of like back row baptist. No difference.

 

See this is what happens when you ignore actual history you have to buy into a fantasy history. There is no evidence of a Landmarkist view of historical events.

 

LOL Jim......has anyone called you a Catholic yet? Sure to happen eventually.... nudge; wink! :smilewinkgrin::laugh:

 

Cmon Thinkingstuff, surely you have read "Trail of Blood".