PUC church..........What is it?

[GreenEyedLady]

Bleechers-
Here is your chance to explain what the PUC is. I am very confused!

Thanks In advance
GEL

[Cary.Melvin]

Bleechers-
Here is your chance to explain what the PUC is. I am very confused!

Thanks In advance
GELI think it is a surreptitious dig at the Catholic Church. I believe that Bleechers is a former Catholic and has some hard feelings about the Catholic faith.

[bleechers]

I think it is a surreptitious dig at the Catholic Church

A. Nowhere on the PUC page do I mention the Catholic Church.
B. What particular doctrines of the PUC do you find objectionable?
C. Are the doctrines of the PUC compatible with Evangelical Christianity?

The PUC was created for Evangelicals (I'm a Baptist, this is a Baptist room) to compare with the gospel we preach. If the PUC has objectionable doctrines I merely point to other faiths that have similar (identicle?) doctrines. If there is something in the doctrines of the Catholic Church that you find as a parallel, well that is for you to work out.

Hope this helps!!

:)

:cool:

[kayanne]

I'd been wondering about this too. What does PUC even stand for? (I mean the 3 letters, not what it stands for in principle). Where can I read more about this?

[KennySe]

Bleecher provided this website http://michaelscotto.com/articles/plymouth.html which is an introduction to the faith called The Plymouth Universal Church (PUC).

[kayanne]

Never mind....I found the link on another page. I was taking your signature seriously, though it did seem rather outrageous, and I have to assume others surfing here may also. Not the wisest way to make your point, imo.

[bleechers]

I was taking your signature seriously, though it did seem rather outrageous,

What's so outrageous? Do you have a problem with faiths that teach such doctrines?

and I have to assume others surfing here may also. Not the wisest way to make your point, imo.

Apparently not. You made my point by calling my signature "outrageous." Are you a "Plymouthist basher"? Your statement isn't very respectful.

There are lines to be drawn for the sake of the gospel. Would you want a PUC minister to come to your Baptist church (this is a Baptist room) to preach from your pulpit? If not, why not? What do you find objectionable?

Would like to form an alliance with the PUC? If so, why? If not, why not?

:confused:

[Miss Shelby]

bleechers,

Is the PUC Church a legitimate Church or is that website a parody?

Michelle

[Crazy Liz]

He already said in the other thread it is a name he made up to get around the forum rules against bashing other churches. Since it's not a real church, he can bash it all he wants, and indirectly bash the Roman Catholic Church, while claiming everything he says is perfectly innocent and consistent with the forum rules.

[Cary.Melvin]

I think Bleechers may have asperations of becoming the first Baptist Pope. You guys had better watch him.;)

[Miss Shelby]

He already said in the other thread it is a name he made up to get around the forum rules against bashing other churches. Since it's not a real church, he can bash it all he wants, and indirectly bash the Roman Catholic Church, while claiming everything he says is perfectly innocent and consistent with the forum rules.
Ahhh... thanks Liz. Clever isn't he? :)

Michelle

[Filia Mariae]

He already said in the other thread it is a name he made up to get around the forum rules against bashing other churches. Since it's not a real church, he can bash it all he wants, and indirectly bash the Roman Catholic Church, while claiming everything he says is perfectly innocent and consistent with the forum rules.:cry: How sad that Christians have come to this point.:prayer:

[jenptcfan]

:cry: How sad that Christians have come to this point.:prayer:I'll have to agree with you. The saddest part is that someone took a whole bunch of time to write page after page of stuff. And for what? It's not bringing anyone to Christ. It's not changing anyone's life. It's just tearing down other human beings.

[kayanne]

What's so outrageous? Do you have a problem with faiths that teach such doctrines?

Of course I have a problem with such doctrines. If I believed such doctrines, then I wouldn't attend my independent Bible church. But what my "outrageous" comment was directed at, was the fact that you would be posting here on a Baptist board with such statements outlined as your beliefs. I found it "outrageous" that a Baptist would believe such things---that was before I knew you were being sarcastic.



Apparently not. You made my point by calling my signature "outrageous." Are you a "Plymouthist basher"? Your statement isn't very respectful.
Why do you say "apparently not"? If I didn't have a problem with your signature, I wouldn't have called it outrageous. But again, my reaction was because you are supposedly Baptist, and your signature doesn't match your Baptist "label." That doesn't make me a "Plymouthist basher." There are many doctrines of many denominations that I happen to disagree with, but I don't bash those denominations. Praying for them is a much better response.

There are lines to be drawn for the sake of the gospel. Would you want a PUC minister to come to your Baptist church (this is a Baptist room) to preach from your pulpit? If not, why not? What do you find objectionable?
We would not have a preacher from "PUC," or from most real denom's for that matter. If a preacher's beliefs didn't line up with our church's doctrine, there's no way he'd be preaching in our church. Don't most churches function that way?

Would like to form an alliance with the PUC? If so, why? If not, why not?
:confused:
No. Similar to my answer to previous question.

God's Word tells us to speak the truth in love. Your whole website is intentionally filled with untruths--a farce that you made up. I know that you're trying to get around forum rules by doing it, and I think understand the point that you're trying to make (now that I know you're not being serious)....but you certainly aren't speaking the truth in love. You're speaking lies in sarcasm.

[bleechers]

How sad that Christians have come to this point

I guess you've realized that the doctrines of the PUC are EXACT reflections of Roman Catholic doctrines (including the two below). If you have a problem with the doctrines then see to your own wounds.

Which PUC doctrines are not a reflection of codified RCC doctrines? Start with the two in my signature.

I'll have to agree with you. The saddest part is that someone took a whole bunch of time to write page after page of stuff. And for what? It's not bringing anyone to Christ. It's not changing anyone's life. It's just tearing down other human beings.

The page is aimed at Christians who REFUSE to bring people to Christ. The point is that there are Baptists and other Evangelicals who refuse to recognize the doctrines of Rome that are deceiving hundreds of millions. But I can't get a conversation started on BRINGING THEM TO CHRIST because most Evangelicals won't talk about Catholic doctrines... so I created a Church I ask them to look over the doctrines of the PUC and see if these doctrines are worth contending against... are they?

"Tearing down other human beings"? How? That page is filled with doctrines similar to doctrines that are taught by a church with 1 billion adherents. Does that not bother you? Is it not "tearing other human beings" to claim what is claimed in my signaure?? Worse yet, is it not "tearing down Christ's sacrifice on Calvary"? Does it not trouble you that a group would condemn the gospel with anathema yet accept Islam as a road to heaven?

This is a Baptist room. I don't go into the Catholic room and cause trouble. My explanation of the PUC is done by request. It has proved to be a phenomenally helpful tool to open the eyes of Baptists of the need to evangelize (i.e. bring them to Jesus) groups trapped in gospel-denying systems.

Of course I have a problem with such doctrines...

This is the point. I apologize to kayanne if she did not catch the irony, but her response is exactly what I should see. We wouldn't let a PUC minister in our pulpits or on our radio shows or to lead our Bible studies, but more and more churches and ministries are opening their doors to groups that teach similar or worse doctrines. Dobson calls the Pope "the greatest Christian leader in the world"!

God's Word tells us to speak the truth in love. Your whole website is intentionally filled with untruths--a farce that you made up.

In what way? Sure I made it up, but that is irrelevant. It's the doctrines that matter. If I put a disclaimer on it (which I didn't feel was necessary in the context of my whole site) would that appease you? I'd be glad to do so, but it wouldn't change anything.

Faith is not a "group" thing, it is an individual thing. If just one person held to the doctrines of the PUC we (Baptists, this is a Baptist room remember) would want to lead them to Christ. Just because another group has palaces, gold, and millions of followers doesn't make their doctrines any better. The individuals who hold to those doctrines NEED TO BE REACHED WITH THE TRUTH.

If my appraoch offends any Baptists here, then I am sorry. But if it reveals the necessity to lead people out of similar systems into the light of the glorious gospel, then praise God.

Very few people want to touch a ministry when its goal is to reach RCs with the gospel. Churches run for cover when the "C" word comes up. The PUC is a way to let them make a determination if certain doctrines are sound without them having to see the "C" word.

RCs always (and its been done on this board) accuse Christians of ignorance and ask Baptists to keep silent because they don't know what they're taling about... well I know what I'm talking about. I debated Christians in college as a RC campus apologist... we were not debating semantics, we were debating salvation.

My goal is ignite a fire for RC souls. If the PUC makes you investigate the doctrines of the RCC and troubles your spirit for the eternal fate of their souls, then I have succeeded. If you don't think the differences are worth a defense and instill a passion for souls, then I'm of no help to you. Perhaps even the PUC is OK with you. If that's the case, it is not me who you've denied, but Christ and His work on Calvary.

I hope somebody gets it...


:cry:

:help:

[kayanne]

Does it not trouble you that a group would condemn the gospel with anathema yet accept Islam as a road to heaven?
Yes, that is troubling.


Dobson calls the Pope "the greatest Christian leader in the world"!

Could you document this?



Sure I made it up, but that is irrelevant. It's the doctrines that matter. If I put a disclaimer on it (which I didn't feel was necessary in the context of my whole site) would that appease you? I'd be glad to do so, but it wouldn't change anything.
I think that would add an element of honesty to it, and certainly clarity. There are certainly other "Christian" websites out there that I can't decide it they're serious or not--some groups are really far out there.



Very few people want to touch a ministry when its goal is to reach RCs with the gospel. Churches run for cover when the "C" word comes up.
Hmmm...that's not my experience, but maybe some churches are that way. Our church supports several missionaries who work in primarily "C" regions, ie Ireland, Brazil, Phillipines.

[bleechers]

I think that would add an element of honesty to it, and certainly clarity. There are certainly other "Christian" websites out there that I can't decide it they're serious or not--some groups are really far out there.

Agreed. For you, my dear lady, I will compose a disclaimer. :) But give me a few days to get it updated!

Hmmm...that's not my experience, but maybe some churches are that way. Our church supports several missionaries who work in primarily "C" regions, ie Ireland, Brazil, Phillipines.

Sure... way over there somewhere ;) I just can't get as many people in the USA as interested as I did only 5 or 6 years ago.

It's a funny thing... for some reason when a Christian hears that I used to be a RC, they feel the need to tell me what respect that have for some Cs...? Odd. I always think "Didn't they just hear that I was saved OUT of the RCC?" It's very strange.

That's what got me started on the PUC. I started to use that and it was very well received. Most people chuckle as I describe the PUC (with me as Michael I, etc.), then I read from RC doctrines and the solemnity hits them.

Again, the appraoch is for Evangelicals (Baptists mostly). The RCs in the room make it difficult to use without expecting some reaction... but this is a Baptist room and I have not been in the RC room...

Thanks again for the feedback and the recommendation.

As for Dobson, I'll try to get it along with the reference. Good of you to ask! :)

[GreenEyedLady]

Bleechers............. I THINK YOUR BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GEL

[Cary.Melvin]

bleechers,

I having a problem with the first line of the Plymouth Universal Church's manifesto which reads as follows:

After years of study, God has revealed the true successor to the Apostle Paul. Listed below are some of the distinctive doctrines of the PUC that Paul’s successor has spoken as God’s man on earth. I have a few questions.

1."After years of study" by whom?

2. It also states that "God has revealed the true successor to the Apostle Paul." Exactly how was this revealed? by whom? and why would a successor have to be "revealed" in the first place?

3. And also it says "Paul’s successor has spoken as God’s man on earth." Technicaly speaking Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles that spent three years with Jesus. Sure he had a spectacular revelation, but other than that he still had to learn the Gospel second hand (at least). Why should I consider Paul authoritative?

Father bleechers please help me out.

[Miss Shelby]

Bleechers............. I THINK YOUR BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GELI find it odd that you would say this, GEL. The simple fact that he had to circumvent the rules in order make his point proves that his plan was dishonest at it's inception. How can he expect people to take him seriously when he has to resort to trickery to make his point?

When I said that he was clever, I was being sarcastic.

Michelle

[eldermike]

Sure he had a spectacular revelation, but other than that he still had to learn the Gospel second hand (at least). Why should I consider Paul authoritative?

I am not in this discussion but I can't let things like this go.

Read Galations 1:1, Paul was not given the gospel by man, He's either a liar or it ture. Also read the rest of the first chapter you will find He spent 3 years in preperations. So, if not by man then He spent 3 years with Jesus.

Now, back to your discussion.
Mike

[TwinCrier]

He already said in the other thread it is a name he made up to get around the forum rules against bashing other churches. Since it's not a real church, he can bash it all he wants, and indirectly bash the Roman Catholic Church, while claiming everything he says is perfectly innocent and consistent with the forum rules.Pure Genius!!!! I am impressed Bleechers. http://christianforums.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[TomUK]

He already said in the other thread it is a name he made up to get around the forum rules against bashing other churches. Since it's not a real church, he can bash it all he wants, and indirectly bash the Roman Catholic Church, while claiming everything he says is perfectly innocent and consistent with the forum rules.

Pure Genius!!!! I am impressed Bleechers.

What's there to be impressed with?

[BBAS 64]

Chrysostom (349-407): For this reason, too, the blessed Paul spoke against those who were not disposed to respond and were not accepting the offer of salvation given them through repentance...Do you see how this amazing teacher of the world clearly taught that those who do not take proper advantage of God’s longsuffering offered to us with a view to our repentance render themselves liable to a heavier sentence and punishment? Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 25.8 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), pp. 129-130.

Chrysostom (349-407): ...provided only we are ready to proceed in line with the advice of Paul, the world’s teacher. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 25.23 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 143.

Chrysostom (349-407): The world’s teacher, blessed Paul, too said, “I would wish myself to be lost to Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 29.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 204.

Chrysostom (349-407): Listen, after all, once more to the words of the world’s teacher: “In every place raising pure hands in prayer without anger or conflict.” (1 Tim 2.8). Fathers of the Church, Vol. 82, Homilies on Genesis 18-45, Homily 30.19 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1990), p. 235

Let us be so devoted to the teacher of the world, as to follow his example as shown to us by the great "man of the Word" St. Chrysostom.

Peace to u,

BBAS

[bleechers]

A. Paul "withstood Peter to his face for he [Peter] was in the wrong."

As for the "deceiving" accusation, let me say that I have agreed to put a disclaimer on the page itself. One of the problems may have been that the link posted went straight to the page. At my site, you must first go through the "Articles" link which does contain the following:

The Plymouth Church (2004) Call Focus on the Family, there's a new pro-family church on the scene! Imagine if the church outlined in this article showed up to speak from your pulpit... I think you'd run 'em out of town. Unfortunately, the Catholic Church is not treated with such discernment. Quite the opposite, Evangelicals not only hand over their pulpits to the RCC, but their radio mics as well!

Since my site is for Evangelicals, the above serves as the explanation before entering the page. But, again, I'll add a disclaimer to the page itself just to be as clear as possible.

:)

As for the "bashing" charge... how is it "bashing" to get people to actually read what the Catholic Church teaches? That is the point of the page. Once people see that the PUC is incompatible with the gospel we (this is a Baptist room) preach, I then show them codified, Catholic doctrines from Catholic sources... that's neither deceptive nor bashing. People can then make up their own minds.

As for the rules, I believe that the RCs in this forum are far more guilty of breaking the posted rules than anything I have said. Again, I haven't been to the RC room promoting Baptist doctrine, but they're in here promoting RC doctrine...

For those of you who "get it".... thanks for the encouragement. :)

[Cary.Melvin]

Read Galations 1:1, Paul was not given the gospel by man, He's either a liar or it true.It is true that the Gospel was not given to us by man, but by Jesus Christ. So I would think it would be sufficient to say that none of us recieved the Gospel by man. At least that is the way I think about it. :blush:


Also read the rest of the first chapter you will find He spent 3 years in preperations. So, if not by man then He spent 3 years with Jesus.
I have always thought he spent the three years in training with Ananias before going to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. Again this is the way I understand it.:blush:

I could comment more, but I don't want to derail this thread.

Thanks,

[GreenEyedLady]

I find it odd that you would say this, GEL. The simple fact that he had to circumvent the rules in order make his point proves that his plan was dishonest at it's inception. How can he expect people to take him seriously when he has to resort to trickery to make his point?

When I said that he was clever, I was being sarcastic.

Michelle
If he was dishonest he would have told us there really was a PUC church. He was clear in stating what his motives and intentions are. I hardly call that dishonest.
This is not trickery but a way to get Catholics and others to look at RC doctrines and compare them to the bible without the influence of the RC.
If he had written a page with false accusations then I would have to agree with you. This is not trickey, just a way to make others (catholics and born again christians) to see just the doctrine and not the church.

His heart is in the right place and I would hardly call what he is doing NOT christlike. If anything, its taking a risk and speaking the truth which is what Christ was all about. I have yet to see him call anyone names or be anything but christlike.

The word offended is used so often in this board. The gospel was ment to offend everyone including me! If one is not offended, how can thier be a conviction? IF there is no conviction how can one be saved or know that they are sinners who need Christ?
The gospel is an offesive message, because it makes sinners look at their own sin and realize that there is nothing they can do but ask God for His forgiveness.
Christ was murdered because his message was so offensive. Christ said love they nieghbor, love starts out with the truth and if its offensive, that is a GOOD thing because that is where conviction starts.

GEL

[Miss Shelby]

If he was dishonest he would have told us there really was a PUC church. He was clear in stating what his motives and intentions are. I hardly call that dishonest.You are missing the point. He admitted he did it to get around the rules of the board, and only when point blank asked did he offer and explanation of the PUC Church. If you have to do something in order to circumvent the rules, it is dishonest. Does the ends justify the means?

I have compared the doctrines of my faith to the Bible. I am confident that the Church isn't in error.

Michelle

[bleechers]

I have compared the doctrines of my faith to the Bible. I am confident that the Church isn't in error

A. Well, your church states that you are incapable of interpreting the Bible, so where does that leave you? Don't get mad at me, it's your church's doctrine, not mine :)

B. This is a Baptist room. You are limited to merely asking questions. You might want to check the rules again yourself :)

C. Whenever asked about the PUC within a post I explain the method to my madness. Again (this being a BAPTIST room), the concept was created by a Baptist primarily for Baptists as noted elsewhere in this Baptist forum. :)

D. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that people would "get" that the PUC was a parody. And, again, the main Articles page at my sight clearly notes that it is made up. :)

E. I'm surprised that nobody has commented on my "The Last Supper of the Christ" article...? Not that I should have to say this, but that's a parody too. Oh goodness, I shouldn't have mentioned it! Forget I said anything. ;)

[Cary.Melvin]

B. This is a Baptist room. You are limited to merely asking questions. You might want to check the rules again yourself :)

bleechers,

I am still waiting on answers on my questions to you.

[Miss Shelby]

Hi bleechers. You made me smile today. A. Well, your church states that you are incapable of interpreting the Bible, so where does that leave you? Don't get mad at me, it's your church's doctrine, not mine :)
Isn't it the job of the Holy Spirit to do that? Does your Church doctrine indicate to you when you are interpreting it accurately, or when you are going off on whimsical pride frenzy, thinking that the HS is leading you, but really isn't? How do you tell the difference?

B. This is a Baptist room. You are limited to merely asking questions. You might want to check the rules again yourself :)
Thank you for the reminder. I will limit myself, from this point on to asking questions.


D. I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that people would "get" that the PUC was a parody. And, again, the main Articles page at my sight clearly notes that it is made up. :)My deepest apologies. I was under the impression that you were using the website in order to make points that you aren't able to make without attacking another's faith.

E. I'm surprised that nobody has commented on my "The Last Supper of the Christ" article...? Not that I should have to say this, but that's a parody too. Oh goodness, I shouldn't have mentioned it! Forget I said anything. ;)Actually, I didn't spend much time at the website. A cursory glance at it was enough for me.

Michelle

[KristiXP]

One simple question from me, is there a point to this thread?

[Crazy Liz]

Once people see that the PUC is incompatible with the gospel we (this is a Baptist room) preach, I then show them codified, Catholic doctrines from Catholic sources... that's neither deceptive nor bashing. People can then make up their own minds.

This is a Baptist/Anabaptist/Quaker room. IOW, it is for all Free Church Protestants who don't have another room specifically assigned to them. (If I am mischaracterizing the rules, I hope the mods will correct me, since there has been a little discussion of which denominations fit here. My point is that it's not just for Baptists.)

Anyway, I firmly belong to the Free Church Protestant tradition. As I have moved from place to place in my life, I have always, since my baptism in 1968, been a member of a church within one of the Free Church Protestant traditions.

Yet I strongly disagree with some Baptist doctrines. Since I disagree with some of your doctrines, should I go around claiming you are deceived and need to be evangelized? (BTW, isn't saying someone needs to be evangelized an indirect way of saying that person is not a Christian?)

Are you so sure your own doctrine is without error?

There are some things about PUC (no, let's be real here, RCC) doctrine I am unable to accept. I think the EOC makes a much better case for collegiality of bishops, compared to the RCC pope. I think I'll stop there because I think the RCC and EOC are approaching each other, and although it may take a few hundred years for them to come to terms, by the time they do, they will have had to deal positively with just about all the RCC doctrines I find objectionable. So I have hope. Unlike most Baptists, I'm not in a hurry for every error to be corrected in the next five minutes. I don't think everyone who has erroneous ideas about religious matters is on their way to hell.

Now, I'm not sure whether the above statement is consistent with the gospel you Baptists preach ;), but it is consistent with the gospel preached by many within the Free Church Protestant tradition.

[II Paradox II]

It is true that the Gospel was not given to us by man, but by Jesus Christ. So I would think it would be sufficient to say that none of us recieved the Gospel by man. At least that is the way I think about it. :blush:
The issue here is that you're shifting the definitions of what it means to have the gospel "given to you". Galatians is talking about the method by which he received the gospel, through direct revelation of God, while you are talking about who made the gospel possible (i.e... the "gospel" or good news is possible because of Christ). We do not receive direct personal revelation as Paul did, but mediated revelation though the scriptures and other people. Paul's point is that his knowledge of the gospel was not primarily mediated through other human beings or writings.

I have always thought he spent the three years in training with Ananias before going to Jerusalem to see Peter and James. Again this is the way I understand it.:blush:
It doesn't really say. It does however talk at length about the supernatural way Paul's knowledge was gained. In fact, the point of his entire argument would seem to go against your perspective here because Paul is arguing about how man's ideas had nothing to do with His gospel, coming, as it were, straight from the Lord. His whole point is that his views came directly from the Lord.

ken

[KennySe]

If he was dishonest he would have told us there really was a PUC church. He was clear in stating what his motives and intentions are. I hardly call that dishonest.
Christ?

He was clear to you?

Then why the OP?


PUC church..........What is it?

Bleechers-
Here is your chance to explain what the PUC is. I am very confused!

You may have noticed that *I* provided the link to his article on *this* thread.
I was being NICE by not making YOU to look like a fool for not checking the site out yourself to see that it was a parody.
So, I provided the link and the claim of the page (exact wording).

But, yes, I had checked out his site and seen his various articles.

And while he was "clear in stating what his motives and intentions are", you were somehow "very confused!"

[bleechers]

Oklee-Doklee [Everybody note: PARODY ahead... so smile...]

1."After years of study" by whom?

The exalted Band from Plymouth; Chosen by God as the sole interpreters of scripture. Since Paul corrected Peter's doctrine in Galatians 2, we know that Paul's successor is therefore superior to Peter's. As Michael I, I have been given revelations and traditions that are superior to scripture. As Pius IX in 1854 revealed the revelation of Mary's immaculate conception, so in 1994, Michael I revealed his supremacy over all and his infallibility. His pronouncements are superior to scripture and he is incapable of error (unlike Peter).

If you try to read your Bible on your own, you will fall into grave error. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one. :)


2. It also states that "God has revealed the true successor to the Apostle Paul." Exactly how was this revealed? by whom? and why would a successor have to be "revealed" in the first place?

Well, since you are incapable of interpreting the scriptures for yourself, you'll just have to accept this from the chair of Michael I.

The scripture (Paul) clearly states that those in sin are to be "put out of the assembly and treated as unbelievers... do not even eat with such." Since many of the supposed successors to the Apostles were fornicators, adulterers, murderers and worse, we know that the seat of the Apostles has been empty. God revealed through the infallible Michael I, that he is indeed Paul's Successor and superior to Peter.


3. And also it says "Paul’s successor has spoken as God’s man on earth." Technicaly speaking Paul was not one of the original 12 apostles that spent three years with Jesus. Sure he had a spectacular revelation, but other than that he still had to learn the Gospel second hand (at least). Why should I consider Paul authoritative?

He did not learn it "second hand." He said that his doctrines came directly from the Lord (see this covered on my most holy Blog). In fact, he clearly states that he did not have to go to Cephas (Peter for his doctrines or the gospel). He corrected Peter who had strayed from the gospel.

Galatians 1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-17
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2,23
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you...For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...

Note: I added the underlines... but they are infallible too... ;)

Father bleechers please help me out.

"Call no man on earth, your father." ;)

[Frankie]

bleechers, your just confusing me.

[KristiXP]

bleechers, what is the point of the PUC, who is it directed at (if any)?

[bleechers]

hello, frankie:

It's PARODY to make a POINT :)

what's confusing, Frankie? If you haven't followed, JUST TO BE CLEAR, there is no real PUC and I'm an Evangelical, born-again Baptist...

My page, like the above, is just a way for all of us to consider certain teachings without our prejudices (pro or con) that get in the way when names are attached. If you read my page of the above in that light, it might help the confusion.

I am openly Evangelical and openly Baptist. This thread was started by someone asking for me to explain my PUC approach to my ministry (equipping Evangelicals with some info and a desire to see souls saved). For many this has been a successful way of doing that without personal feelings getting in the way. We can look at things (doctrines) objectively...

If there is a particlular point that needs clarifying or explaining... ask away... and above all, please SMILE as you do it!

:)

[KennySe]

This thread was started by someone asking for me to explain my PUC approach to my ministry (equipping Evangelicals with some info and a desire to see souls saved).

Is that what GEL did in the OP, ask you to explain your PUC approach to ministry?

[bleechers]

isn't saying someone needs to be evangelized an indirect way of saying that person is not a Christian?)

Ummm, yes.

:)

Can't help it, that's what evangelization is...

[Frankie]

hello, frankie:

It's PARODY to make a POINT :)

what's confusing, Frankie? If you haven't followed, JUST TO BE CLEAR, there is no real PUC and I'm an Evangelical, born-again Baptist...

My page, like the above, is just a way for all of us to consider certain teachings without our prejudices (pro or con) that get in the way when names are attached. If you read my page of the above in that light, it might help the confusion.

I am openly Evangelical and openly Baptist. This thread was started by someone asking for me to explain my PUC approach to my ministry (equipping Evangelicals with some info and a desire to see souls saved). For many this has been a successful way of doing that without personal feelings getting in the way. We can look at things (doctrines) objectively...

If there is a particlular point that needs clarifying or explaining... ask away... and above all, please SMILE as you do it!

:)I was just confused as to what your beliefs and teachings really were. Your signiture makes it sounds as if you do not hold to the beliefs that you really do. Now that I know it is a parody, it makes sense to me but before, it did not. I am just wondering if this approach might just confuse people more than get your point across from the start.

p.s. I am smiling as I write this. hehe http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_200.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001)

[KennySe]

I was just confused as to what your beliefs and teachings really were. Your signiture makes it sounds as if you do not hold to the beliefs that you really do. Now that I know it is a parody, it makes sense to me but before, it did not. I am just wondering if this approach might just confuse people more than get your point across from the start.

Why were you confused?
Didn't you read the OP of this thread which "was started by someone asking for me [bleechers] to explain my PUC approach to my ministry (equipping Evangelicals with some info and a desire to see souls saved)."?

[bleechers]

Isn't it the job of the Holy Spirit to do that?

Yes. Jesus said that he would lead to truth. Unfortunately, certain (unamed) churches claim that its adherents are incapable of interpreting the scripture, thereby rendering the ministry of the Holy Spirit (promised to all believers) useless.


Does your Church doctrine indicate to you when you are interpreting it accurately, or when you are going off on whimsical pride frenzy, thinking that the HS is leading you, but really isn't?

I don't believe what I believe because the Baptists tell me that "this is truth, we're infallible, so be quiet." No, i chose to worship as a Baptist because they most closely reflect what I understand to be the truth as taught in scripture.

It is I who must answer to God for what I did with His word, not my Pastor to answer for me. :)

How do you tell the difference?

How does the Magisterium tell the difference? How come they have contradicted each other again and again? (these are rhetorical questions).

The Holy Spirit has said this in the scripture: "The Bereans were more noble than the Thessalonicans for they searched the scriptures daily whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11).

What "things"? Paul's preaching. So if PAUL's preaching was subject to scripture review by Gentiles (without Peter mind you) and the Holy Spirit commends them, how much more do we need to check out everybody we hear by the scripture!

Paul says that the scriptures are able to make even a child "wise unto salvation." I can disagree with my brothers on a lot of things, but when it comes to "the simplicity which is in Christ" (2 Cor 11), I can fellowship with many.

Paul warns of those who would make that simplicity into a complexity and they would present themselves as "ministers of righteousness" to deceive.

Thanks for asking!! :)

[Cary.Melvin]

Oklee-Doklee [Everybody note: PARODY ahead... so smile...]

The exalted Band from Plymouth; Chosen by God as the sole interpreters of scripture. Since Paul corrected Peter's doctrine in Galatians 2, we know that Paul's successor is therefore superior to Peter's. As Michael I, I have been given revelations and traditions that are superior to scripture. As Pius IX in 1854 revealed the revelation of Mary's immaculate conception, so in 1994, Michael I revealed his supremacy over all and his infallibility. His pronouncements are superior to scripture and he is incapable of error (unlike Peter).

If you try to read your Bible on your own, you will fall into grave error. You're just gonna have to trust me on this one. :)

Well, since you are incapable of interpreting the scriptures for yourself, you'll just have to accept this from the chair of Michael I.
I am afraid before I can accept your authority, I am going to have to have further evidence that this revelation of God is genuine. Seeing that you appeared out of nowhere after 2000 years, Your claims appear very suspicious.


He did not learn it "second hand." He said that his doctrines came directly from the Lord (see this covered on my most holy Blog). In fact, he clearly states that he did not have to go to Cephas (Peter for his doctrines or the gospel). He corrected Peter who had strayed from the gospel.

Galatians 1:11-12
But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:15-17
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2,23
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you...For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you...

Note: I added the underlines... but they are infallible too... ;)
Seeing that the quotes you cited are by the same person that you are claiming to have authority, Those quotes will have to be considered inadmissible as evidence. If the church that I currently go to didn't say (infallibly by the way) that those letters by Paul were the inerrant word of God, I probably wouldn't even consider them to be scripture for lack of corroborating evidence. And come to think of it the only way we know that Paul had any revelation by Jesus was by the Book of Acts written by Luke, based on hearsay evidence.

On the other hand, Peter was given the Keys to Kingdom of Heaven and the authority to bind and loose in Heaven and Earth in the Book of Mathew who was a direct relatively uninterested witness and further corroborated in the Book of John (another relatively uninterested direct witness) when Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep.

(Can you tell that I am a very skeptical Catholic? Is that a oxymoron?)


"Call no man on earth, your father." ;)Ok.... Lord bleechers help me understand your authority.

[Mary_Magdalene]

Amen Bleechers!! Some Rep points on their way!

I am a Baptist, Born Again and Ex-Catholic.

Do you have any opinion on who the Anti-Christ will be (or is). I would love to hear your thoughts.... is there anything on your website about this?

Thanks.

[bleechers]

Well Cary.Melvin... tempting as it might be, this board is not the place for this... take it to the debate boards :)

In short (for Baptist consideration) :):

* The Councils that added their worthless blessings to the canon didn't meet until 3 centuries after the canon was completed... and even then there was no debate because the 27 NT books were already accepted as canonical. Read Eusebius.

* The OT was already accepted. The Council of Trent didn't add the Apocrypha until c. AD 1564.

I am going to have to have further evidence that this revelation of God is genuine.

How are you gonna tell? Your church tells you that you can't understand the scriptures so you can't go there... they also claim infallibility (c. 1870) so you can't disagree with them... and you can't go to the scriptures to see if that claim is true either because... well, you see the viscious cycle don't you?

"The Bereans were more noble... for they seached the scriptures daily whether these things were so."


Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep

But he wasn't infallible in Galatians chapter 2. And in his own epistle he notes that Paul can be hard to understand... so who has supremacy??

In Galatians 1, Paul places the supremacy on the gospel "already preached" (past tense). And condemns anyone (Paul, Peter, angels, Alexander VI, Martin V, etc.) who would bring any other gospel than that which had already been delivered (past tense).

He never bothered to check with Peter at all.

[bleechers]

Thanks chosengirl... but are you trying to get me killed? ;)

Do you have any opinion on who the Anti-Christ will be (or is). I would love to hear your thoughts.... is there anything on your website about this?

I'm pre-mill and pre-trib and I believe that we are near the time of departure, but as to whom the anti-Christ is (Latin: Vicarios Christi ;)) I'm not sure. I believe the Beast will rise up out of Europe and the False Prophet out of the Middle East...

My links page has a link to a good dispenational site.

Hey, how come nobody asks me about my music? As a musician, you know I have a disproportionately high opinion of myself... you could at least humor me. ;)

Check out the MP3 samples... it's free, ya know!

[Echoes Peak]

This has to be the most bizarre thread I've read in the longest time...It's like reading the script to a very, very, weird reality show.:D And yes, it took me about 5 pages to realize that there was no PUC church.

[Cary.Melvin]

Well Cary.Melvin... tempting as it might be, this board is not the place for this... take it to the debate boards :)

Ok, bleechers I'll let off on you.

Just for the record (if anyone is confused) there is no Plymouth Universal Church (PUD), it is just a joke (I'll take it as that in good charity).

By the way, does your band play any old Van Halen songs? I used to listen to them back in the day.

[Crazy Liz]

I'm pre-mill and pre-trib and I believe that we are near the time of departure, but as to whom the anti-Christ is (Latin: Vicarios Christi ;)) I'm not sure.

Do you like to play games with the semantic domains of different languages? It can be fun to do even in English.

Maybe tonight if I feel like playing games I'll get out a thesaurus and start a thread. It looks like we're one of the few denominational rooms that doesn't yet have a "pub" thread. I guess that's because good Baptists don't go to pubs. ;) Where do Baptists socialize? What do they do to socialize?

Seems like maybe one of Baptist's favorite recreational activities is arguing. But the problem with a Baptist debating society would be that before long we'd have 100 competing Baptist debating societies. :sorry: ;)

Maybe we Anabaptists can invite the rest of you to a barnraising. :wave: What do you think?

[eldermike]

Bleechers, My band was at cafe Jam a week ago. You know of this place? I gathered from your website that it's your part of the world, ever play there?

Mike

[eldermike]

Where do Baptists socialize? What do they do to socialize?

Coffee shops, we need a coffee shop

[nyj]

I'm pre-mill and pre-trib and I believe that we are near the time of departure, but as to whom the anti-Christ is (Latin: Vicarios Christi ;)) I'm not sure. Uh, are you trying to say that the phrase "vicarios christi" (btw: it's vicarius, not vicarios) means "anti-christ"? Because if you are, your latin is off. Way off.

[Rechtgläubig]

What's "vicarios christi"?

[nyj]

What's "vicarios christi"? Translated from latin (and spelled properly), it means "Vicar of Christ".

[Rechtgläubig]

Ooooooh! ;)


:D

[nyj]

The correct word for "antichrist" as seen in 1 John 2:18 is antichristus.

1 John 2:18 (Latin Vulgate) : filioli novissima hora est et sicut audistis quia antichristus venit nunc antichristi multi facti sunt unde scimus quoniam novissima hora est

1 John 2:18 (NASB) : Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.

[Echoes Peak]

Maybe tonight if I feel like playing games I'll get out a thesaurus and start a thread. It looks like we're one of the few denominational rooms that doesn't yet have a "pub" thread. I guess that's because good Baptists don't go to pubs. ;) Where do Baptists socialize? What do they do to socialize?


We can do the coffee shop thing. That's very plausible.


In the city I generally live in, there's an awesome Baptist Coffee Shop. Very cool place, indeed.

[Rechtgläubig]

The correct word for "antichrist" as seen in 1 John 2:18 is antichristus.That's cool. It's kind of interesting how anti in the Greek means "in place of".

:scratch:

[nyj]

That's cool. It's kind of interesting how anti in the Greek means "in place of". Uhh, I'm not so sure of that. Anti means "against", and given the context of the John, I'm pretty sure that is what he was trying to convey as well*. However, taking this discussion much further, in this forum, will create enough tension to warrant it's closing, so if we can take it to PMs, or another forum it'd probably be beneficial.

*Strong's Concordance (#500) states that antichristos means "adversary of Christ".

[thereselittleflower]

A. Nowhere on the PUC page do I mention the Catholic Church.
B. What particular doctrines of the PUC do you find objectionable?
C. Are the doctrines of the PUC compatible with Evangelical Christianity?

The PUC was created for Evangelicals (I'm a Baptist, this is a Baptist room) to compare with the gospel we preach. If the PUC has objectionable doctrines I merely point to other faiths that have similar (identicle?) doctrines. If there is something in the doctrines of the Catholic Church that you find as a parallel, well that is for you to work out.

Hope this helps!!

:)

:cool:
ummm bleechers, it doesn't matter if you don't mention the Catholic Church in your web site, you told us why you started it here, and it most definitely is because of the Catholic Church:

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=7948129&postcount=72


Please, at least be honest instead of trying to make it out to be something other than your version of Catholic Doctrines clothed in a church you "founded" because so many people get turned off when you try to use the "C" word . . .


Peace in Him!

[Rechtgläubig]

Uhh, I'm not so sure of that. Anti means "against", Are you sure? Because both Strong and Thayer...


However, taking this discussion much further, in this forum, will create enough tension to warrant it's closing, so if we can take it to PMs, or another forum it'd probably be beneficialGotcha. :D

[thereselittleflower]

This thread is like deja vu !!

Peace in Him!

[nyj]

Are you sure? Because both Strong and Thayer...
See what I had to say about Strong. ;)

[Rechtgläubig]

See what I had to say about Strong. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gifI did, see what I said about "anti" (#473 not #500) :D

[eldermike]

This thread is like deja vu !!


Yogi said: "it's like deja vu, all over again"

[thereselittleflower]

bleechers,

This is a fellowship post. :)

I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that people would "get" that the PUC was a parody.
Thank you for admitting that your site is a parody of the Catholic Church. And as such, it is a "dig" as posters pointed out at the beginning of this thread, which you failed to admit to then . .


Peace in Him!

[nyj]

I did, see what I said about "anti" (#473 not #500) :D
I see that, and notice that it's primary usage still means "against". ;) :P

[thereselittleflower]

This is a Baptist/Anabaptist/Quaker room. IOW, it is for all Free Church Protestants who don't have another room specifically assigned to them. (If I am mischaracterizing the rules, I hope the mods will correct me, since there has been a little discussion of which denominations fit here. My point is that it's not just for Baptists.)

Anyway, I firmly belong to the Free Church Protestant tradition. As I have moved from place to place in my life, I have always, since my baptism in 1968, been a member of a church within one of the Free Church Protestant traditions.

Yet I strongly disagree with some Baptist doctrines. Since I disagree with some of your doctrines, should I go around claiming you are deceived and need to be evangelized? (BTW, isn't saying someone needs to be evangelized an indirect way of saying that person is not a Christian?)

Are you so sure your own doctrine is without error?

There are some things about PUC (no, let's be real here, RCC) doctrine I am unable to accept. I think the EOC makes a much better case for collegiality of bishops, compared to the RCC pope. I think I'll stop there because I think the RCC and EOC are approaching each other, and although it may take a few hundred years for them to come to terms, by the time they do, they will have had to deal positively with just about all the RCC doctrines I find objectionable. So I have hope. Unlike most Baptists, I'm not in a hurry for every error to be corrected in the next five minutes. I don't think everyone who has erroneous ideas about religious matters is on their way to hell.
Hi Crazy Liz,

I hope it won't take a few hundred years more . . there have been many attempts at reuniion in the last 1000 years .. and some important things have happened in the last 50 . . so I remain hoepful that something might happen in my lifetime. :)

Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

hello, frankie:

It's PARODY to make a POINT :)

The way you have made your "point" is offensive.



Peace in Him!

[KennySe]

* The OT was already accepted. The Council of Trent didn't add the Apocrypha until c. AD 1564.

Have you not heard of: The Council (Synod) of Rome in A.D. 382;
The Council of Hippo and its Canon 36 of A.D. 393;
The Council of Carthage III and its Canon 47 of A.D. 397;
Pope Innocent I's Letter 7 of A.D. 408;
The Council of Florence and what it wrote on (February 5, 1442)?

[thereselittleflower]

This has to be the most bizarre thread I've read in the longest time...It's like reading the script to a very, very, weird reality show.:D And yes, it took me about 5 pages to realize that there was no PUC church.
LOL I agree!


Peace in Him

[eldermike]

ok, enough.....fellowship questions can be asked. Thats about it. There is no need to correct every spelling, contextual error or misplaced numeral.

[bleechers]

Just for the record (if anyone is confused) there is no Plymouth Universal Church (PUD), it is just a joke (I'll take it as that in good charity).

Thanks for clarifying that... again. ;) And just for the record too, it is meant as a tool for Evangelicals to compare with their already accepted doctrines of salvation. If someone of an unnnamed religion :) tries to make the direct parallel to all the complexities of their already accepted doctrines, they will, naturally, find it wanting.

:)

Another "for the record": as an Ex-RC, I certainly don't hate anybody! Good gravy, most of my family is... well, you know.

By the way, does your band play any old Van Halen songs? I used to listen to them back in the day.

My guitarist (ex-RC too, btw) started to play guitar because of Edward, but we never covered VH stuff. That's me with my "McCartney" Rick in my avatar (back in the day). We (The Bleechers) used to play REM and various other 80s stuff in our set of mostly originals... before I started playing Christian music, that is.

He's a faboo guitarist, by the way. He's got a wonderful 10-song Christian CD available if anybody wants to check it out. The link is on my links page. He does all the guitar work on my stuff. It is overtly evangelistic and Christian.

Our CDs are free while supplies last! :)

I'm not s'posed to put the link here, but you can go through my personal data page.

[Frankie]

OK, I am getting sick of the argueing. This is a Baptist forum, not a Catholic debate Baptist forum. If I understand the rules correctly, Catholics can ask questions in here but not debate the answers they are given. Why does this Catholic debating Baptist keep reacuring in this forum? Isn't there another place on CF that is set aside for that specifically?

Now, for the Catholics posting, I do not believe that all Catholics are going to Hell. I believe their are saved Catholics just as there are saved people from all walks of life, however, I do believe that the Catholic religion has so much extra Biblical stuff that I would never encourage anyone to join it. Now, I only say this so you don't all start debating the whole " are Catholics going to hell" thing.

Seriously guys, this Catholic vs. Baptist thing is not appropriate for this forum. Only Baptist can debate other baptist in here, just like only Catholics can debate other Catholics in the Catholic forum. I say ENOUGH ALREADY!

[thereselittleflower]

That's cool. It's kind of interesting how anti in the Greek means "in place of".

:scratch:



Hmmm I wonder what that says about Jesus being the 'anti'-type of the Old Testament types that pre-figured Him?


Peace in Him!

[bleechers]

Have you not heard of: The Council (Synod) of Rome in A.D. 382;
The Council of Hippo and its Canon 36 of A.D. 393;
The Council of Carthage III and its Canon 47 of A.D. 397;
Pope Innocent I's Letter 7 of A.D. 408;
The Council of Florence and what it wrote on (February 5, 1442)?

This is really not the place for this... but so Baptists are not confused, I point out the following minimal info: :)

Even so, these were all, at least, three centuries after the canon was in use (OT and NT).

All of the Apocrypha was rejected by the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) and is rejected to this day. There is no Hebrew equivelent.

"The Tridentine [Trent, AD 1546] list or decree was the first infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the canon of the Holy scriptures." -Fr. H. J. Schroeder (Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Tan Books (RC), 1978, p. 17)

Maybe you could take it up with him? ;)

[thereselittleflower]

Uhh, I'm not so sure of that. Anti means "against", and given the context of the John, I'm pretty sure that is what he was trying to convey as well*. However, taking this discussion much further, in this forum, will create enough tension to warrant it's closing, so if we can take it to PMs, or another forum it'd probably be beneficial.

*Strong's Concordance (#500) states that antichristos means "adversary of Christ".
An "anit"-type is that which replaces the "type" . . So, it does have the meaning of replacement . .. but generally we use it to mean "against". Which is why the word "anit"-type sounds strange to us today . . I always have to resist the tendency to understand it as 'against' the type . .


Peace in Him!

[Echoes Peak]

OK, I am getting sick of the argueing. This is a Baptist forum, not a Catholic debate Baptist forum. If I understand the rules correctly, Catholics can ask questions in here but not debate the answers they are given. Why does this Catholic debating Baptist keep reacuring in this forum? Isn't there another place on CF that is set aside for that specifically?

Now, for the Catholics posting, I do not believe that all Catholics are going to Hell. I believe their are saved Catholics just as there are saved people from all walks of life, however, I do believe that the Catholic religion has so much extra Biblical stuff that I would never encourage anyone to join it. Now, I only say this so you don't all start debating the whole " are Catholics going to hell" thing.

Seriously guys, this Catholic vs. Baptist thing is not appropriate for this forum. Only Baptist can debate other baptist in here, just like only Catholics can debate other Catholics in the Catholic forum. I say ENOUGH ALREADY!
I was thinking the same thing. They should just create the Catholic vs. Baptists forum, thus complete with paintball and tackle football. Then the two denominations can slug it out and whomever comes out on top can thus, be crowned "the biggest, baddest and toughests of all Christian denominations.":D

[thereselittleflower]

bleechers,

What I see is you consitently misrepresnting the Catholic faith in this forum in ways that invite us Catholics to dialogue with you . . which, if we do so, can result in others in this forum feeling as though we are enterieng into debate. It can be a fine line between discussion and debate, and it is in the eye of the beholder.

Why don't you take this to a forum that is more open for dialogue between us so we can dsicuss these things more freely . . .

But really, you need to stop misrepresenting our faith here.


Peace in Him!

[bleechers]

Are you guys in the right forum...? ;)

Hmmm I wonder what that says about Jesus being the 'anti'-type of the Old Testament types that pre-figured Him?

For Baptist consideration:

Anti (as you know) can mean either "in place of" or "against". Whereas our Lord is surely the anti-type (in place of the shadows - Sabbath-keeping, Holy Days, priesthoods, sacrifices, etc.), there is a class of individuals the Bible terms "anti-Christs" which is a far more serious problem.

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days. Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Are you letting anyone judge you in regard to such things??? Christ is come and fulfilled the Law. Come out of the shadow of "holyday-keeping" and into the glorious light of His finsihed work!

There can be many anti-types, but there is but one Christ. No man can claim to now be either "Christ on Earth" or "God on Earth" without blasphemeing.

:)

[thereselittleflower]

I was thinking the same thing. They should just create the Catholic vs. Baptists forum, thus complete with paintball and tackle football. Then the two denominations can slug it out and whomever comes out on top can thus, be crowned "the biggest, baddest and toughests of all Christian denominations.":D
LOL I think they tried that once . . it was called IDD . . .


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

Are you guys in the right forum...? ;)
Are you sure you are using this forum correctly?

I don't see that it is called "What's wrong with the Catholic Faith" forum . .


Peace in Him!

[Oblio]

This is really not the place for this... but so Baptists are not confused, I point out the following minimal info: :)

Even so, these were all, at least, three centuries after the canon was in use (OT and NT).

All of the Apocrypha was rejected by the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) and is rejected to this day. There is no Hebrew equivelent.



Since you are pointing things out, perhaps you would also like to point out that the Council of Jamnia was sponsored by a anti-Christian Jewish sect and that the Early Christians used the Septuagint. This is the problem with minimalism, important little historical details are ommited :)

Additionally, if you want to use 'Scripture' in use prior (it was not a canon at that time as you contend) to the Councils in question, you will need to add The Gospel of Thomas and other truely Apocryphal books which were in use, but rejected by the same Church that canonized the OT books which are rejected by some Christians today. Why do you not also use those books if they were read in the Early Church ?

[bleechers]

But really, you need to stop misrepresenting our faith here.

How? Could you be specific. Really, I'll clarify if I need to.:)

This thread and my page are for Baptist use. In the end, I always quote directly from Catholic sources. I make up nothing. I use the materials I used when I was a college debater (on the RC side back then).

For instance, does not your church state that "if anyone knows the way of the RCC and willingly leaves or refuses to enter in... hense, there is no salvation."?

Does it not teach that Muslims can "achieve salvation by striving to lead a good life."?

That's all I'm doing. Letting Baptists know what your church teaches. I'm doing some free advertising for you! They can decide for themselves if it is consistent with their beliefs... some will not see a problem... others will see the great chasms. That is between the individual and God (a very Baptist concept :)).

You can take it to a private message, but the debate rooms are too overwhelming to keep up with. I prefer in-person debates or one-on-ones. I'm a slow, lousy typist!

[Oblio]

That's all I'm doing. Letting Baptists know what your church teaches. I'm doing some free advertising! They can decide for themselves if it is consistent with their beliefs... some will not see a problem... others will see the great chasms.


Would you ask an ex-Baptist for information on the Baptist faith ?
Would you got to an ex-Dentist to get a root canal ?

[bleechers]

The Gospel of Thomas and other truely Apocryphal books which were in use, but rejected by the same Church that canonized the OT books which are rejected by some Christians today. Why do you not also use those books if they were read in the Early Church ?

This is just not accurate. Even the ECFs rejected these Gnostic writings long before any Council met. You might want to write to Fr. Schroeder... or to Jerome, Origen, Athanasius or Cyril of Jerusalem.

Not that the EFCs are infallible, but it does show that the Apocrypha did have the acceptance of the early church as the rest of the scriptures do.

[BBAS 64]

I see that, and notice that it's primary usage still means "against". ;) :P
Good day, Nyj

The Primary "Normal" use may in fact be "against" with in a given context. Could you use a context to show a secondary use of the word?

Peace to u,

BBAS

[Mary_Magdalene]

Are you sure you are using this forum correctly?

I don't see that it is called "What's wrong with the Catholic Faith" forum . .


Peace in Him!


it seems i have been having to quote forum rules in the Baptist Forum alot lately....


2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here

Oh, Peace in Him!

:)

[nyj]

The Primary "Normal" use may in fact be "against" with in a given context. Could you use a context to show a secondary use of the word?

James 4:15 (instead).

[Mary_Magdalene]

Would you ask an ex-Baptist for information on the Baptist faith ?
Would you got to an ex-Dentist to get a root canal ?


i dont understand why some are getting upset. i mean, if the Catholic faith is the "correct" way, then nobody from the Catholic faith should be getting their pantyhose in a bunch. It seems bleechers is just quoting things from very reputible Catholic doctrine. Unless you have a problem with your present affiliation of being a Catholic, you should not care about these posts or bleechers website.

:)

[Crazy Liz]

This is really not the place for this... but so Baptists are not confused, I point out the following minimal info: :)

Even so, these were all, at least, three centuries after the canon was in use (OT and NT).

All of the Apocrypha was rejected by the Council of Jamnia (Jewish) and is rejected to this day. There is no Hebrew equivelent.

Actually, Bleechers, the history of the canon of Hebrew Scriptures is much ore complex than that. The so-called Council of Yavneh (aka Jamnia) (see http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/RelS367/RabbinicTimeline.html for a timeline) occurred shortly after the destruction of the Second Temple, and part of its purpose was to distinguish Rabbinic Judaism from Messianic Judaism. On that point, the website I linked to contains an error. The Pharisees were not the only Jewish sect to survive the destruction of the Second Temple. Christianity also survived.

Anyway, the Septuagint (LXX, the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek a century or so before the time of Christ) includes more books than the Masoretic text (Hebrew scriptures standardized and marked with vowels by Medieval rabbis). Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I believe the Hebrew texts of most of the books that were part of the LXX but not part of the MT were lost to us, but these books have always been available to the church in Greek.

Those Christians who put great significance on Yavneh usually come to the opposite conclusion to yours. They say the rabbis excluded these books from the Jewish canon (if they in fact did this at Yavneh - the point is still being debated by scholars) because they supported more strongly than the other Hebrew texts the claim that Jesus was the Messiah.

Anyway, it is difficult to base an argument on the legitimate Christian OT canon on the decision of a council of anti-Christian rabbis.

[Oblio]

i dont understand why some are getting upset. i mean, if the Catholic faith is the "correct" way, then nobody from the Catholic faith should be getting their pantyhose in a bunch. It seems bleechers is just quoting things from very reputible Catholic doctrine. Unless you have a problem with your present affiliation of being a Catholic, you should not care about these posts or bleechers website.

:)

Good point.

However, I am Orthodox, and I disagree with much of RC Theology/Doctrine. Yet I am 'bunched' by the approach and methodology employed by the OP.

What does that tell you ?

[kimber1]

i'd love to know what exactly bleecher(is that your name?) your beef is with the Catholic Church. feel free to pm so as not to pull me a Catholic into debate in a nondebate forum :)

[Echoes Peak]

LOL I think they tried that once . . it was called IDD . . .


Peace in Him!
You know the sad thing was, I almost said everyone should go hash it out in the IDD. Then I realized, oops, it doesn't exist anymore.:D

Does the winner of this round get to battle against the Pentecostals? They look like they could put a spirited fight.;)


Sorry, for the cheesy humor..it's been a long day.

[bleechers]

I don't see that it is called "What's wrong with the Catholic Faith" forum . .

A. All I'm doing is asking folks to compare doctrines with doctrines... if that bothers you in this Baptist forum... well... you know... :)

B. Could you be specific? If I quote an official document so Baptists can make up their own minds, how is that wrong?

C. Your church's sacred tradition condemns us repeatedly with anathemas... I should think that would give us reason to be slightly skeptical ;) JWs say that we're headed for anihilation, is pointing out their own doctrines to help us understand their church's position of necessity a bad thing?

D. If I point out that Mormons don't accept the full deity of Christ, would that make this a "what's wrong with the Mormon faith?" thread. Well, yes, in a way. But only because this is a Baptist thread and that doctrine is in contradition to what the vast majority of Baptist hold to. It's not meant as an attack on Mormons, it is stated to point out the differences. Would a Mormon object to me noting that we disagree on that fundamental doctrine?

[thereselittleflower]

How? Could you be specific. Really, I'll clarify if I need to.:)Well, since you asked, for starters, stop saying we worship Mary and the Saints . . :) There are rules against that here in case you didn't know . . .


This thread and my page are for Baptist use. In the end, I always quote directly from Catholic sources. I make up nothing. I use the materials I used when I was a college debater (on the RC side back then).They are not to use to bash the Catholic faith. You have used materials out of context and wrongly quoted others, Remeber the little bit about Pope Pius XII and the supposed hypostatic union of Mary? It is very clear that you have made some things up, or taken material from others who have.

For instance, does not your church state that "if anyone knows the way of the RCC and willingly leaves or refuses to enter in... hense, there is no salvation."?What does "know" mean?



Does it not teach that Muslims can "achieve salvation by striving to lead a good life."? No . . it does not.



That's all I'm doing. Letting Baptists know what your church teaches.No, that is not all that you are doing. .. you are letting others know your skewed interpretation and understanding of the Catholic Faith . .that's all . .



I'm doing some free advertising for you! They can decide for themselves if it is consistent with their beliefs... some will not see a problem... others will see the great chasms. That is between the individual and God (a very Baptist concept :)).I do not see how giving skewed, false and misleading information about our faith is helping anyone make a decision about it . .

Obviously, a person is going to come to conclusions based on the information they have.

If they have flawed information, their conclusions will also be flawed



You can take it to a private message, but the debate rooms are too overwhelming to keep up with. I prefer in-person debates or one-on-ones. I'm a slow, lousy typist!If you would likek to take your mis-characterizations to the realm of PM, please do so. That would be much better than posting them here where Catholics are at a noticable disadvantage to respond.

The other forums are a much more apporiate place to address your 'concerns' . . The 'debate' rooms are busy, but if you post a thread, you only would have to keep up witn that one thead, right?

That shouldn't be too overwhelming . .

You can't have a one on one debate here, and continuing to post half truths and falsehoods about the Catholic Faith here, only begs the question as to why?

Why not where we can more freely discuss it?

If what you say is true, you should have no trouble defending it an more open forum . ..


Peace in Him!

[bleechers]

Anyway, it is difficult to base an argument on the legitimate Christian OT canon on the decision of a council of anti-Christian rabbis.

You seem to have ignored the other points... I no more hold the Council of Jamnia as authoritative as I do the ECFs. They are only quoted as evidence that the Apocrypha was not widely held as canonical by anyone until 1546 (see Fr. Schroeder, Jerome, etc.) whereas the 39 OT Masoretic texts and the 27 NT books were held as canonical as far back as we can see.

The scripture are their own witness... but I'm sure you can't see that doctrine. I quote men because you are looking for a self-appointed earthly authority, I need none.

[thereselittleflower]

i dont understand why some are getting upset. i mean, if the Catholic faith is the "correct" way, then nobody from the Catholic faith should be getting their pantyhose in a bunch. It seems bleechers is just quoting things from very reputible Catholic doctrine. Unless you have a problem with your present affiliation of being a Catholic, you should not care about these posts or bleechers website.

:)
Obviously, we care about our faith and we care when someone repeatedly misrprepresents it. It would be nice if some oters here would also care about this.

Bleechers is misquoting, or quoiting out of context .. and that is a problem.


Peace in Him!

[Miss Shelby]

I quote men because you are looking for a self-appointed earthly authority, I need none.Your self appointed earlthy authority is yourself, bleechers. You're your own pope! :)

Michelle

[thereselittleflower]

You know the sad thing was, I almost said everyone should go hash it out in the IDD. Then I realized, oops, it doesn't exist anymore.:D

Does the winner of this round get to battle against the Pentecostals? They look like they could put a spirited fight.;)


Sorry, for the cheesy humor..it's been a long day.
RFLOL No apologies needed! :D


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

A. All I'm doing is asking folks to compare doctrines with doctrines... if that bothers you in this Baptist forum... well... you know... :) If that was all you were doing, then it wouldn't bother me in the least. :)


B. Could you be specific? If I quote an official document so Baptists can make up their own minds, how is that wrong?More specific about what specifically?

C. Your church's sacred tradition condemns us repeatedly with anathemas No it doesn't .. :)




... I should think that would give us reason to be slightly skeptical ;) JWs say that we're headed for anihilation, is pointing out their own doctrines to help us understand their church's position of necessity a bad thing? What does the JW, which are non-chrsitian by the way, saying that you are headed for anihilation have anything to do with Catholic Teaching?

D. If I point out that Mormons don't accept the full deity of Christ, would that make this a "what's wrong with the Mormon faith?" thread. Well, yes, in a way. But only because this is a Baptist thread and that doctrine is in contradition to what the vast majority of Baptist hold to. It's not meant as an attack on Mormons, it is stated to point out the differences. Would a Mormon object to me noting that we disagree on that fundamental doctrine?What does Mormonism, which is NOT a Christian faith recognized by CF, have to dowith Catholicism, which IS a Christian faith recognized by CF as such?


I find it interesting that you have brought up 2 non-Chrsitian faiths to help you argue against the Cathoic faith . .

Can you tell me why?


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

You seem to have ignored the other points... I no more hold the Council of Jamnia as authoritative as I do the ECFs. They are only quoted as evidence that the Apocrypha was not widely held as canonical by anyone until 1546 (see Fr. Schroeder, Jerome, etc.) whereas the 39 OT Masoretic texts and the 27 NT books were held as canonical as far back as we can see.

The scripture are their own witness... but I'm sure you can't see that doctrine. I quote men because you are looking for a self-appointed earthly authority, I need none.
Well, are you saying that if all the books that the Early Church Councils had to chooose between, both from those works claimed by various groups as scipture before Christ, along with those hundreds of writings that came after Christ, were in a room with you and you alone without any historical guidance, you could sift through them all and come up with the same collection you now use today?


It sounds to me like your issue is really one of authoirty, and you want to be your own authority . .


Peace in Him!

[thereselittleflower]

Not that the EFCs are infallible, but it does show that the Apocrypha did have the acceptance of the early church as the rest of the scriptures do.
Yes, you are right, what you call the apocrypha, the deuterocanonicals DID have the same acceptance as the rest of scripture did.



Peace in Him!

[BBAS 64]

Obviously, we care about our faith and we care when someone repeatedly misrprepresents it. It would be nice if some oters here would also care about this.

Bleechers is misquoting, or quoiting out of context .. and that is a problem.


Peace in Him!
TLF,

It kind of works both ways, you feel you have been misrepresented, but in OBOB you have no problem quoting people like Mattics{sp}, Armstong, Madrid who have been known to misrepresent evangelicals in many ways and disreguard thier historical mistakes as not important to the "one true Faith" that they have come "home "to.


BBAS

[thereselittleflower]

it seems i have been having to quote forum rules in the Baptist Forum alot lately....

GCG

Do these rules no longer apply?

Examples of what is not allowed, and what is allowed:

Not allowed: "The Pope is the Anti-Christ"
Allowed: "The Pope has too much power" or "The Bible did not establish the papacy" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "The Catholic church is a cult"
Allowed: "The Catholic church has errors in some doctrines" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "The Roman Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon"
Allowed: "The Catholic church may have a particular role to play in the endtimes" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "All Catholics go to hell"
Allowed: "Some Catholics may not be saved because they have wrong beliefs" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Catholics worship idols" - this is because they don't worship these idols (at least they are not meant to)
Allowed: "Catholics have images in their church and the Bible does not support this" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this.

Not allowed: "Catholics pray to demons when they pray to saints"
Allowed: "Praying to saints is not in the Bible" - as long as scripture and evidence is posted to argue this. 

Peace in Him!

[Cary.Melvin]

You seem to have ignored the other points... I no more hold the Council of Jamnia as authoritative as I do the ECFs. They are only quoted as evidence that the Apocrypha was not widely held as canonical by anyone until 1546 (see Fr. Schroeder, Jerome, etc.) whereas the 39 OT Masoretic texts and the 27 NT books were held as canonical as far back as we can see.

The scripture are their own witness... but I'm sure you can't see that doctrine. I quote men because you are looking for a self-appointed earthly authority, I need none.Objectively speaking (throwing out all Church tradition and teaching), I would say that the Gospels of Matthew and John , the epistles of John, Peter, James and Jude and Revelation are the only New Testament era books that provide direct testimony to the actions and teachings of Jesus. All the other books would be considered hearsay evidence and secondary testimonies.

The next concern is that they were writen so long after the actual actions took place. How could they remember all that perfectly? How can we call it inerrant?

I think I would rather defer to the authority of the Church.

[Miss Shelby]

Those rules only apply therese, if one is unable to carefully construct a a bogus Church in order to level the accusations.

Michelle

[Crazy Liz]

You seem to have ignored the other points... I no more hold the Council of Jamnia as authoritative as I do the ECFs. They are only quoted as evidence that the Apocrypha was not widely held as canonical by anyone until 1546 (see Fr. Schroeder, Jerome, etc.) whereas the 39 OT Masoretic texts and the 27 NT books were held as canonical as far back as we can see.

The scripture are their own witness... but I'm sure you can't see that doctrine. I quote men because you are looking for a self-appointed earthly authority, I need none.

Bleechers, what makes you think I (a fellow Free Church Protestant of the Anabaptist persuasion) am "looking for a self-appointed earthly authority?"

Please do not tell me what I am looking for!

I can argue with you all I want about twisting my words and saying you know my intentions because I'm not a Roman Catholic, but fit squarely within the denominations for whom this room was created.

You have twisted my words.

You have misrepresented my thoughts and my arguments.

You have similarly misrepresented the thoughts and arguments of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

While the forum rules may prohibit or discourage them from correcting your mischaracterization of them, they certainly do not prohibit me from coming to their defense when one of my brothers maligns other Christians so smugly and maliciously. You have done the same thing to me you have done to the Roman Catholics. Your claims to innocence and avoidance of debate have now been exposed as false.

Since these brothers and sisters are restricted in how far they may defend themselves, I plead with you: Please stop twisting other people's words and claiming to know what they think, know, intend or want without asking them.

You may make a respectful argument, it you like, but when you claim to know another person's thoughts, you have left the realm of respectful argument and made an ad hominem attack. I will, from now on, make every effort to defend those who cannot defend themselves against such statements of yours.

[Crazy Liz]

It sounds to me like your issue is really one of authoirty, and you want to be your own authority . .


Peace in Him!

TLF, please do not stoop to Bleechers level and state what he wants beyond what he himself has stated.

[kimber1]

my plea to all Catholics involved here is wipe your feet at the door. if bleecher would like to come to OBOB we'll be more than happy to accomodate him there, yes? :)

[bleechers]

Well, sinc you asked, for starters, stop saying we worship Mary and the Saints .

"Worship" is how we define it. You bow down and ask Mary things that only God can do. You assign her the powers of deity (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence) and call her Co-Redeemer, thus giving her glory that is due God alone. Hense, by Baptist theology, you "worship" her.

They are not to use to bash the Catholic faith.

Why do you equate "pointing to official doctrines" akin to "bashing"? Is it "bashing" Mormons to say that they are not Trinitarians?

What does "know" mean?

Ah, yes, the double-talk. Thanks for pointing this out. I have an article about this type of argumentation. It's the "salvation by ignorance through sincerity" argument that most any Baptist would reject. Well, if they don't "know" the way, then it's best not to tell them so then they can't reject it, right?

Singulari Quadam (1854) stated that:
It must, of course, be held as of faith that no one can be saved outside the apostolic Roman Church, that the Church is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever does not enter it will perish in the flood. Yet, on the other hand, it must likewise be held as certain that those who are in ignorance of true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord.


Call home your missionaries. It's better for Muslims to attain alvation in ignorance rather than risk them understanding the way of the RCC and rejecting it. This is the "complexity" that is designed to confuse.


Does it not teach that Muslims can "achieve salvation by striving to lead a good life."?

No . . it does not.

I didn't get the exact quote, but here is the section from Lumen Gentium from a RC source (translation) Sorry, but I'm gonna bold to help make the connection:

Lumen Gentium # 16:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind... [ed note: the Muslim god is a false god!]

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience--those too many achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.


Now any Baptist can see that this is incompatible with our salvation doctrines. Essentially this small part of a very complex document teaches that "salvation acheived" because grace is administered via the Catholic Church in some mystical way to help "sincere" people ("first among whom are the Moslems") to "strive to lead a good life."

Since nobody can know whether he or she is actaully "saved" then the church can neither tell whether anybody has truly rejected anything, etc. I ran with this argument as a RC apologist... Never mind the "necessity" of Baptism, sacraments either... then it really starts to get complicated.

I do not see how giving skewed, false and misleading information about our faith is helping anyone make a decision about it . .

All Baptists need to know is that the RCC teaches that nobody can ever know... that indulgences are propitiatory and that knowledge of salvation condemned with anthema... that Mary is Co-Redeemer and necessary for salvation (she is "the cause of salvation"...), etc., etc. You can do what Rome has done and turn that into libraries of complex documents, but you can only go so far before the incompatibility with Baptist theology is evident.


Lumen Gentium
He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

[I]While we're mentioning the Canon of Scripture...Baptists might note from the Council of Trent:

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA."

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: "If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).



And that just scratches the surface.

This is not the place for double-talk. I hesitated to post all these in the many, many posts I have written to this point. They are posted for Baptists to consider.

I used to explain these away before God had mercy on me and saved me.

You can't have a one on one debate here, and continuing to post half truths

Please note a "half tuth" that I have posted to this point before making such an accusation.

[kimber1]

my plea to all Catholics involved here is wipe your feet at the door. if bleecher would like to come to OBOB we'll be more than happy to accomodate him there, yes? :)
/me sings..... i meeeeeaaaaaannnnn it!!!!

[bleechers]

It sounds to me like your issue is really one of authoirty, and you want to be your own authority . .

No the scriptures are my authority. Your authority is a man who tells you that you are incapable of understanding them.

[Crazy Liz]

"Worship" is how we define it. You bow down and ask Mary things that only God can do. You assign her the powers of deity (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence) and call her Co-Redeemer, thus giving her glory that is due God alone. Hense, by Baptist theology, you "worship" her.

How do you know TLF personally does any of these things?

[Crazy Liz]

No the scriptures are my authority. Your authority is a man who tells you that you are incapable of understanding them.

Again, please stop with the personal attacks.

[Echoes Peak]

Bleech..seems like you desire to have a debate with the Catholics. I would suggest that you wander over to the OBOB and debate with THEM over the merits of their Church doctrine. It has gotten to the point, where one is beginning to see more Catholics in this thread than Baptists (not that we don't like the Catholics or anything:). However, this is a Baptist forum...not an attack against Catholicism forum.

[bleechers]

How do you know TLF personally does any of these things?

It's a generic "you". If she claims to be a RC, she can't make up her own version. Her church teaches this a codified and necessary doctrines. The Catechism is the official teachings of the RCC and it is what defines RCism, not personal opinion.

If she denies these doctrines then she's not really C. She might say she is, but not according to her church. I have a suspicion she accepts these dogmas. :)

[Oblio]

They are only quoted as evidence that the Apocrypha was not widely held as canonical by anyone until 1546 (see Fr. Schroeder, Jerome, etc.)


Unless of course you consider all of Eastern Christiandom and not being widespread :rolleyes: BTW, the Western Church had separated 600 years before they 'added' the 'Apocrypha', yet the Eastern Church also has those books, why is that ?


"Worship" is how we define it. You bow down and ask Mary things that only God can do. You assign her the powers of deity (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence) and call her Co-Redeemer, thus giving her glory that is due God alone. Hense, by Baptist theology, you "worship" her.


Straw

[bleechers]

Again, please stop with the personal attacks.

Attacks?

How come her post isn't called an "attack"?

The RCC is one that tells is the one that tells her that she cannot understand the scriptures, how is it an attack to point to her own church's doctrines! I'm trying to help her be a good Catholic! ;)

not an attack against Catholicism forum

I'm just pointing out their official doctrines for Baptists to consider. How is that an attack?

How come their several-people-wide assault on me isn't characterized as "attacks"?

Heck, I've been hoping this thread would be frozen by now! I seem to be essentially all alone here in defending the Baptist salvation theology against the doctrines of Rome. I've had my character, my motives, my intergrity questioned repeatedly, yet nobody has warned my detractors (RCs in a BAPTIST room) to stop the "attacks".

Jiminy Crickets!! :)

:confused:

PS: There was at least one warning to them... thanks to whomever was responsible for that. :hug:

[Crazy Liz]

It's a generic "you". If she claims to be a RC, she can't make up her own version. Her church teaches this a codified and necessary doctrines. The Catechism is the official teachings of the RCC and it is what defines RCism, not personal opinion.

If she denies these doctrines then she's not really C. She might say she is, but not according to her church. I have a suspicion she accepts these dogmas. :)

Would you please stop using a "generic you" in reply to an individual's arguments? I think it's a reasonable request.

[Crazy Liz]

Attacks?

How come her post isn't called an "attack"?

Didn't you see me make a similar request to TLF not to say what you think or want?

I did use more words to you than I did to her. That was because you did the same thing to me. She did not.

[bleechers]

Would you please stop using a "generic you" in reply to an individual's arguments? I think it's a reasonable request.

Uhg...

Look, if they want to defend the RCC, then they must be preapred to actually identify with what their church actually teaches. Would it be so horrible if I told a Muslim "since you believe in Allah"? Is that "you" too generic for the Muslim? Should I assume that maybe he dosn't actually believe in Allah?

I think you're straining at gnats here...

[Crazy Liz]

Uhg...

Look, if they want to defend the RCC, then they must be preapred to actually identify with what their church actually teaches. Would it be so horrible if I told a Muslim "since you believe in Allah"? Is that "you" too generic for the Muslim? Should I assume that maybe he dosn't actually believe in Allah?

I think you're straining at gnats here...
I don't think so.

Actually, I personally learned not to do that largely through some discussions with JWs. They kept telling me what "I" believe, and I kept telling them, "I don't believe that." Based on this observation, I resolved never to use the same tactic with them. I always asked what the person believed and then responded to that. I think if you tried it, you might surprised how much more effective this is in apologetics/evangelism. It is a much more respectful way to speak to people.

So I think it would be wise to ask the Muslim if he believes in Allah, and what that means to him before saying, "since you believe in Allah..."

In fact, the very words, "since you believe in Allah..." (coming from someone who does not believe in Allah) would lead me to expect the next statement to be one that I would in some way find objectionable or offensive.

[bleechers]

They kept telling me what "I" believe, and I kept telling them, "I don't believe that."

I can appreciate this, but you're not an ex-JW. I am an ex-RC teacher and apologist. I know that a RC cannot just pick and choose what his church teaches. In this case, the doctrines of Mary's attributes of deity are central to their salvation doctrines (she is "the cause of salvation," etc.).

I know what you are saying, though. I did three years as an open-air campus evangelist and your method does work. In this case, however, if they want to deny a doctrine of Rome, then I cannot accept them as fully "Catholic" (by their own church's definition).

[Oblio]

In this case, the doctrines of Mary's attributes of deity are central to their salvation doctrines (she is "the cause of salvation," etc.).


Do you understand the rest of RC Theology as well as why Mary the Theotokos is the cause of Salvation ?

[nyj]

...the doctrines of Mary's attributes of deity...
Can you explain this please?

[bleechers]

Do you understand the rest of RC Theology as well as why Mary the Theotokos is the cause of Salvation ?

Yes. I'm thoroughly well-read on it and defended it for years.

It is a doctrine that is incompatible with Baptist theology.

How's the schism coming? ;)

That's a joke.

[Oblio]

I can appreciate this, but you're not an ex-JW. I am an ex-RC teacher and apologist.


Since you continue to rest on these laurels, I am sure you wouldn't mind sharing your previous parish name/diocese, Bishop's name, and any theological training you might have had while you were fullfilling this role.

[bleechers]

Can you explain this please?

I did in an earlier post. To be able to do all that is required of her in RC prayers, she would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Look back and you'll see it. :)

[Oblio]

Yes. I'm thoroughly well-read on it and defended it for years.


Explain it. In your own words please. You should be able to knock it out in a few minutes. I'm sure the RCs here can grade it :)

[nyj]

To be able to do all that is required of her in RC prayers, she would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.
Ah well, I obviously disagree. However, I cannot discuss it here. But... I'm sure that either myself (or someone else) wouldn't have a problem meeting up with you in a formal debate (along with anyone you might want to have on your side) to discuss these very points.

[Dark_Lite]

I did in an earlier post. To be able to do all that is required of her in RC prayers, she would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Look back and you'll see it. :)
http://www.suite101.com/files/articles/101000%5C101842/braveheart.jpg does not approve.

[thereselittleflower]

Bleechers, what makes you think I (a fellow Free Church Protestant of the Anabaptist persuasion) am "looking for a self-appointed earthly authority?"

Please do not tell me what I am looking for!

I can argue with you all I want about twisting my words and saying you know my intentions because I'm not a Roman Catholic, but fit squarely within the denominations for whom this room was created.

You have twisted my words.

You have misrepresented my thoughts and my arguments.

You have similarly misrepresented the thoughts and arguments of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.

While the forum rules may prohibit or discourage them from correcting your mischaracterization of them, they certainly do not prohibit me from coming to their defense when one of my