Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Adamski

Hail Mary Prayer In The 1611 Kjv Bible ?

Recommended Posts

I apologize in advance for sounding condescening because I grew up IFB. I'm able to trace core Independent Baptist doctrines, teachings, and the Biblical interpretation IFB's use to the late 19th or early 20th century. Baptist doctrines and Biblical interpretations can be traced back to the 17th century. If anyone is able to recommend a document or book that was written prior to the 17th century that adheres to strict IFB theology please let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance for sounding condescening because I grew up IFB. I'm able to trace core Independent Baptist doctrines, teachings, and the Biblical interpretation IFB's use to the late 19th or early 20th century. Baptist doctrines and Biblical interpretations can be traced back to the 17th century. If anyone is able to recommend a document or book that was written prior to the 17th century that adheres to strict IFB theology please let me know.

 

That's difficult as the Popery wiped most all of them out and destroyed their writings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's difficult as the Popery wiped most all of them out and destroyed their writings.

There must be something. I have a difficult time believing that the Holy Spirit would allow anyone, even the RCC, to eliminate God's "true believers" if that were true. That sounds as true as Joseph Smith losing golden plates given by God. There's some things of value you never lose like writings of martyrs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't follow "Baptist doctrine" from history - I follow what the Bible says - funnily enough, it is.largely what Independent Baptists preach.

You won't find a document marked "IFB" across the top much older.than that because the name and term "Independent Baptist Church" was invited about then.

But the teachings that note such people are found throughout history - many of the documents outline only one or two of the doctrines - even today the vast majority of books do not deal with all doctrines, but only a section.

Furthermore, because the people we would count in our heritage were independent, there is far less chance that a comprehensive doctrinal statement would have survived a thousand years.
With a big organisation, it far more likely such a document survived, especially since those big organisations have often been in control of nations.
That doesn't make them right, just powerful.

You shouldn't be looking for historical evidence - you should be looking to understand what the Bible says, and finding the people who match it today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I don't follow "Baptist doctrine" from history - I follow what the Bible says - funnily enough, it is.largely what Independent Baptists preach.

You won't find a document marked "IFB" across the top much older.than that because the name and term "Independent Baptist Church" was invited about then.

But the teachings that note such people are found throughout history - many of the documents outline only one or two of the doctrines - even today the vast majority of books do not deal with all doctrines, but only a section.

Furthermore, because the people we would count in our heritage were independent, there is far less chance that a comprehensive doctrinal statement would have survived a thousand years.
With a big organisation, it far more likely such a document survived, especially since those big organisations have often been in control of nations.
That doesn't make them right, just powerful.

You shouldn't be looking for historical evidence - you should be looking to understand what the Bible says, and finding the people who match it today.

I understand IFB's don't have a handbook. I'm just talking about what the doctrine's that IFB's teach and preach go back to the 17th century at best. The doctrine of an altar call and sinner's prayer can be traced back no further than the 17th-18th century. Faith alone and scripture alone doctrines go back no father than the 16th century. When I read Christian writings from the 2nd century, like Ignatius of Anioch or Polycarp (both true believers and disciples of the Apostle John) there is no mention of faith alone or scripture alone doctrines, nor is there any mention of a type of altar call or sinners prayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altar call and "sinners prayer" are not doctrines, they are practices, and also are not specifically baptist.

For someone brought up in IFB you have a very poor understanding of some things. Must have been a poor preacher where you were to have missed such basic understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Altar call and "sinners prayer" are not doctrines, they are practices, and also are not specifically baptist.

For someone brought up in IFB you have a very poor understanding of some things. Must have been a poor preacher where you were to have missed such basic understanding.

That is possible. So the practices of the altar call and sinners prayer aren't that old, around the 18th century. Sola scriptura and sola fide aren't much older, around the 16th century. For 1,500 years there is no mention of sola scriptura or sola fida, it must be a tradition of men.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't agree on those points.
The Bereans were more noble because they "searched the scriptures whether these things were so" They tested Paul's preaching against the scriptures. It was their rule.

And when the Word of God was preached, the prophets of the Old Testament expected and often recieved a response.
It was not an altar call, but it was expected that there would be a response.

The prophets also said "thus saith the Lord" raising up the authority of Scripture as ultimate authority.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making commands of God void by their traditions.

So it seems.that you are wrong on all points so far - these things are recorded at least favourably in God's Word. That's not only well before the 1600's but also with the authority of God's Word.
You really need to stop looking to history and tradition to support doctrine and try looking only to God's Word.

Edited by DaveW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I wouldn't agree on those points.
The Bereans were more noble because they "searched the scriptures whether these things were so" They tested Paul's preaching against the scriptures. It was their rule.

And when the Word of God was preached, the prophets of the Old Testament expected and often recieved a response.
It was not an altar call, but it was expected that there would be a response.

The prophets also said "thus saith the Lord" raising up the authority of Scripture as ultimate authority.

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making commands of God void by their traditions.

So it seems.that you are wrong on all points so far - these things are recorded at least favourably in God's Word. That's not only well before the 1600's but also with the authority of God's Word.
You really need to stop looking to history and tradition to support doctrine and try looking only to God's Word.

That's why I'm using Church history. You believe God's Word is the sole authority known as sola scriptura (Bible alone). Christians did not believe the Bible ever taught Bible authority nor faith alone until the 16th century. Which brings me to my next point, what did Christians believe for 1,500 years? Never was it Bible alone. You can quote all the verses you would like but to believe in faith alone and Bible alone are traditions of men from the 16th century. Reading the Bible without knowing the history behind the Bible is like picking up a novel and reading the last chapter.

 

God does not condemn tradition, only traditions of men. 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Chor 11:2 are two examples of God's tradition. The Bible is the sacred and inerrant Word of God, but if you look at history since the 1st century, it was always the Bible and tradition. In the 16th century men decided they didn't need God's tradition just the Word of God. To exclude God's tradition and give sole authority to the Bible is a man made tradition since the 16th century and condemned by God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be something. I have a difficult time believing that the Holy Spirit would allow anyone, even the RCC, to eliminate God's "true believers" if that were true. That sounds as true as Joseph Smith losing golden plates given by God. There's some things of value you never lose like writings of martyrs.

 

Jesus said that the gates of hell (Catholic church for example), would not prevail against his church.  So while the RCC and protestants largely wiped out Christ's NT Churches, they never did completely wipe them out because Christ said they wouldn't.  

 

All of this is moot if one doesn't know Christ.

 

Melchizedek, if you came upon me in an alley bleeding to death and I asked you how could I get to heaven, what would you tell me? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus said that the gates of hell (Catholic church for example), would not prevail against his church.  So while the RCC and protestants largely wiped out Christ's NT Churches, they never did completely wipe them out because Christ said they wouldn't.  

 

All of this is moot if one doesn't know Christ.

 

Melchizedek, if you came upon me in an alley bleeding to death and I asked you how could I get to heaven, what would you tell me? 

Can you provide sources that says the RCC and protestants wiped out Christ's NT churches? That sounds like something fictious Loraine Boettner would make up. I know where you're going with this. I know it all too well "if you were to die tonight, are you absolutely sure you'd go to heaven?" If there were other Christians (true believers) besides the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthidox Church prior to the 16th century, why are there no writings or documents? It's neat speculation, maybe even wishful thinking, but there's no proof of other Christians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand IFB's don't have a handbook. I'm just talking about what the doctrine's that IFB's teach and preach go back to the 17th century at best. The doctrine of an altar call and sinner's prayer can be traced back no further than the 17th-18th century. Faith alone and scripture alone doctrines go back no father than the 16th century. When I read Christian writings from the 2nd century, like Ignatius of Anioch or Polycarp (both true believers and disciples of the Apostle John) there is no mention of faith alone or scripture alone doctrines, nor is there any mention of a type of altar call or sinners prayer.

 

Yes, we do, we do have a hand book, its called the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is our hand book, it is what we go by, we do not go by hand books written by man. As I've pointed out before, read the Bible & believe. The Holy Bible, KJB, is the only way for you to know God & Jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we do, we do have a hand book, its called the Holy Bible. The Holy Bible is our hand book, it is what we go by, we do not go by hand books written by man. As I've pointed out before, read the Bible & believe. The Holy Bible, KJB, is the only way for you to know God & Jesus.

Do you believe in faith alone and the Bible alone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Bible believing Christian that has accepted Jesus as Lord. You tell me to read the Bible and believe (which I agree with). If I believe in something you do not believe you say I am wrong or my words come from men not the Bible. So essentially you're saying if my Biblical interpretation isn't the same as the IFB, which has only been around for 100 years, then my interpretation is wrong? I want to make sure I'm clear on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum but have been in Christ for over three decades. I have been given unction from the Holy One..

There have been some statements in this post that are close to heresy if not outright blasphemy.

There have been enough admonitions unto the truth, to reject those that oppose themselves,

Biblical doctrines as now recorded in the A.V. have been around since the serpent in the garden of Eden

said 'Yea hath God said' and the result of those deceptive words resulted in the need of bloodshed.

And since that first sacrifice and covering God's truths have been BAPTIST in nature and baptist doctrine is biblical.

There has been error and false teachings and organizations formed in revolt toward the truth.

As Able offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, and God testifying of his gifts, and he being dead yet speaketh.

Grace....... Grace...... Grace..... 

Some of you need to read some history books not tainted by the RCC, principalities and the powers of darkness.

If we have to argue Doctrine on a Baptist forum where we should only be using the KJV, where is the edifying one another in Love.

Sorry Gentlemen, just some of my own ramblings after reading this obviously wasted post..

                                                                                                                                                      Bloodmarked 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this forum but have been in Christ for over three decades. I have been given unction from the Holy One..

There have been some statements in this post that are close to heresy if not outright blasphemy.

There have been enough admonitions unto the truth, to reject those that oppose themselves,

Biblical doctrines as now recorded in the A.V. have been around since the serpent in the garden of Eden

said 'Yea hath God said' and the result of those deceptive words resulted in the need of bloodshed.

And since that first sacrifice and covering God's truths have been BAPTIST in nature and baptist doctrine is biblical.

There has been error and false teachings and organizations formed in revolt toward the truth.

As Able offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, and God testifying of his gifts, and he being dead yet speaketh.

Grace....... Grace...... Grace..... 

Some of you need to read some history books not tainted by the RCC, principalities and the powers of darkness.

If we have to argue Doctrine on a Baptist forum where we should only be using the KJV, where is the edifying one another in Love.

Sorry Gentlemen, just some of my own ramblings after reading this obviously wasted post..

                                                                                                                                                      Bloodmarked 

Why do people speak so harsh about the RCC. Even as a a seasoned Bible Christian I'm a little shocked someone would talk bad about another Christian Church. Aren't we all supposed to love one another?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are saints in heaven considered dead or alive?

They are more alive than you or I but, read revelation to find out what they're doing. It's not praying for anyone here on the earth.

 

I intend to get back to you about your creed for baptismal regeneration, I just don't have a great deal of time now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why I'm using Church history. You believe God's Word is the sole authority known as sola scriptura (Bible alone). Christians did not believe the Bible ever taught Bible authority nor faith alone until the 16th century. Which brings me to my next point, what did Christians believe for 1,500 years? Never was it Bible alone. You can quote all the verses you would like but to believe in faith alone and Bible alone are traditions of men from the 16th century. Reading the Bible without knowing the history behind the Bible is like picking up a novel and reading the last chapter.

 

God does not condemn tradition, only traditions of men. 2 Thes 2:15 and 1 Chor 11:2 are two examples of God's tradition. The Bible is the sacred and inerrant Word of God, but if you look at history since the 1st century, it was always the Bible and tradition. In the 16th century men decided they didn't need God's tradition just the Word of God. To exclude God's tradition and give sole authority to the Bible is a man made tradition since the 16th century and condemned by God.

 

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

Edited by TheSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

You do know that St. Polycarp is considered a Church Father in the Catholic Church right? As you said he was the Bishop of Smyrna. I agree he was a master of scripture much like the other Church Fathers were. By the 2nd century the Catholic Church had solidified through apostolic succession that both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition were both important. You can read St. Ignatius of Antioch's letters about Sacred Tradition. Never did Polycarp say Bible only. He emphesized the importance of the scripture but Apostolic Tradition is used many times in early Church Father writings. Catholics never denied people from reading the Bible ever. Anyone who could read (which was few) could read the Bible at any time. Sola scriptura came about from the Reformation. I appreciate your stab at it. We can respectfully agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think the premise of your questioning is inaccurate and misleading, I'll go ahead and give you what you seem to be asking for (historical evidence of sola scriptura) so that you cannot continue to make the logical fallacy of arguing from silence.

 

Polycarp, whom you mentioned before, was the bishop of Smyrna sometime after the Apostle Thomas was martyred and after studying under the Apostle John.  He is a clear example of someone who taught from the Bible only.  "Polycarp was so saturated with the language of the New Testament that whatever he had to say was expressed in its wording.  He wove phrases from the letters of Paul, Peter, and John into new contexts to express his own message.  Polycarp remains a representative of the pious Christian leader, filled with the apostolic teaching, who was concerned for righteous living" (Ferguson 2005, 57).  This is what we call expository preaching today.  We take the Scripture and apply it to the context of today.  If you read The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, you will find that an immense portion of the words are direct quotes from Scripture.  The parts that aren't are words of application and exhortation.  You will not find reference to any other source as authoritative or rising above that of Scripture.

 

Ferguson, Everett. Church History. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Polycarp of Smryna. (1885). The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (33). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

 

Where you are erring is trying to demand evidence that for something that was not an issue for much of history until the RCC made it an issue.  If you actually read the letters and writing of the Ante-Nicene fathers you will find that they assumed the authority of Scripture and argued from its position and not some other source.  If they ventured to another source, it was first launched from Scripture (or at least the portions they had access to).  The issues they dealt with revolved around Christology, the Trinity, and Gnosticism.  It was only after a long period of the RCC telling everyone that what the Pope/church said was as authoritative as the Bible while simultaneously denying the public access to that Bible that people began to talk about sola scriptura.  The premise of your argument is a logical fallacy. 

 

Please read up and study more on church history before using it as the basis of your argument.  It will help people on both sides of the issue better understand.

 

**edit: spelling/grammar check

I just wanted to thank you for putting your trust in our Catholic bishops (Church Fathers in general) like St. Polycarp. The Catholic Church thanks you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a Bible believing Christian that has accepted Jesus as Lord. You tell me to read the Bible and believe (which I agree with). If I believe in something you do not believe you say I am wrong or my words come from men not the Bible. So essentially you're saying if my Biblical interpretation isn't the same as the IFB, which has only been around for 100 years, then my interpretation is wrong? I want to make sure I'm clear on that.

 

If what you believe does not match what's in the Bible, them your wrong.

 

The Holy Scriptures is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

 

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

 

That is if you don't believe the Bible them your not perfectly & throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

The bible did not come ot us by the private interpretation of men.

 

 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

It came to us because of the will of God of which the Holy Ghost led holy men to write down so that we would have the Word of God.

 

If you want to know if you have eternal life.

 

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

It is the Holy Scriptures that testify of our Lord, not the word of man which you bring to this forum, so if what you believe that gives you eternal life does not match up wit the Bible, them your a lost sinner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what you believe does not match what's in the Bible, them your wrong.

 

The Holy Scriptures is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

 

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

 

That is if you don't believe the Bible them your not perfectly & throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

The bible did not come ot us by the private interpretation of men.

 

 

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

It came to us because of the will of God of which the Holy Ghost led holy men to write down so that we would have the Word of God.

 

If you want to know if you have eternal life.

 

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

It is the Holy Scriptures that testify of our Lord, not the word of man which you bring to this forum, so if what you believe that gives you eternal life does not match up wit the Bible, them your a lost sinner.

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad you love our Bible as much as us Catholics. We had St. Jerome for translate it into Greek and those bishops at Nicea for canonizing the Bible as we know it today. Thank you for your appreciation for our Bible.



Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.

I never lied. I do belong to a Bible believing Christian church. It just so happens it's the Catholic Church. I don't always announce that I'm Catholic, sometimes I just say I'm a Christian. I mean, Catholics are the first true Christians. I am seeking truth. Aren't we all seeking truth? I love sharing my faith with other Christians. You must be confusing Catholics with some cult you read about  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhhh - thanks for clearing that up.

It seems that you have lied in outright terms.
You do not attend a "Bible church" at all, but according to this post you are a catholic.

It this sort of deceit and lying that shows who and what you really are.

You are not someone seeking truth, or you would have openly stated who you are. You are trying to see the idolatrous seeds of Catholicism.

Compare clearly the teachings of the Catholic church to the Bible and you will see why true Christians are so harsh on catholic teaching.
Paul called it another Gospel, which is not another.

 

Having read this thread I am unable to find where this gentleman was lying or being misleading. This type of response is what sickens me about the IFB movement of which I am embarrased to say I am a part of. While the RCC may be very wrong on many points of doctrine yet sadly this is also a fact amongst many IFB churches today - I do not see how his statement that he is a christian belonging to a bible believing church would evoke such harsh words. It is a known fact that the IFB HATE the RCC yet I say look to your own house before judging anothers, the very foundation of the IFB is rotten to the core these days yet they continue to look outwards in harsh condemnation and judgmental critisism rather than  repairing their own house and leading in gentleness and truth which is the very nature of Christ.

Though the RCC may be in doctrinal error as an institution, there are many saved believers within that institution as is the case in many others and just as there are many saved in the RCC there are as many wolfs, cultists and doctrinaly bigoted idiots within the IFB.

 

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 

When us IFB's can live as Christ above commanded we will lead the world unto truth as men not as pouting spoilt children bickering amongst ourselves and believing that we are the only saved and doctrinally correct bunch out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 44 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...