[The Cantabrian]

In spite of their high regard for the Holy Bible as a source of supreme authority, t is interesting to note that many things the protestant sects believe today are not themselves found in scripture.

Foremost among these is the doctrine of the Trinity: three persons in one Godhead.

Now I believe in the Triune God as steadfastly as any protestant, but let us be honest about one thing. It is NOT found in scripture, but is, in fact, a doctrine of the popes.

Many liberal protestants will happily admit that their faith is directly derived from the Holy Catholic church, from which they broke away. Yet others - including I think many on this forum - will not admit to such a thing. Why not?

FACT: The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it did not evolve until the 5th century. The Athanasian Creed (which dates from early 6th century) was the first to formulate it in the terms with which we are familiar.

FACT: The very scripture that is used today to support the Trinity (by protestants!) was itself consolidated by the Holy Catholic Church (!) at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D.!

So if you are going to steal our theology, please at least be prepared to admit its source (i.e., the popes).

[Meek and Humble]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

In spite of their high regard for the Holy Bible as a source of supreme authority, t is interesting to note that many things the protestant sects believe today are not themselves found in scripture.

Foremost among these is the doctrine of the Trinity: three persons in one Godhead.

Now I believe in the Triune God as steadfastly as any protestant, but let us be honest about one thing. It is NOT found in scripture, but is, in fact, a doctrine of the popes.

Many liberal protestants will happily admit that their faith is directly derived from the Holy Catholic church, from which they broke away. Yet others - including I think many on this forum - will not admit to such a thing. Why not?

FACT: The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it did not evolve until the 5th century. The Athanasian Creed (which dates from early 6th century) was the first to formulate it in the terms with which we are familiar.

FACT: The very scripture that is used today to support the Trinity (by protestants!) was itself consolidated by the Holy Catholic Church (!) at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D.!

So if you are going to steal our theology, please at least be prepared to admit its source (i.e., the popes).

We have had this discussion before. The Bible very clearly tells us about the Trinity, and the general canon of the New Testament was commonly accepted by the 2nd century, long before any Catholic synod.

And actually, the concept of Trinity was written about by the supposed "Church Fathers", since the early 2nd century, long before any of these dates you claim.

Enjoy hell, blasphemer

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

In spite of their high regard for the Holy Bible as a source of supreme authority, t is interesting to note that many things the protestant sects believe today are not themselves found in scripture.

Foremost among these is the doctrine of the Trinity: three persons in one Godhead.

Now I believe in the Triune God as steadfastly as any protestant, but let us be honest about one thing. It is NOT found in scripture, but is, in fact, a doctrine of the popes.

1 John 5:7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

If you don't accept that Bible verse as proving the Trinity, then on what authority do you believe it? Why would God leave such an important doctrine out of the Bible?

Many liberal protestants will happily admit that their faith is directly derived from the Holy Catholic church, from which they broke away.

Liberal "Christians" say lots of inane things. That's what makes them liberals. Many even think that churches should perform sodomite "marriages."

FACT: The doctrine of the Trinity as we know it did not evolve until the 5th century. The Athanasian Creed (which dates from early 6th century) was the first to formulate it in the terms with which we are familiar.

If what you're saying is true, then why did God leave us to grope blindly for centuries until figuring out such an important doctrine, when He could have just told us (as I believe He did — see above)?

FACT: The very scripture that is used today to support the Trinity (by protestants!) was itself consolidated by the Holy Catholic Church (!) at the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D.!

So if you are going to steal our theology, please at least be prepared to admit its source (i.e., the popes).

Then why doesn't the Roman institution agree with us, or the Jews, on the canon of the OT? If the Roman institution consolidated the Bible, why does the Bible do such a poor job of backing up Romanist doctrines, as we've repeatedly demonstrated? You keep having to appeal to "sacred oral tradition" lying outside of Scripture; if the Bible that we have today is a product of the Roman institution, why couldn't God have inspired your "church" fathers to write a few more books incorporating that tradition and to declare those books to be canon? In short, the "god" that you Catholics worship seems to have a slapdash way of making his will known, unlike our God.

[Bobby-Joe]

Got to love your reasoning Cantabrian: the Trinity is just another neo-pagan addition by the Catholic church. Therefore all the fundamentalist looking for the pure form of Christianity based only on Christs teaching should support the venal, child abusing power mad priests of Rome.

No Cantabrian,IF, and that is a big if, the Trinity is a false doctrine, it should be drop and added to the list of Catholic distortions of Christianity.

[The Cantabrian]

If you study the history of the church, you will see that the Trinity as we currently know it did not come about until the Synod of Hippo. It is a doctrine of the popes, and 1 John 5:7 only makes reference to it in its vaguest form. I would like to see more protestants admitting that there doctrines have evolved as a result of the sacred oral tradition in the early years of the church rather than pretending that scripture is clear cut on every single moral and theological issue. It is not, and that is why we need our popes.

[Samuel Coleridge]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

If you study the history of the church, you will see that the Trinity as we currently know it did not come about until the Synod of Hippo. It is a doctrine of the popes, and 1 John 5:7 only makes reference to it in its vaguest form. I would like to see more protestants admitting that there doctrines have evolved as a result of the sacred oral tradition in the early years of the church rather than pretending that scripture is clear cut on every single moral and theological issue. It is not, and that is why we need our popes.

For a second, you put me into heart palpitations thinking that you had finally recanted of your popish ways.

As you have studiously pointed out, there is no scriptural evidence for a tri-head god. Even Jesus says that He is not part of the three headed god of the alleged Trinity. I am so glad there is someone who admits that there is no Biblical evidence outside of the King James and its offshoots.

But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. Matthew 24:36

[The Cantabrian]

Why, may I ask, under my name, does it say (and I quote) "Ring-kissing, Mary-worshipping, baby-baptizing, idolatrous papal cultist"?????

What qualifies any of you to make such unfounded assumptions???!!!!

I ask you to remove this description because (a) I have never kissed a ring in my life before, (b) I do not worship Mary), © I have never baptized a baby, (d) I do not bow down before any idol and (e) I am not a member of any cult, only the one true church founded by Christ.

Thank you.

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

Why, may I ask, under my name, does it say (and I quote) "Ring-kissing, Mary-worshipping, baby-baptizing, idolatrous papal cultist"?????

What qualifies any of you to make such unfounded assumptions???!!!!

I ask you to remove this description because (a) I have never kissed a ring in my life before, (b) I do not worship Mary), © I have never baptized a baby, (d) I do not bow down before any idol and (e) I am not a member of any cult, only the one true church founded by Christ.

Thank you.

No more new threads, papist.

[The Cantabrian]

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

No more new threads, papist.

What???!!! You are stopping me from opening new threads??!!! WHY ON EARTH would you do that???? Unless of course you are scared of losing the argument?

[landoverlover]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

What???!!! You are stopping me from opening new threads??!!! WHY ON EARTH would you do that???? Unless of course you are scared of losing the argument?

I won't presume to speak for the good Pastor, but attention-whores such as yourself post like a whack-a-mole. Slap them down with the truth back into their hole, and they pop up somewhere else spewing some new nonsense. Keeping you on the reservation by preventing your random sneak attacks helps people keep an eye on you. In case you hadn't noticed, we know your "religion" to be apostasy, and you will not convince us otherwise.

[Brother Helge]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

I am not a member of any cult, only the one true church founded by Christ.

Since when did you become a Baptist?

[The Cantabrian]

Taken from WIKIPEDIA:

"The predominant view of Baptist origins is that Baptists came along in historical development in the century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations.[10] It was a time of considerable political and religious turmoil. Both individuals and churches were willing to give up their theological roots if they became convinced that a more biblical "truth" had been discovered"

The one true church established by Christ on earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

Taken from WIKIPEDIA:

"The predominant view of Baptist origins is that Baptists came along in historical development in the century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations.[10] It was a time of considerable political and religious turmoil. Both individuals and churches were willing to give up their theological roots if they became convinced that a more biblical "truth" had been discovered"

The predominant secular view. Not the Christian view. This reliable source clearly states that "Baptist history extends all the way back to the apostolic Church." Case closed.

[landoverlover]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

Taken from WIKIPEDIA:

"The predominant view of Baptist origins is that Baptists came along in historical development in the century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations.[10] It was a time of considerable political and religious turmoil. Both individuals and churches were willing to give up their theological roots if they became convinced that a more biblical "truth" had been discovered"

The one true church established by Christ on earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

Whatever. The arrogance of your so-called church is offensive. Your church is the one true church, which by definition means that all other churches are false, and it follows from that the followers of every other faith are damned. We agree with you, except it is you and not us who are going to hell.

i guess you subscribe to the idea that the longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it necessarily has. I'm sure the followers of Zeus thought so too. Just because you folks were quick on the jump to seize power and conspired by any means necessary to keep it doesn't make you holy or right.

And that's what it's all about with you people - power and arrogance. That you would put priests and bishops and cardinals and popes between the Lord and his flock is an abomination. Where do you get off putting flawed sinful men between God and His children?

Where do you get off praying to or through dead people?

How can you talk about an infallible pope when your religion committed heinous crimes throughout history. Your clergy could be married until the 12th century, when the church decided it wanted to be the inheritor of a priest's estate, and not his family. Your church sold remission of sins for cash. CASH. You preached purgatory despite there not being any Biblical foundation, and then try to quietly abandon it for the fraud that it is. You refuse to provide birth control to starving people who are having more starving babies. Your helpers are on record as advising ignorant, starving people in Africa that condoms cause AIDS. This alone is an abomination, and I am not kidding when I say the pope should be arrested and tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.

But this grows tiresome as we've covered this ground over and over. You've got nothing new and you're not going to convince a single soul here that your church is anything more than a blasphemous fraud. It is my personal wish that you leave this place. I don't know why you persist knowing that you'll get no traction here.

[Meek and Humble]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

Taken from WIKIPEDIA:

"The predominant view of Baptist origins is that Baptists came along in historical development in the century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations.[10] It was a time of considerable political and religious turmoil. Both individuals and churches were willing to give up their theological roots if they became convinced that a more biblical "truth" had been discovered"

The one true church established by Christ on earth is the Roman Catholic Church.

No, it's the Eastern Orthodox Church, duh.

Taken from WIKIPEDIA

Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the Apostles through the process of Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox Church claims to trace its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire, to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles. It practices what it understands to be the original ancient traditions, believing in growth without change.

If it's one Wikipedia, it must be true.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

If you study the history of the church, you will see that the Trinity as we currently know it did not come about until the Synod of Hippo. It is a doctrine of the popes, and 1 John 5:7 only makes reference to it in its vaguest form. I would like to see more protestants admitting that there doctrines have evolved as a result of the sacred oral tradition in the early years of the church rather than pretending that scripture is clear cut on every single moral and theological issue.

Why would God wait so long to reveal such an important doctrine? Don't you think that if He has something to say, especially something that important, He can just say it, especially since He is omnipotent? What a confused little "god" you Catholics worship.

It is not, and that is why we need our popes.

The Mormons make exactly the same argument as to why they need the "prophets" of their "church." Since you and they cannot both be right, your argument proves too much.

[The Cantabrian]

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

Why would God wait so long to reveal such an important doctrine? Don't you think that if He has something to say, especially something that important, He can just say it, especially since He is omnipotent? What a confused little "god" you Catholics worship.

The Mormons make exactly the same argument as to why they need the "prophets" of their "church." Since you and they cannot both be right, your argument proves too much.

God teaches through men, not through a book. And we have our pope, and the mormons have their prophets, but you have your pastors. Same difference.

Originally Posted by Heathen_Basher

No, it's the Eastern Orthodox Church, duh.

Taken from WIKIPEDIA

Orthodox bishops trace their lineage back to the Apostles through the process of Apostolic Succession. The Orthodox Church claims to trace its development back through the Byzantine or Roman empire, to the earliest church established by St. Paul and the Apostles. It practices what it understands to be the original ancient traditions, believing in growth without change.

If it's one Wikipedia, it must be true.

The orthodox church WAS PART of the catholic church until the Great Schism. I suggest you familiarise yourself with church history.

Originally Posted by landoverlover

Whatever. The arrogance of your so-called church is offensive. Your church is the one true church, which by definition means that all other churches are false, and it follows from that the followers of every other faith are damned. We agree with you, except it is you and not us who are going to hell.

i guess you subscribe to the idea that the longer something has been around, the more legitimacy it necessarily has. I'm sure the followers of Zeus thought so too. Just because you folks were quick on the jump to seize power and conspired by any means necessary to keep it doesn't make you holy or right.

And that's what it's all about with you people - power and arrogance. That you would put priests and bishops and cardinals and popes between the Lord and his flock is an abomination. Where do you get off putting flawed sinful men between God and His children?

Where do you get off praying to or through dead people?

How can you talk about an infallible pope when your religion committed heinous crimes throughout history. Your clergy could be married until the 12th century, when the church decided it wanted to be the inheritor of a priest's estate, and not his family. Your church sold remission of sins for cash. CASH. You preached purgatory despite there not being any Biblical foundation, and then try to quietly abandon it for the fraud that it is. You refuse to provide birth control to starving people who are having more starving babies. Your helpers are on record as advising ignorant, starving people in Africa that condoms cause AIDS. This alone is an abomination, and I am not kidding when I say the pope should be arrested and tried at the Hague for crimes against humanity.

But this grows tiresome as we've covered this ground over and over. You've got nothing new and you're not going to convince a single soul here that your church is anything more than a blasphemous fraud. It is my personal wish that you leave this place. I don't know why you persist knowing that you'll get no traction here.

Same old myths, repeated over and over again. The catholic church has saved millions of lives the world over, with its saints risking life and limb to help the poor and the oppressed. Why is this never reported? You know, some of you people sound like atheists at times and I sometimes wonder if there is not another agenda at work. You are certainly the most bizarre and unloving sect of Christianity that I have ever come across (and I have travelled widely and come across A LOT).

Originally Posted by Brother Temperance

The predominant secular view. Not the Christian view. This reliable source clearly states that "Baptist history extends all the way back to the apostolic Church." Case closed.

Hmmmmm but we'll say nothing about the fact that this Baptist viewpoint contradicts mainstream church historians will we?

[Meek and Humble]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

The orthodox church WAS PART of the catholic church until the Great Schism. I suggest you familiarise yourself with church history.

No, the Catholic Church was a part of the Orthodox Church, duh. Why did you leave the true faith???

Hmmmmm but we'll say nothing about the fact that this Baptist viewpoint contradicts mainstream church historians will we?

Why would we want to be in the mainstream?

James 4:4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

God teaches through men, not through a book.

Then why were the Bereans called noble for using a book to test the teachings of men?

Acts 17:10-12: And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.

More fundamentally, what's the point of the Bible at all, if God teaches through men, not through a book?

And we have our pope, and the mormons have their prophets, but you have your pastors. Same difference.

It's not the same thing at all. We don't come up with "traditions" and "revelations" that theoretically explain Scripture and effectively rewrite it on the fly. We simply guide people in reading the Bible, as they are supposed to do:

Eph. 3:3-4: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

Let me reiterate a point that I've made before and that you haven't answered: Unlike you, we have enough faith in God that we trust Him to have made His point clearly, with no need for "clarification" through either a boy-touching pontiff or a magic-undie-wearing "prophet."

Finally, if it's the "same difference," how do you know that you're right and that the lemonade-drinkers in Utah are wrong?

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by The Cantabrian

What???!!! You are stopping me from opening new threads??!!! WHY ON EARTH would you do that???? Unless of course you are scared of losing the argument?

Because that's how you papists play the game.

1. Open thread
2. Get ass Biblically handed to you on a platter
3. Ignore all scripture given to you
4. Go to step 1

Every papist that comes onto this board does the same thing, and every thread is the same thing over and over and over. Since we're arguing the same arguments, why can't they be kept in the same thread? Do you not like when we point out how wrong you are according to scripture or even the Vaticans website? Does that upset you, so you think if you start fresh we'll just forget all that stuff?