Baptists not Protestant?

[DaniJ87]

Why does it seem Catholics have their own version of history, and then try to use this as leverage against those who haven't studied "under Catholics"?I'm honestly asking, because I genuinely do not understand this mindset. It's irrational. There is no other organization (other than cults, frankly) that promote this type of rationalization. To assert one can only know the "truth" by learning it from them is an exclusion that should raise red flags for any discerning, logically-thinking person. When you're dealing with an organization who already has a history of murdering those who disagree with them, and keeping people ignorant of the truth (such as burning writings and keeping bibles from being translated into other languages), it isn't a stretch to understand that their version of themselves and history is going to be alot more favorable than reality.

If you want to get a job, what is one of the first things they ask you for? References. To discover the truth about someone and their reputation, you don't ask them what they say about themselves...you ask others who know them. It's the same with an organization. You can know them by their fruits. What does history say about them? Not what they say about themselves..but what does real, unbiased history say? That's where you'll find the truth.

I agree... If you can only learn real history from one place, why? Why is the RCC more trustworthy than another place for history? You should really look at everything recorded about a time period, by everyone who has recorded things about it... just saying "you have to learn it from us, or it's inaccurate", is as bad as people saying in some of the Baptist circles, "If you didn't get saved in a Baptist church, you're going to hell", or "If you don't study the Bible in KJV only, you are studying lies".. It has NO logic behind it.

It is ridiculous that the RCC kept the Bible in latin for so long... Jerome translated it at a time when the common language was latin... but when everyone spoke English, why did they not change the language of the Bible?

I know someone who went to a catholic church school, and who was told "Don't read the bible. The best way for you to understand it is to read the interpretations of it, or to listen to the priests." What is biblical about that? God has made Himself accessible to the common man. He is understood just as easily by an unlearned person, as by a professor in something, etc. "Whoseover will, may come"...

[kittylover0991]

Why does it seem Catholics have their own version of history, and then try to use this as leverage against those who haven't studied "under Catholics"?I'm honestly asking, because I genuinely do not understand this mindset. It's irrational. There is no other organization (other than cults, frankly) that promote this type of rationalization. To assert one can only know the "truth" by learning it from them is an exclusion that should raise red flags for any discerning, logically-thinking person. When you're dealing with an organization who already has a history of murdering those who disagree with them, and keeping people ignorant of the truth (such as burning writings and keeping bibles from being translated into other languages), it isn't a stretch to understand that their version of themselves and history is going to be alot more favorable than reality.

If you want to get a job, what is one of the first things they ask you for? References. To discover the truth about someone and their reputation, you don't ask them what they say about themselves...you ask others who know them. It's the same with an organization. You can know them by their fruits. What does history say about them? Not what they say about themselves..but what does real, unbiased history say? That's where you'll find the truth.

I agree... If you can only learn real history from one place, why? Why is the RCC more trustworthy than another place for history? You should really look at everything recorded about a time period, by everyone who has recorded things about it... just saying "you have to learn it from us, or it's inaccurate", is as bad as people saying in some of the Baptist circles, "If you didn't get saved in a Baptist church, you're going to hell", or "If you don't study the Bible in KJV only, you are studying lies".. It has NO logic behind it.

It is ridiculous that the RCC kept the Bible in latin for so long... Jerome translated it at a time when the common language was latin... but when everyone spoke English, why did they not change the language of the Bible?

I know someone who went to a catholic church school, and who was told "Don't read the bible. The best way for you to understand it is to read the interpretations of it, or to listen to the priests." What is biblical about that? God has made Himself accessible to the common man. He is understood just as easily by an unlearned person, as by a professor in something, etc. "Whoseover will, may come"...

Well.. here is a tidbit from my non-biblical public school American education. I was told that most of history is about 60% opinion. I have noticed this in my AP Euro class as to how people's opinion of a certain time-period vary depending on the location. For instance, the fight for indepedance, Americans look down on teh British becuase of the many things dealing with that situation, and then to look at it from the British standpoint about how the states of America bascially turned their back on the British. I don't know.. it seems that the only history I can really trust is what comes from the bible. Everything else just seems like man's interpretations or exaggerations of what really happened.. many times leaving out important information.

As for:

"is as bad as people saying in some of the Baptist circles, "If you didn't get saved in a Baptist church, you're going to hell", or "If you don't study the Bible in KJV only, you are studying lies".. It has NO logic behind it."

... I just cannot resist. The "if you didn't get saved in a Baptist church, you're are going to hell" is defintily non-biblical in most cases. However, there are many who were brought up in churches who are not scripturally sound and taught a method of salvation taht is not biblical, such as baptism or works etc. As for, "If you don't study the Bible in the KJV only, you are studying lies" I actually believe that. I know this should probably be left for another thread as there are thousands of them but

Many churches also use corrupt versions of the bible, which have been changed through translations into

[apothanein kerdos]

AK, the fact that you are not Catholic doesn't mean that I don't think your intelligent. You obviously know some history, but you are taking one of Augustines argument and making a claim that he wasn't Catholic. You are also doing what everyone else seems to do when debating about the Catholic Church, start throwing figures around of how many people the Catholic Church has killed bla, bla, bla. This is a good indication of what you have been taught about the Catholic Church and who has taught you.

Again, you keep defaulting back to "you haven't gone to the Catholic schools!" This is now a very stupid point to bring up (I say this in the kindest way). For one, I already showed you that most of my teachings of the Catholic church have come from priests. Are you saying they are wrong? Secondly, I have looked to the actual source of history and not the Catholic spin on it...so yeah, I guess that disqualifies me if I don't buy into fallible spin

As for what I said, again, one of Augustine's core teachings ran contrary to the Catholic church. Yeah, as I admitted, he had some that went with the Catholics. But his others went against it. It is not justifiable to say he is then Catholic by belief. If it is, then you better be prepared to say all protestants are Catholic as well.

As for brining up what the Pope did, it's legitimate. I'm asking if you should trust the doctrinal stance of a man that was obviously evil.

[Pax]

I wish I had all day to answer everyone of these responses but I don't. Its the same thing over and over again, the Catholic Church has killed millions and millions of people and every Pope was horrible bla, bla, bla. Protestants have also killed Catholics in the name of religion so does this nullify every Protestant Church. King Henry the VIII was notrious for killing Catholics. I have said this a million times, yes some members of the Catholic Church throughout history have done some very bad things including the Popes, but the majority by far have been good honest God fearing people, like Portestants. However, some people want to focus on a few bad apples and say. "Ha your religion is bogus." Ask any crediable theologian and they will tell you that the Catholic Church is the starting point of Christianity.

My response to Tess, is why do Protestants always have a different version of history???? It makes no logical sense. Baptist have to say that their Church runs parallel to the Catholic Church to try and gain crediablility because they know it sounds bad to say that their Church started 350 years ago after splintering off of one of the other various denominations that slpintered off of another. And of course they have to try and discredit the Catholic Chruch by saying how horribly they were persucuted by the Catholic Church. The funniest thing I have read so far is that the Baptist weren't called Baptist and they hid in the hills. Obviously because their is no crediable record of this ever happening.

At this point in the argument when all a person can say is how the Catholic Church has killed millions and millions of people bla, bla, bla is time for me to leave. I will leave on this note, the Magesterium is the oldest teaching institution in the world going back 2,000. During the past 2,000 years the foudational dogma of the Catholic Church hasn't ever change and never will. No other institution or denomnation, including the Baptist can claim this. Obvioulsy there is something special here or else the Magesterium would of collapsed long ago. There is also 1.2 Billion Catholics in the world, if this was a horrible Church, there is no way it would be the largest Christian denominaiton in the world and growing I might add.

[apothanein kerdos]

So, in our atempt to delegitimize Hitler, we point to the number of people he killed. Yet this is a wrong tactic when discussing the Catholic church?

I'm not saying Catholics are the equivalent to Hitler (though some popes could give him a run for his money), wht I am saying is why are Catholics uncomfortable looking to it as a legitimate response.

Fact is Pax, you did what you do in all other topics; you defaulted to rhetoric. That should get you thinking. I continued the discussion, showing why Augustine's beliefs (at least some) ran contrary to the Catholic church, meaning that in doctrine, he was not a Catholic. You instead chose to go the way of rhetoric. This shows more brainwashing than conviction from the heart....I know you can't be comfortable with that Pax.....

[IslandRose]

Ask any crediable theologian and they will tell you that the Catholic Church is the starting point of Christianity.

I think , rather, Christianity was the starting point for Catholicism. Then the Catholic church went one direction and those who didn't agree with them went another.

I don't understand why it is such a problem to think that everyone didn't march in lock step with the Catholics. Knowing human nature, do you really think that up until 1500 everyone thought just alike and suddenly Luther caused people to say, "Hey, wait a minute! I think I don't believe like them anymore..."

I just don't get that line of thinking at all.

[Smalcald]

By creating a fiction of history we as Protestants (I am not ashamed of that title), only hurt our own case.

This whole idea of the secret cave dwelling "true" Christians secretly moving around in the shadows since the Apostles died opposing all of the other "evil" Christians, then suddenly jumping out of their secret lairs sometime in the 1400-1500 time period is simply idiotic. There was no secret group of Christian believers between the time of the last apostles and the time that the Eastern Churches broke with Rome around the year 1000, period. We were all part of one Church; all Christians at that time were part of the one universal church ergo the word catholic or universal.

Now that Church was very diverse, and I think there were what I would call protestant minded believers during that time, but they all took part, they were all part of that Church. The Reformation had early inklings prior to Luther and the other great reformers, but that is when things really started happening. Why be ashamed of that? Why be ashamed of our own faith, our teachings are still largely based on Luther's core ideas of Faith alone, Scripture alone, and Grace alone. He was a Catholic, who wanted things to change, but there was no such word as "catholic" then, catholic just means universal, we were all simply Christians or part of the Church, which unfortunately needed to be, shook to its core, and it was.

But this Catholic phobia is not helping, not everything Catholic is bad, Catholics are Christians they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they are wrong on some things (sorry pax), but they are also right on some things. They accept the Trinity, which is more than I can say for many people who call themselves Christian on this board, but maybe the Trinity is a Catholic idea, so we should dump it, how about the idea that Christ rose from the dead, they believe that, maybe we should dump it as a Catholic idea, this could go on and on. We can't deny our history if we want to be honest.

[Pax]

By creating a fiction of history we as Protestants (I am not ashamed of that title), only hurt our own case.

This whole idea of the secret cave dwelling "true" Christians secretly moving around in the shadows since the Apostles died opposing all of the other "evil" Christians, then suddenly jumping out of their secret lairs sometime in the 1400-1500 time period is simply idiotic. There was no secret group of Christian believers between the time of the last apostles and the time that the Eastern Churches broke with Rome around the year 1000, period. We were all part of one Church; all Christians at that time were part of the one universal church ergo the word catholic or universal.

Now that Church was very diverse, and I think there were what I would call protestant minded believers during that time, but they all took part, they were all part of that Church. The Reformation had early inklings prior to Luther and the other great reformers, but that is when things really started happening. Why be ashamed of that? Why be ashamed of our own faith, our teachings are still largely based on Luther's core ideas of Faith alone, Scripture alone, and Grace alone. He was a Catholic, who wanted things to change, but there was no such word as "catholic" then, catholic just means universal, we were all simply Christians or part of the Church, which unfortunately needed to be, shook to its core, and it was.

But this Catholic phobia is not helping, not everything Catholic is bad, Catholics are Christians they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they are wrong on some things (sorry pax), but they are also right on some things. They accept the Trinity, which is more than I can say for many people who call themselves Christian on this board, but maybe the Trinity is a Catholic idea, so we should dump it, how about the idea that Christ rose from the dead, they believe that, maybe we should dump it as a Catholic idea, this could go on and on. We can't deny our history if we want to be honest.

Thank You Smalcald, finally some sanity on this thread.

[Pax]

So, in our atempt to delegitimize Hitler, we point to the number of people he killed. Yet this is a wrong tactic when discussing the Catholic church?

I'm not saying Catholics are the equivalent to Hitler (though some popes could give him a run for his money), wht I am saying is why are Catholics uncomfortable looking to it as a legitimate response.

Fact is Pax, you did what you do in all other topics; you defaulted to rhetoric. That should get you thinking. I continued the discussion, showing why Augustine's beliefs (at least some) ran contrary to the Catholic church, meaning that in doctrine, he was not a Catholic. You instead chose to go the way of rhetoric. This shows more brainwashing than conviction from the heart....I know you can't be comfortable with that Pax.....

I resent the fact that you are using Hitler and the Catholic Church in the same sentence. This tells me alot about what you have been taught. I would never dream of using Hitler and any other denomination in the same sentence.

I am one of two Catholics on this board so of course I am going to have people say, hey you are brainwashed and all you ever do is use circular reasoning etc. I am completely comfortable with being Catholic. I was born and raised Baptist so I have been on both sides of the fence. In the future AK, don't put Hitler in the same sentence as another persons Church.....you won't get far with them.

[apothanein kerdos]

By creating a fiction of history we as Protestants (I am not ashamed of that title), only hurt our own case.

This whole idea of the secret cave dwelling "true" Christians secretly moving around in the shadows since the Apostles died opposing all of the other "evil" Christians, then suddenly jumping out of their secret lairs sometime in the 1400-1500 time period is simply idiotic. There was no secret group of Christian believers between the time of the last apostles and the time that the Eastern Churches broke with Rome around the year 1000, period. We were all part of one Church; all Christians at that time were part of the one universal church ergo the word catholic or universal.

Now that Church was very diverse, and I think there were what I would call protestant minded believers during that time, but they all took part, they were all part of that Church. The Reformation had early inklings prior to Luther and the other great reformers, but that is when things really started happening. Why be ashamed of that? Why be ashamed of our own faith, our teachings are still largely based on Luther's core ideas of Faith alone, Scripture alone, and Grace alone. He was a Catholic, who wanted things to change, but there was no such word as "catholic" then, catholic just means universal, we were all simply Christians or part of the Church, which unfortunately needed to be, shook to its core, and it was.

But this Catholic phobia is not helping, not everything Catholic is bad, Catholics are Christians they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, and they are wrong on some things (sorry pax), but they are also right on some things. They accept the Trinity, which is more than I can say for many people who call themselves Christian on this board, but maybe the Trinity is a Catholic idea, so we should dump it, how about the idea that Christ rose from the dead, they believe that, maybe we should dump it as a Catholic idea, this could go on and on. We can't deny our history if we want to be honest.

go back and re-read the entire thread. No one, to my knowledge, is attempting to rid ourselves of our Catholic history. I even stated that at one point everyone was called "Catholic" but that their doctrine was different than the modern Catholic church. Baptists trace their belief back to the first century, not their name. Even the anabaptists, whom the Baptists come from, pre-date protestants by at least a thousand years. Montanus, the Montanists, and Tertullian all held beliefs that were essential to the anabaptist, giving letigimacy to the belief they've been around since at least the second century. To make matters clearer, it's a Greek, not Latin, term. This means the term would have been coined when Greek was still the "majority" language...this would have taken place prior to Constantine.