Aggie4Life02 - I was looking through the Baptist link you posted yesterday on what your church teaches. In Chapter 30 below, it states that the Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice. How would you square that teaching with

Hebrews 5:1 - "For every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins.

2: He can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he himself is beset with weakness.

3: Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people." ????



30. The Lord's Supper

The Supper of the Lord Jesus was instituted by Him the same night on which He was betrayed to be observed in His churches until the end of the world for the perpetual remembrance, and showing forth of the sacrifice of Himself in His death. It was also instituted by Christ to confirm believers in all the benefits of His death; - for their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him; - for their further engagement in and commitment to all the duties which they owe to Him; - and to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him and with their fellow believers.

In this ordinance Christ is not offered up to His Father, nor is there any real sacrifice made at all for remission of sin (of the living or the dead). There is only a memorial of that one offering up of Christ by Himself upon the cross once for all, the memorial being accompanied by a spiritual oblation of all possible praise to God for Calvary. Therefore, the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most abominable, being injurious to Christ's own sacrifice, which is the only propitiation for all the sins of the elect.

Texasag73

If you read the whole of Hebrews, you will see that the writer of Hebrews is contrasting the Highpriest of the old covenant (who was a sinner) and the Highpriest of the new coveant (who is not a sinner: Jesus) therefore, the Highpriest of the new covenant does not have to make sacrifices again and again. Jesus, our Highpriest made his sacrifice once and for all on Calvary.

quote:

---

Hebrews 10:1-14
1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

---

Jesus made his sacrifice once for all at the Cross. The Eucharist is not a sacrifice, it is a reminder of that sacrifice.

The teaching of the 12 Apostles in the Didache takes the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 -- For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure sacrifice: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.


CHAPTER 14, Didache, the Teaching of the 12 Apostles

The Sunday worship

1 On the Lord's Day of the Lord come together, break bread and hold Eucharist, after confessing your transgressions that your offering may be pure; 2 but let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled. 3 For this is that which was spoken by the Lord, "In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king," saith the Lord, "and my name is wonderful among the heathen."


Malachi's prophecy for us Gentiles, along with the teaching of the 12 Apostles in the Didache of the first century, and Hebrews 1, means that we have to offer incense and sacrifice to God. You are confusing the useless Old Testament Jewish sacrifices of animals with the New Testament Sacrifice of the Mass, as prophecied by Malachi for the times of the Gentiles.




Texasag73

T73, Amen, bro.

The Didache isn't in my Bible.

quote:

---

You are confusing the useless Old Testament Jewish sacrifices of animals with the New Testament Sacrifice of the Mass, as prophecied by Malachi for the times of the Gentiles.

---

What are you sacrificing at the Mass? A couple crackers and some wine?

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/7/2005 5:20p).]

http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Eucharist/Eucharist_016.htm

"The Didache isn't in my Bible"....

Neither are the 16th century teachings of Luther and Calvin...I'll stick with 1rst century teachings...

Texasag73

If you want the first century teachings on it, then those would not be consistent with the view in Trent and on… It is a “spiritual” (see Calvin)sacrifice, and it’s not Christ who is sacrificed, but it is from us, in the spirit of Hebrews 13:15.

"Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to the declaration of Malachi the prophet. For, 'from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;' as John also declares in the Apocalypse: 'The incense is the prayers of the saints.' Then again, Paul exhorts us 'to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.' And again, 'Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.' Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God 'in spirit and in truth.' And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom." Irenaeus (Fragments, 37).



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/7/2005 7:08p).]

Come on, what are you sacrificing at Mass? NOTHING.

Jesus is the sacrifice. The LAMB of God. That's what many ritualists don't get is that there is NOTHING we can do to earn our keep. We are the heathen who are saved by grace alone.

If we want to go back in history we can cite the Catholic creed that the wine actually turns into Jesus's blood inside the believer's body. You don't buy that line, do ya?

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/7/2005 8:30p).]

quote:

---

If we want to go back in history we can cite the Catholic creed that the wine actually turns into Jesus's blood inside the believer's body.

---

Huh? Does anyone know what micahb2002 is refering to here?

quote:

---

The Seven Sacraments "Adhering to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, to the apostolic traditions and to the consensus of the Fathers we profess that the sacraments of the new law were all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord." –Council of Trent, 1547 AD

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church are the means by which Christ dispenses his salvific grace to the members of the Church. The sacrament of Baptism is a sacrament of initiation into the Body of Christ (the Church) and infuses sanctifying grace into the soul of the baptized believer. The sacrament of Confirmation occurs after Baptism and in it the confirmed receives the gift of the Holy Spirit to increase faith and grace. Confirmation is needed for the completion of baptismal grace (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1285). The third sacrament is the central sacrament of the Church; Holy Eucharist. The Eucharist, which is blessed by a Catholic priest in the sacrifice of the Mass, becomes the body and blood of Christ. Those who partake of the Eucharist receive the grace needed to live a Christian life. The next sacrament is Holy Matrimony, or marriage, and in it, two baptized Christians are bonded together unto death to live in holy marriage. The recipients of the sacrament receive the grace of God needed to live as loving spouses and parents. The fifth sacrament is Holy Orders, and is the sacrament of grace by which a Christian becomes a Catholic deacon, priest or bishop. The sixth sacrament is Reconciliation and is the sacrament of forgiveness, by which a person receives forgiveness for their sins. The last sacrament is Anointing of the Sick and is given to the elderly and the sick to prepare them for death and the beginning of eternal life with Jesus.

---

A lot of people were burned at the stake for challenging this belief.

http://www.saintaquinas.com/catholic_beliefs.html

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/7/2005 8:48p).]

micahb2002- As a Catholic I believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Yea, "I buy that line." Maybe I'm just addled brained today (I'm sure many of you think I'm that every day ) but how I read what you wrote is that you believe that Catholic doctrine states that the change doesn't occur until taken by the believer and not durning the Eucharistic prayer in which the priest asks the Holy Spirit to transform the gifts of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

I believe in the real presence of Christ spiritually in Communion, but not physically. The Spirit is there physically, but He is there everyday in a believer.

I guess we can never know since Jesus didn't leave a DNA sample. =D

I apologize if the "buy that line" language was offensive. My fellow Baptists have some "lines" that I don't believe in (like the pastor as the absolute ruler of the church - they need to reread the role of Deacons).

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/7/2005 10:18p).]

quote:

---

I apologize if the "buy that line" language was offensive.

---

Don't worry, no offense was taken by me. I took it as a good natured jab, that was why I repeated in an off handed way.

quote:

---

A lot of people were burned at the stake for challenging this belief

---

Please...In this country, it was protestants up in Salem who killed "witches"...

Texasag73

quote:

---

Please...In this country, it was protestants up in Salem who killed "witches"...

---

A comparison of an anomaly from an isolated group to the norm for the group that they were not far removed from does not seem fair.

quote:

---

My fellow Baptists have some "lines" that I don't believe in (like the pastor as the absolute ruler of the church - they need to reread the role of Deacons).

---

Actually, most Baptist churches are just the opposite. The pastor has very little control, and serves at the pleasure of the "deacon board".

quote:

---

Neither are the 16th century teachings of Luther and Calvin...I'll stick with 1rst century teachings...

---

So you follow the didache.......oh the irony.

quote:

---

So you follow the didache.......oh the irony.

---

It is natural that he think that the faith of RCism has always been the same. That is their very claim to authority, that it is the apostolic teachings that they hold to - the same faith delivered up in the 1st century. The irony is that this same authority is appealed to, to hold to beliefs contrary to the Bible, and therefore the Apostles, as well as the early Church fathers. It is the claim that ‘doctrine developed’ from a seed form back then through the years to blossom to the views of the present. An honest view however will show that many of the views are not simpler forms of ones that developed, but that they are mutually exclusive views, and sometimes entirely contrary views.

The most honest observes of this are often flummoxed by it, and often appeal to a kind of thought that, while it may have gotten off track over the years, and may be off track some now, that the Lord always pulls it back to dead center through time. That the flawed people who make up the hierarchy in time do on in the end permanently mislead the whole Church.

This of course has many ramifications as well, such as, how does one know if one is in one of the more corrupt times or not, and what is one to do with the questionable positions that effect him.

A tenuous relationship often seems to develop between the conscience of the informed, and honest catholic and the present Roman system.

The hope seems to be that the Councils will go on, that reform will go on. That it may be through the next Pope, or perhaps the next, or perhaps through Ecumenism and a better unity, that things lost will make a more firm foundation, and it will all one day make better sense, be reconciled, and be healed.



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/8/2005 2:47p).]

quote:

---

Please...In this country, it was protestants up in Salem who killed "witches"...

---

Wrong. Puritans were not protestants (unless by protestant you mean anything non-Catholic, which is a false definition). Puritans sought to PURIFY the Church of England, which was the complete opposite direction taken by protestants towards established Churches. Real protestants were killed by the Puritans on a regular basis or banished to Rhode Island.

As for Baptists and Deacons, the Southern Baptist Convention (unless things have changed) takes the position now that pastors are the main ruler of the church.

Wouldn't the "purifiers" of a Protestant church still be Protestants?

The Church of England wasn't Protestant. That is a big misconception of many (a fault of unclear historical teaching). The Church of England was merely a catholic institution with the English crown as head of the Church rather than the Pope. There was no "separation of church and state" in Anglicanism.

Groups like Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Presbyterians (sp?) were groups that broke from the Established Church of England and were considered Protestants by the Crown. In a way, I guess you could say that Puritans were protestant against the Church, but only in that they intended to purify it from within (at first). They shared little in common with traditional Protestant thought, however. Puritans believed in their own religious supremacy over all others and banned &/or hung those who refused to conform. They also abhored religious liberty.

I guess it all comes down to how you define "protestant." If merely protesting the Catholic Church, then every non-Catholic Christian faith is protestant (an assumption of many). I think that is too wide of a net. I think those who challenged the established churches on grounds of religious freedoms (and whose religion tolerated the freedom of religious thought and expression) are considered traditional protestant.

The Puritans would not fit within this group. They had their own unique history within the Established Church, and their own reign of terror in Mass. Bay Colony to be considered a mainstream protestant sect. They were as much for established religion as anyone - as long as it was Puritanism.

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/8/2005 5:08p).]

micahb2002,

Your view of Protestants and puritans, and the distinction you make between them, and such is totally wrong. Puritans were indeed those who were not the moderate, or more liberal factions of those in England, such as the Arminians and other Romish leaners were. It was however the Puritans there were part of the whole Genevan concept of a thorough and biblical Reformation. John Knox would for example be considered a puritan, yet he is also considered the father of the Presbyterian Church. People all the way from John Bunyan (writer of the most popular novel ever outside of the scriptures) to Jonathan Edwards the man who’s sermon began the (real) Great Awakening.

All of the signers in independence hall were raised being tutored under the Westminster Confession of Faith Catechism, which was law that it should be part of the education. A puritanical (Calvinistic) document if there ever was one!

A protestant has always been considered one who is outside of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, the origins lying in the teachings of both the reformers – mainly Calvin., Luther, Zwingli, as well as those leaders of the “radical reformation”. It was never a term to describe those who protested the Church of England!

These views are total conspiracy theory level stuff.

[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/8/2005 6:21p).]

quote:

---

A protestant has always been considered one who is outside of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, the origins lying in the teachings of both the reformers – mainly Calvin., Luther, Zwingli, as well as those leaders of the “radical reformation”.

---

Wrong. They were also considered Protestants who challenged the Church of England. Puritans were considered Protestants under this definition. Your use of absolutes hurts your argument but under your definition I will agree that Puritans are Protestants. I will also agree that Puritans can be termed an extreme-right Protestant sect who bore little resemblance to mainstream Protestants. However, religious freedom was a key element of Protestantism from Luther through Wesley, and the Puritans were intolerant of anyone who didn't buy their view of the world. They drug non-Puritans through town, flogging them along the way, and hung women who didn't agree with them in Boston Common.

If Protestantism is simply a Christian sect disagreeing with Catholicism, then a Mormons are protestants. The Carribean religions who mix African Voodoo and Catholicism are Protestant. It's not that simple, unless one wants it to be.

quote:

---

It was never a term to describe those who protested the Church of England!

---

Wrong. It was. Read Elizabethan and Jacobean history. Even the Puritans are protestants under this definition, and they were considered Protestants by the Crown.

quote:

---

These views are total conspiracy theory level stuff.

---

That adds little to the argument and really makes little sense. Puritans were an anomoly in the history of the Protestant movement and bear little resemblance to the movement as a whole. In fact, mainstream Protestants wanted to move the Church forward while Puritans wanted to move it backwards. You can't ignore this fundamental difference. Yes, there were some great Puritan thinkers who contributed to the Protestant movement, but the movement as whole was in an entirely different direction than the rest of Protestantism.

The difference may appear trivial and the legalese not worth fighting over, but it is historically inaccurate (and oversimplification) to put Puritans in the same religious boat as Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, etc. In fact, most Puritans would have jumped out of the boat voluntarily.

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/8/2005 7:03p).]

micahb2002,

quote:

---

Wrong. They were also considered Protestants who challenged the Church of England. Puritans were considered Protestants under this definition. Your use of absolutes hurts your argument but under your definition I will agree that Puritans are Protestants. I will also agree that Puritans can be termed an extreme-right Protestant sect who bore little resemblance to mainstream Protestants. However, religious freedom was a key element of Protestantism from Luther through Wesley, and the Puritans were intolerant of anyone who didn't buy their view of the world. They drug non-Puritans through town, flogging them along the way, and hung women who didn't agree with them in Boston Common.

---

Again, I don’t agree with your positions. I am simply using the term as it has been defined throughout history. Your Johnny come lately view is simply incorrect. I also beg to differ on the mainstream argument, as the evidence that I gave you that the Westminster Shorter Catechism was taught to all the signers of the Declaration of Independence, as it was required to be taught by law. It was out of this decidedly Calvinistic (and thoroughly Puritan) worldview that our nation sprang. Your view of puritan theology is decidedly narrow, and I am sorry to say, thoroughly uninformed.

quote:

---

If Protestantism is simply a Christian sect disagreeing with Catholicism, then a Mormons are protestants. The Carribean religions who mix African Voodoo and Catholicism are Protestant. It's not that simple, unless one wants it to be.

---

Well again, all we have to do is to go back to what I have already said, “A protestant has always been considered one who is outside of the Roman Catholic Church and Orthodoxy, the origins lying in the teachings of both the reformers….as well as those leaders of the “radical reformation”.

Mormonism would be in theological language considered a “Christian sect” , or as it is called today, a “cult”.

quote:

---

Even the Puritans are protestants under this definition, and they were considered Protestants by the Crown.

---

Yes, exactly that was my point, Puritans are protestants, which completely defeats your argument above where you say flat out that :”Puritans were not protestants”! Which is what Got me into this discussion with you in the first place!
My point was that they were not protestants because they protested the church of England, they were protestants because they protested Rome!

quote:

---

That adds little to the argument and really makes little sense. Puritans were an anomoly in the history of the Protestant movement and bear little resemblance to the movement as a whole. In fact, mainstream Protestants wanted to move the Church forward while Puritans wanted to move it backwards. You can't ignore this fundamental difference. Yes, there were some great Puritan thinkers who contributed to the Protestant movement, but the movement as whole was in an entirely different direction than the rest of Protestantism.

---

That shows your lack of knowledge of the History! Most of America was Calvinistic until the mid 1800’s! All the spiritual grandchildren of the Puritans! Again, our nation was founded out of this thought. Were it not for Rutherford’s Rex Lex or of the very principles of government that came from that worldview, America would not exist in it’s current form!

quote:

---

The difference may appear trivial and the legalese not worth fighting over, but it is historically inaccurate (and oversimplification) to put Puritans in the same religious boat as Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, etc. In fact, most Puritans would have jumped out of the boat voluntarily.

---

This statement is totally wrong!
You need to study some on this.. Here is a start…

http://www2.pitnet.net/primarysources/

A general overview of some of this can be found in Francis Schaffer's "How Shall We Then Live". That would be a good book to get you started, and I will try to get you some more sources

May I ask what you theological background is?




[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/8/2005 7:53p).]

Here are some links that might help...

http://www.puritansermons.com/aboutprt.htm

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/puritans.htm

My background is in history, particularly British history prior to 1914 and American history prior to 1865. I know what a Puritan and a Protestant is, so your arrogance is misplaced. Puritan's didn't protest Rome, they protested the Church of England for not being "pure" enough. This was reverse protest compared to the rest of what we view as Protestants. British Baptists and Methodists also sprung from the protest of the Anglican church, though the Baptist movement on the Continent did protest Rome.

I don't have a theological background. I have been a history nut my whole life (and have a B.A. in it) and I read the Bible. I chose law school over going the professor route. You probably have more knowledge of the details of Puritanism, but my general statements about them are correct.

Your inability to see two sides of an argument baffles me.

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/8/2005 8:03p).]

Protestants had been traditionally Christian churches since Luther broke away. All factions of Christian churches non Cath. fall under the term Protestant. I just checked Webster's and it's defined as a Christian sect that rejects the authority of the Pope and follows reformation beliefs. That would include the Puritans.

This argument is a bit like those Christian denominations that insist that they are not denominations, like the Chrurch of Christ or the Association of Vineyard churches. If you look up denomination in the dictionary, you can check off the denotations, one by one. Same with protestant. It's OK to use a word different than a dictionary or church history standard usage, but I suggest that you define your term so we know you are outside the English standard norm.

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/8/2005 8:01p).]

Webster's does not require deep thought nor does it get into details of British history. Almost every dictionary defines a Protestant as one who broke off from the Catholic Church during the Reformation. The Puritans, Methodists etc. didn't do so nor did the English Baptists - they protested the Church of England. The Church of England did but isn't really a Protestant church.

The average third grader can recite the dictionary, general term of a Protestant and can understand the black-letter rules you guys are hammering away at. However, what and whom the churches protested varies greatly, as did their goals. That is why it is a GENERAL TERM. As we all know, there are exceptions to general terms.

I am saying that MY definition of Protestant is one whose doctrine includes religious freedom as well as the traditional Calvinist points of view. Perhaps that is too Wesleyan of me, but religious freedom and free will are too well-rooted of Protestant concepts for me to ignore. Puritans (in practice) had little concept of religious freedom or free will. It was "believe this or we hang/expel you!"

This is an area in which reasonable minds can disagree. I'm not going to continue in an internet match over something so trivial. As I said, assuming your definitions, you are correct.

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/8/2005 8:43p).]

The contradictions of micahb2002…


Puritans are not protestants..

4:15p

quote:

---

Wrong. Puritans were not protestants

---

Puritans are protestants..

6:49p

quote:

---

Wrong. They were also considered Protestants who challenged the Church of England. Puritans were considered Protestants under this definition.

---

The baffling of micahb2002…

quote:

---

Your inability to see two sides of an argument baffles me.

---

The confession of being a Methodist who shows he despises and misunderstands Calvinism in all it’s forms.

quote:

---

Perhaps that is too Wesleyan of me, but religious freedom and free will are too well-rooted of Protestant concepts for me to ignore. Puritans (in practice) had little concept of religious freedom or free will.

---

Your posts have no foundation but your personal opinion.

You need to do a lot of reading on Britain from Henry VIII through George I. Then maybe you will better understand English Protestantism.

And I'm not Methodist nor will I ever be. I also agree with Calvin except on predestination.

Also, it's quite petty to misquote someone:

quote:

---

Wrong. Puritans were not protestants (unless by protestant you mean anything non-Catholic, which is a false definition).

---

You forgot to mention what made you such a theological authority that your own opinion is conclusive.

[This message has been edited by micahb2002 (edited 5/8/2005 9:14p).]

quote:

---

Your posts have no foundation but your personal opinion.

You need to do a lot of reading on Britain from Henry VIII through George I. Then maybe you will better understand English Protestantism.

---

I believe it is you who need to learn more about it. I Cited several historical examples to make my points. None of it was mere conjecture.. You need to read the Primary Documents links!

quote:

---

And I'm not Methodist nor will I ever be. I also agree with Calvin except on predestination.

---

Well, perhaps from your claim to be “too Wesleyan”, you should be…

quote:

---

Also, it's quite petty to misquote someone:
quote:

Wrong. Puritans were not protestants (unless by protestant you mean anything non-Catholic, which is a false definition).

---

No need. Your fuller quote confirms your inconsistencies even more…

quote:

---

You forgot to mention what made you such a theological authority that your own opinion is conclusive.

---

I never claimed to be a theological authority, but all I have is this on my side. I am a grandchild of Puritan theology, as even the doctrinal standard of my Church is, as it has always been of Presbyterian Churches since the 1630s, that most puritan of documents, The Westminster Confession of Faith.

Of it I am very familiar, and it has been a catalyst of much of my systematic observations of the scriptures, and therefore my worldview is shaped by my doctrinal positions, as I am sure it was of the founding fathers of our nation. I have taken a special interest and study in those things, of Puritan thought, and of Reformation History, as it is my history directly, as I am at least a spiritual decedent of those things, much more so than most could claim, because you could say that I am a Calvinist, or as it is put today, a Reformed Theologian. What weight that carries in it’s own is very little, but the weight of my argument in most peoples minds here is their knowledge of my knowledge of these things, tested, and tried over the years, by many a here today, gone tomorrow arguers, and that I believe will best you until you have proved your bold claims of knowledge for a season.





[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 5/8/2005 10:49p).]

quote:

---

The Church of England wasn't Protestant

---

Now this is truly an amazing statement. Henry VIII specifically started this church because the pope wouldn't go against the Holy Bible and grant Henry a divorce. IN PROTEST, Henry VIII got divorced anyway and started his own church, with himself as head of the church. The Puritans eventually protested that church because of their dislike of icons and other fundamentalist ideas. Oliver Cromwell was one of these and even ran the country for awhile. There are a lot of dead Catholics in Ireland as a result of Mr. Cromwell's Puritanical Protestant rule, as well as a lot of dead Catholics in England as a result of Henry VIII's protest against the Catholic Church. You can blame the Catholic Church for the Inquisition, but don't fail to look at the 2 English Protestant Churches and their killing sprees.

Texasag73

Allow me to give you my definition of "hammer." It is a small, green vegetable that makes great soup. In fact, I really enjoy cream of hammer soup. Hey, that's MY defintion of hammer, let's argue it, afterall the dictionary is not deep enough to really explain MY definition.

Excuse me while I strain out a gnat and swallow a camel. Also, I think that I have actually solved the problem of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

(Please, take this with a sense of humor) If I get in trouble, I can always redefine humor.

[This message has been edited by The Lone Stranger (edited 5/9/2005 7:19a).]

texasag73,

Didn't your fellow RC, Titan correct your simplistic view of this once?