Skip to comments.Why the Pope’s resignation matters to Protestants
Posted on 02/13/2013 6:48:52 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Surprise and shock are an understatement when it comes to Pope Benedict XVIs resignation. Only a handful of Popes have called it quits. The Popes decision continues to spark speculation about who the next leader of the Roman Catholic Church will be. This decision will have far reaching impact for Catholics around the world and certainly for Protestants.
As most readers know, Im not Catholic. Im an American Baptist clergyman. I come from a tradition that fought to continue the reforms of the Church of England. Baptists were one of the many English separatist groups that wanted to go further than breaking ties with Rome. Separatist movements during the Reformation were, in general, about freedom of religious expression, freedom to interpreted the Scriptures, and to free themselves from Romes hierarchy.
Some 400-500 years later, the Church in Rome and its Pope still matter to Protestants. Though we Protestants are free from persecution, this new Popes election will impact the way we Protestants interact with our Catholic brothers and sisters. As much as we protestants distance ourselves from the Catholic Church, we are connected common belief and ministry.
In recent years, ecumenical relationships formed between Protestants and Catholics have strengthened. Beyond sharing common basic doctrinal beliefs, (The Trinity, Salvation, etc..) Protestants and Catholics are getting better at how we treat one another. Mostly because of leadership within both traditions. Much of how this new Pope leads the Catholic Church will set a tone throughout Christianity. Protestants will wait to see if this new Pope will begin a period of transformation. Will we see more ecumenical acceptance of marriage, sacraments, membership, and ministry like the Catholic agreement with Reformed churches on Baptism?
If this next Pope leads Catholics to more common ground, we could see a new wave of Catholic and Protestant relationships. Think about it our challenges are the similar: shrinking memberships, public perception, changing church demographics, declining evangelism efforts, and diminishing financial giving. If more could be done together our common challenges, we could share common success. Measurable success could be made globally and nationally with ministry among the poor, basic health care access, developing nation building, fighting injustice, and access to education. The cause for the common good could something that we could work together on.
This is not without problems. There will always be groups within our own traditions that will fight against such togetherness. We Baptists are known for our exclusionary behavior when it comes to differences in theology with other Protestants. However, if leadership from our Protestant groups can commit to working with this new Pope and his leadership, our challenges can begin diminish.
This new Papal change is an opportunity for transformation for Catholic and Protestants. If both Catholic and Protestant leadership plan to work together in our common struggles, a new chapter could be written for Christianity. A new Pope could lead his faithful to turn their attention to breaking down our separation instead of seeking to build more doctrinal walls.
If the homosexualists take over the Catholic Church, all is lost.
Hmmm...if everyone focuses on following God, then we will be drawn closer. But this Baptist - and I’m not an American Baptist, unlike the author - believes that following the truth about God means seeking his revelation thru scripture, rather than humans.
I accept that the Baptist Church in America derives from the dissenters from the Church of England. How could I not, when so many Baptist Churches here in Virginia trace their histories to the colonial period? But, there’s a side of me that thinks Baptists and Catholics co-existed from the very beginning, the difference initially being difficult to identify, but becoming clear upon the establishment of Christianity as the Church of Rome. Now that the Catholic Church is longer an established church, I think there is a tremendous opportunity for renewed unity within the church, including both formal and informal relations.
It is in the best interests of Protestants that the new Pope be as conservative as possible.
Show me a non Catholic faith and I will show you at least one error.
Pope Piel I would pimp-slap this clown.
It is easy to understand how some Evangelicals and Catholics would wish to put aside as many differences as possible in order to help address the moral crises destroying so many lives everywhere.
While we Evangelicals can clearly sympathize with the motives of some of these tenderhearted catholic people, united social action must not be at the expense of truth, and unity should never be allowed to eclipse the most important spiritual truth of all: the gospel.
“Show me a non Catholic faith and I will show you at least one error.”
And what might that error be?
Show me a non Catholic faith and I will show you at least one error.
The RCC has plenty of “errors” of it’s own that need to be addressed before it goes looking to address the errors of others. Furthermore, IF the next Pope embraces all the progressive BS like homosexuality, female priests and social justice, the RCC won’t just have “errors,” it will be over.
I don’t see this happening. I think there will some collaboration to discuss the spread and inroads of Islam and the secular governments seeming embrace of sharia. The lefists have made common cause with Muslims against Christianity.
As far as a pontiff who embraces causes left, that isn’t going to happen.
Peter the African ensured his continuing role as cardinal by his comments yesterday.
Might have been done pre-emptively ( -;!
I can’t imagine anyone actually wanting to be the pope.
In any event, the Holy Spirit will surprise us and foil the media as He has often done.
The immersed Corinthian disciples (and we also) were directed by Paul to separate (2 Cor. 6:17) from those who had already corrupted the Word of God (2 Cor. 2:17) and the minds of naive followers (2 Cor. 11:3); who were following another christ, of the same kind, yet still another that was not the Lord's Christ (2 Cor. 11:4a,b); but who were preaching another spirit of a different kind (2 Cor. 11:4c,d) whose message was that of "earning one's way into the kingdom of heaven" (2 Cor. 11:4e), rather different than the free grace of God (2 Cor. 6:1-2,9:14; Eph. 2:8) which Paul was given to announce.
The God's inspired spoken and written instruction through Paul was, and still is, to come out from among them, be separate, and wholly refrain from even touching "the unclean thing." which is the doctrines of apostasy.
The God repeated that again through the beloved John (the theologian) in His Revelation regarding the city on seven mountains (Rev.17:3-6,7,9;18:2-3): "Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues, for her sins have reached unto heaven, and The God hath remembered her iniquities."
In his ecumenical zeal, Rudnick is calling his followers to join with heresy rather than to come out, be separate, and not touch the very unclean thing, that Babylon, of even whose temporal magistrate can no longer stand to occupy the pastoral role.
Just sayin' ...
Show me a non Catholic faith and I will show you at least one
“seeking his revelation thru scripture”
Not sure what you mean by that?
Hmmm... There are so many -at least as many errors as there are errant faith knockoffs.
There is no collective salvation -there is individual salvation. So -do not ask me the question as to what is wrong with your faith if you are not of His Catholic Church. Find out for yourself what is any difference that necessitated a departure from truth -it is your salvation at stake not mine.
As a Catholic: LOL. Double LOL. Laughing out loud rolling on the floor LOL.
Rudnick's "church" is the First Baptist Church of Ballston Spa, NY. They're a member of the American Baptist Churches of the USA (www.abc-usa.org).
Why don't you research the American Baptists' position on abortion for us, and then come back and tell us who ought to be "coming out" of whom, and just who "Babylon" is ... hmm?
I'll give you a little hint: when "beloved John (the theologian)" quoted Jesus as talking to "my people," the "people" he had in mind weren't people who just couldn't decide .. couldn't commit themselves ... couldn't say for sure ... whether or not ripping arms and legs off little innocent children in the womb was an abomination.
"Come out of her" ... indeed.
It means if you want to know the truth about God and who he is, read His Word.
Never thought of that!!
What hath light to do with darkness?
Gotcha and agree. I thought you meant you could actually find God by simply reading and studying scripture. Gotta look, pray, and try to live the Word for that. There is an exercise I have taken upon myself recently to help negate the distractions of the world on earth and remain in sync with the Holy Spirit every day. Every night before I go to bed, I ask myself where I saw the presence of Christ that day. This could be something as simple of observing someone pulling over to help another broken down on the side of the road or it could be something more spiritual or deep. At first it was difficult to recall an instance, but as time goes by, I have found myself looking for Christ throughout the day, even in the middle of daily distractions.
Well, on general practice, an affiliate of the ABC is not one I'd be likely to want to associate with, no more than other denominations. However, they should not be touching "the unclean thing" in any case, be it siding with Right-to-Infant-Execution, approval of alcoholic elixirs in church and social venues, blindness to pederasty, or whatever other abomination is not summarily dealt with in church discipline. We know what Babylon is, symbolically. That is not in question.
It is not the ABC that needs to come out of that which the Bible refers to as Babylon, for they never were in it. And they should not seek to throw in with it, for which he wrongly pleads. No, it's anyone that's already in it, who has somehow tumbled to the requirements for salvation despite contrary influences, that ought to come out of her/it. Your direction indicator seems to be a bit muddled at the moment--especially that it draws you to laughter, when wailing is the correct response.
some even have two!!..The Catholic church is the only church on earth with ALL the truth!! Jesus said so and He promised to be with Her until the end of time.....so far, so good!
Thanks for making that clear.
Ever notice how most of the time ‘the whore of babylon’ garbage about the Catholic Church comes from those who don’t usually bother to state what Christian group they consider themselves closest to in belief?
There are reasons for that.
I'm glad we can thoroughly agree on this much.
With respect ...
For me, the post-Pentecostal Apostles. You?
I think one of the reasons most don’t say what group they belong to is because it is embarrassing. To the point that FR banned some the sources that believe such mouth-breathing garbage. To their credit, not the post-Pentecostal Apostles.
Is there a source on the internet where one can learn about what the ‘post-Pentecostal Apostles’ hold to be true beyond thinking the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon?
I'm afraid my words have confused you. I really meant that the group whose beliefs I wish to share is that of the Apostles who were chosen by Christ to be his special disciples; commissioned by Him as Apostles; and regenerated at the first post-Resurrection/Ascension gathering on the day of Pentecost. Post-Pentecostal Apostles means those minus Judas and later supplemented by Paul.
All they said and did is recorded in the New Testament. It's all laid out, and needs no improvement, changing, embroidering, tailoring. This group existed (in the Bible) long before the invention of a mystical, invisible overarching catholicism ( not in the Bible) by ante-Nicene, error-prone patristics.
I am regularly a congregant of a local, independent, autonomous New Testament immersionist assembly of believer-disciples that meets as a local body of The Christ who is its sufficient Head, observing the ordinances of Christ, guided by the Word of The God alone, maintaining their purity through strong preaching and church discipline, and carrying The Gospel of The Faith to worldlings still stricken with sin and death. (not "Pentecostal" or "charismatic" as commonly misused today)
Right, something like that seems to be fairly normal for those that express the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR. I don’t think I recall ever seeing such an opinion expresses on FR by a member of a nonCatholic Christian group that has some sort of creed or deposit of faith that coincides with their own belief that can be referred to by an outsider. I think it must be considered too wacky. You don’t see that opinion too often on FR, and then usually only from self proclaimed ‘non-denominational’ Christians, or those that decline to state the Christian group that they most associate with. For some reason.
Even on an anonymous conservative forum.
Then you have missed out on most of Baptist (all Baptist churches, even though affiliated with some Convention, are by definition autonomous), Plymouth Brethren (dispensational also), Independent Bible churches, etc. What you have missed out on is that no church of the New Testament record has the word Methodist, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Baptist, Unitarian (ha), Brethren, Roman, Catholic, etc associated with it. A complete description of the tenets of The Faith are in the Bible. No further description is needed to exercise authority in debates or discussion. You are merely trying to marginalize anyone who does not identify with Romanism, and it doesn't work. This Jesus, founder and author of The Faith, is nondenominational, as were all the churches of the New Testament.
Who are you, and what are you trying to achieve? Were I to name Cyrus Ingerson Schofield, or Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Baron Bannside, PC, or John Nelson Darby, I am sure you would not like their estimate of the symbolism of the Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. The founder of the mammoth Methodist denomination, John Wesley, thought the same as I am positing. (FYI, I was raised in a Methodist parsonage.) Would they, if alive, be banned from posting on FR? I am sure "Yes" if you were the referee.
What do you intend to do about this?
Ratzinger himself has offered the strategies of two types of methods in dealing with disagreements between theologians and the Magisterium: "In actuality, the point is precisely to use arguments instead of pressure as a means of persuasion. (paragraph 3)
You wish to use the logical fallacy of the type "Eat garbage, 50 million flies can't be wrong" to refute and repudiate the assignment of the symbolism of Babylon, by trying to dominate by applying pressure rather than by close-drawn argument. No go. If you have a better interpretation, give it rationally. Stop playing this game "My argument is better because I am a Catholic" ploy.
If you seek a flame war, I withdraw. Now. In any case, I don't have a lot of time to unprofitably bicker with you over something you are clearly--not invincible--but unconvincible.
“Then you have missed out on most of Baptist (all Baptist churches, even though affiliated with some Convention...”
I’ve never seen a Baptist express that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR. If they did, they didn’t admit to being Baptist, understandably. I think ‘he is not to be named on the religion forum’ claims to be some sort of Baptist. You know, the guy who makes the wacky pamphlets that are so embarrassing FR bans them. I don’t let that wackaddoo define the good Baptist Christians I see on FR. Or the Westboro loons, who don’t deserve to be called Baptists at all, in my opinion.
“You are merely trying to marginalize anyone who does not identify with Romanism, and it doesn’t work.”
Well, certainly I’m not calling another’s faith ‘the whore of babylon.’ Anyone reading this thread can see that.
“Would they, if alive, be banned from posting on FR? I am sure “Yes” if you were the referee.”
Hardly! I think it was a huge mistake for FR to ban these terribly embarrassing and funny sources. Because they are so embarrassing that they make FR look bad.
“You wish to use the logical fallacy of the type “Eat garbage, 50 million flies can’t be wrong” to refute and repudiate the assignment of the symbolism of Babylon, by trying to dominate by applying pressure rather than by close-drawn argument. No go. If you have a better interpretation, give it rationally. Stop playing this game “My argument is better because I am a Catholic” ploy.”
I’m not the one that thinks the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon. I simply pointed out that those on FR who express this opinion don’t assossiate themselves with a specific group of Christians. Because it is so embarrassing. Do you disagree that those that express the opinion on FR that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon don’t bother to assossiate with any other group of Christians?
“If you seek a flame war, I withdraw. Now. In any case, I don’t have a lot of time to unprofitably bicker with you over something you are clearly—not invincible—but unconvincible.”
Again, I didn’t call anyone else’s faith the whore of babylon. I didn’t bicker. As anyone can see.
However, in addressing the subject of the title of this article, in which Romish events call Protestantism's reaction and significance to thought, one must not--yea cannot--ignore the symbolism inherently brought into bearing by the great commentators of Protestantism: Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, Marvin Vincent (Vincent's Word Studies), John Darby, John Wesley, who certainly have left their indelible marks on eschatological doctrine. So have the persecution and writings of John Bunyan ("Pilgrim's Progress," etc.), the record of Foxe's "Book of Martyrs," and the blot of the Spanish Inquisition. Keeping verses 17:1 and 18:4 of the Apocalypse in view, the factors mattering to non-Catholic protesters, whose allegiance is not toward Rome, are related to the actions that the symbology stands for.
The question is, how could this Baptist religionist relinquish his binding to the dearly-paid-for autonomy of the local churches, local bodies of The Christ, to even think of extending tendrils toward a re-association with his catholicized nemesis?
If this is offensive to the FR community, it is not a fantasy or machination of mine. It is a factor that must be taken into account by the segment holding to the Greater Roman Catechism in dealing with the theme "Why the Pope's Resignation Matters to Protestants" when subjected to examination by a Baptist pastor. I am not surprised if you took offense to my comments, but they were not made with the idea of attacking your personal beliefs.
I hope I am making some kind of sense in apologizing that I may have wounded your spirit, but without apologizing for my arguments.
It will not always be this way.
"It will be worth it all, when we see Jesus.
Life's trials will seem so small when we see Christ;
One glimpse of His dear face all sorrow will erase,
So bravely run the race -- till we see Christ."
[Esther K. Rusthoi, 1941 (c) Renewal 1969 Singspiration, Inc.]
“The question is, how could this Baptist religionist relinquish his binding to the dearly-paid-for autonomy of the local churches, local bodies of The Christ, to even think of extending tendrils toward a re-association with his catholicized nemesis?”
This thread wasn’t started by a Catholic. It might be better to enquire further about what this person thinks about the tendrils and article that was posted.
I take it this Baptist belongs to a group that is fairly liberal, but I am not an expert. If he belonged to a conservative group, I would expect any of the false ecumanism would be left out, and he would concentrate on the leftist humanistic political particulars which conservative Catholic and Baptist Christians both should work against. This Catholic thanks God for the Southern Baptists.
“If this is offensive to the FR community, it is not a fantasy or machination of mine.’
Just like my observation that those who express the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR never claim to belong to particular group of Christians or Creed that I recall. And that there are reasons for this.
“I am not surprised if you took offense to my comments, but they were not made with the idea of attacking your personal beliefs.”
I don’t think you believe you think I am a liberal, and I am telling you I don’t think you are either. But when another Freeper states a belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, I reckon it is fair to point out what I have observed of those on FR who make this claim, considering I am Catholic.
“I hope I am making some kind of sense in apologizing that I may have wounded your spirit, but without apologizing for my arguments.”
In my opinion there is a difference between stating what is considered grave flaws in another’s faith and claiming that the other is the whore of babylon. I understand if you disagree. Certainly no nonCatholic Christians have disputed you on this thread, but I think that probably goes more to my point.
As far as spirits go, I think that shows Christian charity on your part. I haven’t observed that from others who expressed the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR that I can recall. But rest assured my spirit isn’t dependant on what happens on FR. Not to say FR isn’t awesome.
Ah, I should have made it clear that this is a rhetorical question, that demands the answer from either of the traditional points of view: "He cannot, yet maintain his theological integrity."
"Why is that?"
And the answer is that he cannot hold to the distinctives of Baptist doctrine, if you are familiar with the acronym "B-A-P-T-I-S-T-S" which sums up the features that set them apart, and presents an inflexible barrier to doctrinal agreement with those holding to the sacral society approach. That is where Rudnick's discussion founders, if he wishes to identify as a Baptist. (Note that here I did not use the more general term 'immersionist.')
Ransomed: "Just like my observation that those who express the belief that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon on FR never claim to belong to particular group of Christians or Creed that I recall. And that there are reasons for this."
Here, you haven't dealt with the fact that this symbolic description (less rudely voiced as apostasy, or spiritual adultery) cuts across all the "Protestant" spectrum, as indicated by the sample of non-Catholic commentators that I listed. Those who would cite Rev. 17:1 and 18:4 do not need to refer to a document such as the non-infallible Greater Catechism to prove their point. They just go to the Bible where the necessary information has been preserved; and when faithfully translated, and interpreted by a literal/grammatical/historical/cultural hermeneutic, they together arrive at a conclusion as one voice -- that of regenerated believer-disciples learning from the sole documents provided by the Holy Ghost--then they do not have to lean on the broken reed of human extra-biblical opinion.
You seem to add the qualification that on the Free Republic forum, you hear of this interpretation only from individuals who don't/won't certify their authority to speak on the basis of their religious affiliation. In fact, no such certification is desired nor required.
Your point seems to have no value. The symbolism is either right or it is wrong. If it is a wrong interpretation, and you can prove it is wrong both logically and spiritually, adding the Magisterium's consensus will not give it any more certainty.But you also claim that those who do disclose their religious bent do not expose this view on FR. To that I can only respond, "Oh? Please prove that, when the whole drift of Protestant theology, and the need for a refuge from Catholicism stands on that symbology."
With sincere concern -- I leave it resting.
“Here, you haven’t dealt with the fact that this symbolic description (less rudely voiced as apostasy, or spiritual adultery) cuts across all the “Protestant” spectrum, as indicated by the sample of non-Catholic commentators that I listed.”
Because I do not care about any commentators listed in order to justify calling the Catholic Church the whore of babylon. I don’t care why you call it the whore of babylon, that was never the point of my posts.
“You seem to add the qualification that on the Free Republic forum, you hear of this interpretation only from individuals who don’t/won’t certify their authority to speak on the basis of their religious affiliation.”
Yes. I am talking about what I have observed on FR, that those who make claims like the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon don’t bother to claim any specific faith or creed of their own. Because it is too embarrassing. Do you disagree that this is the case?
“In fact, no such certification is desired nor required.”
Of course not, it is an observation about those who post on FR and claim the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon. I made this observation to another Catholic, you responded to this observation by claiming the post-Pentacostal Apostles, as anyone can read.
“Your point seems to have no value.”
I think it is interesting that those who claim that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon don’t disclose what part of Christianity they are closest to with any specificity, and that there are reasons for that. If someone disagrees that it isn’t interesting, or that there are no reasons for this, I don’t care.
“But you also claim that those who do disclose their religious bent do not expose this view on FR. To that I can only respond, “Oh? Please prove that, when the whole drift of Protestant theology, and the need for a refuge from Catholicism stands on that symbology.”
OK, every time I see any garbage about the Catholic Church being the whore of babylon on FR I could ping anyone ineterested. It doesn’t happen often, and I never recall a poster claiming any specific group of Christianity. What might get more results is if you post a thread with a title like ‘I think the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon, and I claim the (fill in religious affiliation) and I go to the (fill in the blank) church. And see what happens.
Ransomed: ".... those who make claims ...(but ... dont bother to claim any specific faith or creed of their own. "
imardmd1: In fact, no such certification is desired nor required. (from post #35)
Again, you simply are not getting the point. The group to which I belong is that group consisting of the eye-witnesses and regenerated, sanctified believer-disciple-priests of Jesus, The Son of the (hu)Man, titled by The God as "Son of My Love," whose simplest, sufficient, and comprehensive confession is that as a bondslave persistently and completely committing unreserved total trust (present tense, passive voice, participle), in Him (Jn. 3:16, Rom. 10:9-10) and He that sent Him (Jn. 5:24), and whose salvation is on the basis that The Spoken Word is (present, no voice, indicative) constantly in ones mouth, and The Faith's Sayings continually in that ones heart (Rom. 10:8), that one agrees (aorist, active, subjunctive -- conditional, 3rd case) with Him "Jesus! Lord!"; and believes (same TVM) in the heart that The God has raised (AAI) Him from the dead, one shall absolutely be saved from perishing.
That is Paul's Gospel, as well as Peter's, and that of all through the ages likewise taught by disciplers authorized by the Apostles in a (so far) never-ending stream. At the first, this group had no other title but that proclaimed by the servant lass of Peter to them that were there in the lower hall,"Thou wast with Jesus of Galilee." Another maid said in the vestibule to others,"This (man) also was with Jesus the Nazarene." (in both instances, meta with genitive = in accompaniment). In a bit, other men kept insisting to Peter,"Thou art (one) of them." That is the only designation they had regarding Peter and the other faithful disciples: "of/with Jesus." These were the "Of Him" guys, if you want to coin a name for the group.
That group, bound into one local assembly at Jerusalem, were a church, the ones "of Jesus." They were not "The Church" as a proper noun. They were just _a_ church, a group which could be summoned to assemble locally, to congregate for breaking bread and for public instruction. They were ones who subscribed to the teaching of the written Word, partook weekly of the tokens of His Passion called to mind bu the Suppper of Remembrance, sovereignly preferred Him above ones own self and others, and appealing to The Father as His family members in concerted dedication.
"Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD, that walketh in His ways." They were followers of Jesus, Who was/is The Way, The Truth, and The Life (personified). So they were referred to as "people of The Way," not "people of a Church." Later on, in Antioch of Syria, people following this Way as a vocation were first titled "Christians," which simply another mode of saying,"of Christ." So, now they had a proper noun for a name of the vocation, which they adopted. The grouping designation still exists, and that is name applied to the group to which I count myself belonging.
Later on, schisms splintered away from it, as Paul recounted:
"We are not as many which corrupt the Word of The God: but as out of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ" (2 Cor. 2:17)(en Xristou, dative of association).
"Brethren, be my followers together, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame; who mind earthly things.)" (Phil 3:17-10).
Such splinters kept falling away: those of the Gnostics, the Manichaeans , etc.; but especially those the ones who plumped up the Gospel of Jesus with the philosophies of Platonism, and who invented an organizational entity external and superior to the autonomy and polity of the local churches, thus imposing the power node of universalism = catholicism, which error has now been given as a proper noun "Catholic". That form of government was rejected by the Donatists, Montanists, Novations, Paterins, Paulicians. Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Baptists, Darbyites, all of whom rejected infant baptisms and transubstatiation, thus giving a blood-spattered continuous persecuted line of texts, persons, and doctrine to this day. It is the Romanists and Orthodoxen who are the splinters off the true Tree of Life, not vice versa.
These are those "of Christ" to whom Peter and Paul and Luke and Mark and Tyndale, and Owen, and Bunyan--and I, by faith--belong. We have no other name but "followers of The Christ," walkers in The Way, with His Word our Light. We do know who and what comprises the city set on seven mountains, revealed in times that Beloved John could not yet see, but which is fully visible now.
Ransomed: "Because it is too embarrassing. Do you disagree that this is the case?
No. I am not at all embarassed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but The Truth. And yes, I disagree with you on this quite completely.
As to another brief summary of a shorter creed than the completed and sealed Word of The God, I would completely subscribe to the old Roman (Pauline? Petrine?) Creed to which confession was substantive for the baptism of catechized disciples claiming regeneration by witness of The Spirit. That creed does not contain the term "catholic" -- only "holy church" referring to the local church into which the disciple is baptized by successive commissioning under the authorization of the Godhead, The Trinity. Even the "Apostles' Creed" is palatable, when the word "catholic" is removed from it, since it is a later, and unScriptural addition.
If, as a deputized Christian, one "of Jesus," as was Peter, being a constituent of a local independent fundamental baptist church assembly does not make me a "Baptist" (as a proper noun taken as perhaps superior to simply being of The Way). So you have it. The assembly I attend has more authority over a local communicant's spiritual life that the whole global Roman "Catholic" Church, lock stock, and barrel.
That's it, for now. Sorry you didn't have the comprehension to put this all together previously. But now you know.
“No. I am not at all embarassed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but The Truth. And yes, I disagree with you on this quite completely.”
I don’t care. I think you don’t see freepers claiming the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon very much is because it is embarrassing. So emabarrassing that FR bans a lot of that type of mouthbreathing garbarge as it makes FR look too bad. When one does see a Freeper claim that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon, they don’t claim a specific group or creed. For many reasons.
Like I said, start a thread about how you think the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon and specifically request that those that agree with you on this thread also state their religious affiliation. See what happens—how many Christians like Baptists, Lutherans and so on agree, vs, how many that won’t say or claim to belong have to no particluar group.