SBC Alliance with RCC

Discussion in 'Cults & World Religions' started by jsup, Jun 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    It now it appears that the Southern Baptist Convention is embracing and standing alongside the Roman Catholic Church as fellow Christians. This idea is outrageous. The RCC is a cult and to be associated with them as Protestants infuriates me :mad:. I surely hope these articles are misunderstood, but here is what I have come across:

    http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/rick_warren_joi.html
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2007
  2. sotzo

    sotzo Puritan Board Sophomore

    What is your definition of a cult?
     
  3. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    Let me first state that I believe the RCC to teach falsehood in the guise
    of truth - so I'm on your side.

    Now, the SBC is hardly joining the RCC here - please be fair and speak truth,
    not conjecture. Before you slam Page too hard, you probably should take note of the fact that all he did was sign a document that condemned some pretty abusive and insulting work by some in the press against Catholics (disagreements with their false beliefs notwithstanding). You shouldn't
    associate Page with the opinions stated by Tonkowich; that's somewhat
    irresponsible.
     
  4. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    I haven't been able to run across my links, but some writers described it in a mathematical way:

    + (Any group that adds to the Bible with new gospels or books).

    - (Any group that subtracts from who Jesus is by crediting someone else or lessening the importance of Christ)

    x (Any group that multiplies what you have to do in order to go to heaven. Such as works instead of grace).

    / (Any group that divides itself as the true church and the only ones that have the truth).

    The RCC added to the Bible, place more importance on Mary and the saints, they emphasize good works in order to enter heaven from purgatory, and of course they burned Protestants as heretics. The RCC fulfills all these qualifications and these weren't in-depth.

    Sorry Toddpedlar for the evident contradiction. I didn't mean to say that the SBC was uniting under the Pope. I put that article in to show some of the other Protestant activity with the RCC. You are very right, those two don't belong together. Let me remove that link so there won't be a misunderstanding. That's a whole different subject. My point is that Page is calling them Christians.
     
  5. ServantOfKing

    ServantOfKing Puritan Board Freshman

    The RCC is different from other Cultish groups like the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses though because there still might be true Christians in their churches. A lot of Catholic churches teach the basics and don't delve into their true theology, thus leaving a lot of people on the surface and staying in the church. I guess I try to be a little more charitable to Catholics than I used to be.
     
  6. weinhold

    weinhold Puritan Board Freshman

    Brother, let me encourage you to pause and consider the possibility that you might be associated with quite a few RCC folks for all eternity; certainly you would not allow their presence to spoil paradise for you? Let me also encourage you to seek a more charitable definition of the word "Christian" and a more refined definition of the word "cult".

    PW
     
  7. CDM

    CDM Puritan Board Junior

    Doesn't the majority of Baptists (inc. SB's) affirm Roman Catholics are Christians? It seems to me that Paige, as President, is representing Baptists and the Convention well.

    Right?
     
  8. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    Can you point me to where, specifically, Page himself is calling all Roman Catholics Christians? I hope you'll agree that there are some within the RCC that are in fact Bible-believers (though they are mistakenly affiliated with a church whose doctrine in the whole they cannot, being Bible-believers, countenance). Again - where is Page (since you have clearly declared that he does call the RCC - as a whole, which would be the only proper complaint you might lodge - a Christian church)???

    Todd
     
  9. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    Wow! Where do I begin? Um, ServantOfKing, yes Mormons and JWs are obvious cults to professing Christians, but to me Catholics are on the obvious side too.

    Weinhold, Scripture isn't lenient or sugar-coated. I find it difficult to make the term "Christian" more loose and charitable outside of Scripture. As for refining the term "cult", I suppose you would want me to stick with the obvious ones like Mormons and JWs. No, a Catholic's presence in Heaven wouldn't spoil my eternal stay considering I will be spending it with Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale, Huss, and the list goes on. These men were originally Catholics but they knew they couldn't remain good Catholics.

    Magnum, SBC members have always been known to be the hardest Protestants on Catholics. Such would explain my anger. Also, since Paige is representing this convention, that is also why I am upset. He may represent us, but he doesn't speak for us. He definitely does not speak for the whole. Not all SBC members feel the way he does.

    And toddpedlar, as for Paige calling them Christians, well actually he endorsed them as part of the entire "Church". That could be interchangeable with Christian since only Christians make up the Church. Yes, I do agree that some Catholics could be saved. But like the reformers, they will either try to change it or get out!

    I knew before I started this thread that there will be differing opinions on the RCC. All I really want to know is if anyone knows more about this and if it's indeed true?
     
  10. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    So where again does Page endorse the RCC as part of the entire "Church"? I see nowhere in the statement that he signed an acknowledgment of the RCC as part of the "Church". Yes, in Tonkowich's statement (the italics) such is stated, but that is not part of what Page signed.

    So what is it that you're looking for? Is WHAT true?

    Frankly, this "Apprising Ministries" seems to have an appallingly bad inability to be fair in what they claim. The big headline is completely false. The piece quoted is part of Tonkowich's statement - which is not (I repeat, NOT) part of the "Statement of Protestant Leaders against Anti-Catholic Bigotry". In Tonkowich's statement are all kinds of allusions to the RCC being genuinely Christian - but nowhere does such language appear in the statement that Warren, Page and Colson, et al, signed. The Apprising Ministries article completely obscures this fact and makes it sound as
    though Page and others are ready to march to Rome. It's simply not the case. This is really quite a bad misrepresentation - and my whole purpose in entering this fray was not to agree with Tonkowich or anyone else regarding their view of the RCC - but to point out that nowhere (on the document actually signed by him) can you claim that Page says the RCC is a true Christian church. To do so is simply passing on a falsehood.
     
  11. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    I suppose this illustrates the difference between the Reformed and the Anabaptist. By calling yourself Reformed you acknowledge there is something in existence to be reformed. But, true to their name, Anabaptists reject the Church and see themselves re-inventing her. I'm glad to see the SBC is embracing its Reformation heritage and leaving behind its other Radical Anabaptist past.
     
  12. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    Toddpedlar, you are right Tonkowich called them part of the church. The actual document only calls them "brothers and sisters". Considering how I feel about their unscriptural doctrines, I cannot call them a brother or sister. Why? Because if they are saved, they will try to change it or get out.

    Honestly, I am surprised. We are reformed Protestants. The Protestants split from them knowing that they were false. They haven't changed from the days that Luther nailed up the 95 thesis. Since then they have dropped the Indulgences and Inquisition. Other than that, they are still the same religion with the same false doctrines. By defending them, you are defending their beliefs: Purgatory, Pelagianism, the Papacy, prayers to the saints and Mary, confession to the priests, relics, the Immaculate Conception, the co-redemptrix Mary, and etc. I may seem harsh, but I call out their beliefs as they are in light of Scripture. I don't mean to stir a bee-hive, but defending them seems out of place considering what we Protestants believe.

    Peter, I don't represent the entire SBC. I just represent me and my house.
     
  13. Jie-Huli

    Jie-Huli Puritan Board Freshman

    Well, the Statement includes this sentence:

    "Our Catholic brothers and sisters will not have to wait to hear our voices forcefully raised against the bigotry now directed against them."

    To call Catholics "brothers and sisters" is surely the same as stating that the Roman Catholic Church is part of the true universal Christian Church. And it cannot really be denied that the entire Statement carries this tenor, affirming a solidarity between "Protestant Christians" and Catholics. I believe it is quite indefensible for any Protestant to sign such a thing.

    Yes, it is true that the "bigotry" from the secular world at issue should be condemned, as what is at issue is actually people scorning and fighting against God's laws (in relation to abortion and such), rather than anything actually specific to Catholicism. But this is no reason to sign onto the sort of ecuminical ideas that this Statement is promoting.

    The Reformed separated from the Catholic Church, knowing it to be a false church without the true Gospel, deluding millions of souls. To participate in a movement basically affirming the spiritual status of a system the Reformed have always called "Antichrist" is hardly embracing the Reformation heritage.

    With kind regards,

    Jie-Huli

    *Footnote: I know nothing of "Apprising Ministries", and my statements above are not an endorsement of its website which I have not looked at other than in linking to the document at issue.
     
  14. Jie-Huli

    Jie-Huli Puritan Board Freshman

    I had not seen your post before I posted mine, so I was a bit repetitive. Needless to say, I agree with most of what you have said here.

    Kind regards,

    Jie-huli
     
  15. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    We were probably posting at the same time. :)
     
  16. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    Suppose Hindus in your town were being systematically exterminated by the KKK, and you had the power to defend them.

    Would you?

    If you did, would you thereby be accepting what they believe?

    In saying this, I'm not saying that the RCC is a true Christian church, nor am I accepting anything that appears in their confessional documents. I am merely saying that they deserve not to be pilloried in the press as some have been, simply because they are Catholics.
     
  17. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman


    That question is irrelevant since this thread was containing verbal defense. The discussion here was not related to any physical, life-threatening defense. That's a bit off topic.

    Also, can you find where I said that anyone here was "accepting" what they believe? I simply stated they were defending them.
     
  18. Peter

    Peter Puritan Board Junior

    The Romish church is part of the true universal church. Christianity wasn't invented in 1517, neither is there any sort of secret bloodline of baptists. All of the Reformed recognized the church of Rome as materially a true church of Christ until the 19th century. Indeed, in order for the Pope to be Antichrist he has to be in the Church! the man of sin must sit in the temple of God.

    Contemporary Protestant ignorance and caricatures of Reformation history and the doctrines of Roman Church are most certainly the reason for Protestant conversions to Rome. When Protestants are taught that Rome is a "cult", not Christian, then find out Rome doesn't really teach pelagianism and salvation by works but that the differences are actually much more nuanced the popish position gains sympathy. The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth.
     
  19. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    That's true - you didn't say "accepting" what they believe. You said "defending what they believe."

    So rephrase my question. If you were defending Hindus against some undue persecution, would you be defending their beliefs? You have stated that by defending Catholics against undue persecution (which is what this whole story is about!) we are defending their beliefs. That's patently absurd.
     
  20. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    Until now this is the first time the word "persecution" has come up. That question is still not pertinent to this thread. I don’t call any of this discussion “undue” as you may.

    You yourself said that “the RCC teach falsehood in the guise of truth - so I'm on your side.” Now you are implying that this discussion against their falsehood is “undue persecution”. I am confused as to where you stand. It seems that you and Paige are on the same page.
     
  21. Coram Deo

    Coram Deo Puritan Board Junior

    Mr. Gray,

    I have to disagree with you... I will say that the Romish church was at ONE time a true church of Christ but have so degenerated as to become no church at all..... And for all intent and purposes "Smells" like a cult......

    It is correct that the church was not invented in 1517, but for one the Church of Rome was not always apostate, and there have been other churches through out the centuries that have kepted pure before 1517....

    I quote from the 1689 Confession of Faith under heading "Of the Church":

    "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name."

    Now, I said the Catholic Church Smells like a cult, because it has all the ingredients of a cult.. One man every one bows down to who he believes he is God on earth. Extra-Biblical writing which include the Apocrypha and Tradition Law. The adornation of Mary and the Saints. Even forms of mysticism. All of these fit the definition of a cult....

    You then said.... "The danger of Popery isn't that its totally false but rather that it's so close to the truth."

    See this is on of the greatest dangers in my mind about the "A-Mill" Position. I believe this is the one of the largest issues that caused the Roman Church to go astray.... If one believes that we are in the Millennium now like the Roman Church has believed for almost 1800 years and you look at such passages like Rev. 20 that says that Christ will reign during those 1000 years, you have to do something about that... I believe the Catholics said, we are in the 1000 years now and show Christ on Earth in that period, now add that to the Keys given to Peter Passage and Whammo you have the Pope, The Vicar of Christ on Earth. One who speaks for God and acts like Christ by decreeing Canon Laws and intreprating the Bible how he sees fit... I believe this was the start of Rome's Falling but not the sole cause mind you..... Thats my :2cents:

    Now before someone gets medieval on me.... :D
    I am not A Dispensational.... I am Convenantal "Historic" Premill........ ;)

     
  22. KMK

    KMK Administrator Staff Member

    To what extent are the anabaptists part of SBC heritage? (Besides having the word 'baptist' in there name?) Are there histories that can be cited that show a link between the SBC and the heterodox anabaptists? There seemed to be different sorts of anabaptists. Not all were insurrectionists, no?
     
  23. jsup

    jsup Puritan Board Freshman

    I'm not very familiar with the Anabaptists, but I remember there being some strong doctrinal differences between them and the SBC. I'm pretty sure we adopted the "dunking" baptism from them.
     
  24. toddpedlar

    toddpedlar Iron Dramatist

    How can you possibly misconstrue my words so badly? I believe the RCC in its official teachings is apostate. That, however, has nothing to do with the undue treatment that RC's are facing. Do you know what the original statement is speaking out against? It was a VERY SPECIFIC statement of condemnation. I am assuming you have in fact read the piece, so I don't understand the way you have lept from the statement itself to your contention that somehow the SBC is coming into league with the RC and defending false teachings that the RC promotes.

    Do you not agree that writing articles in the press mocking RC politicians for the fact that they are RC, as a way of speaking out against their positions on abortion is undue? Do you believe such treatment is ethically sound? If so, I'm afraid we simply have nothing left to speak about.
     
  25. Dieter Schneider

    Dieter Schneider Puritan Board Sophomore

  26. Jie-Huli

    Jie-Huli Puritan Board Freshman

    I honestly cannot see how there can be any disagreement here, so I assume there has been some misunderstanding and/or mistyping.

    I am well aware of the history of the Catholic Church, that its apostasy from the true Gospel took place gradually over time, and that there were certainly many true Christians associated with the Roman Catholic Church (which at that time, though flawed, was indeed a part of the true universal Church) through history before that complete apostasy was consummated. But what was at issue in this thread is a contemporary document which essentially supports the idea that the Catholic Church today is a part of the true universal Church (calling Catholics generally our "brothers and sisters"), and this is what I said was indefensible. What the Catholic Church may have been 1000 years ago is quite another question, but one which has little bearing on the question at hand here.

    Mr. Gray, even you seem in one sentence to indicate a recognition that Reformed Christianity did come to end viewing the Catholic Church as "materially a true church of Christ". (Though I would at any rate disagree that this took place in the 19th Century . . . the Council of Trent in the 16th Century was decisive, and by the time of the Westminster Confession in the 17th Century the Reformed certainly did not regard the RCC as a true church.) And yet in the first sentence you use the present tense to say "The Romish church is part of the true universal church." I am rather flabbergasted as to how you can say that. It is certainly not the Reformed understanding.

    This also is certainly not an issue of Baptist v. Presbyterian. The Westminster Confession includes the exact same statement that Mr. Thunaer quoted on the Church: "The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error, and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will."

    I do not think there is any question that the "synagogues of Satan" which are "no Churches of Christ" refer quite pointedly to the Roman Catholic Church among others. I have no idea from whence the idea that the Reformed still regard the Roman Catholic Church as part of the true universal church comes, but this is surely both mistaken and incredibly dangerous.

    Kind regards,

    Jie-Huli
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2007
  27. 2 Tim 4:2

    2 Tim 4:2 Puritan Board Freshman

    Frank Page was elected President of the SBC as a result of a perception of a group of "good ole boys" running the convention. So now we have a President that believes "the Emerging Church adds value to the Convention" and takes part in meetings like this. His agenda is not representative of the convention as a whole. And he does not have the support of those who retain clear biblicla precepts.
     
  28. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member


    Actuallly The SBC had a great pioneer in Boyce who received much of his Seminary training from the likes of the Hodge's and Princeton if I am not mistaken. He was well trained by the Presbyterian's. You ought to read his Abstracts in Theology. It is a must read for any Baptist or Christian. Just take the Recommendation from Ernest Reisinger.
    http://www.founders.org/fpress/boyce.html

    Anabaptist's were not a part of the Particular Baptist movement which the 1689 came from.
     
  29. PuritanCovenanter

    PuritanCovenanter Moderator Staff Member

    No we got our doctrine of Baptism from Covenantal Baptists known as Particluar Baptists who authored the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith.
     
  30. Calvibaptist

    Calvibaptist Dallas Cowboys' #1 Fan

    The founders of the SBC were primarily Particular Baptists, with a few churches that had some more General Baptist leanings. I have begun reading Boyce's Abstract and it, so far, is excellent.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page