They must think it's relevant. Otherwise they'd just be Baptists.

No, but that's as good a myth as any, I suppose.


More fundamentally, it would only be relevant if Doom were right. But he isn't, which is what makes his Protestant apologetic so much more entertaining.

You get extra points for use of the subjunctive.

Did you do that on purpose?

Sadly no. I'm not that clever. But now I'll keep an eye out for a chance to use that someday when talking about the distinction.

That isn't right at all. That sounds like something from "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." In fact I'm almost sure of it because it was that line that made me stop reading the book.

Faith0312
It's interesting also that Arnold Lunn in Now I See, (Sheed & Ward, 1955) could quote from the Anglican Vicar of Oddington, Rev S Herbert Scott, that St Peter and his successors were recognised as the supreme judges in matters of faith by a long succession of great Eastern saints, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Denys, Athanasius, Chrysostom, and others (p 218).

In his epistle to the Romans (around 110), St Ignatius of Antioch refers to the Church which, “presides in the land of the Romans” remarking that he could not command them the way Peter and Paul did – clearly referring to the leadership of Peter in Rome. (Reference in Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius 1988, p 202-3).

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as "Peter and his companions" (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter's name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter's name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church's important "firsts." Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, The Foundation of Christendom Vol 1 testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

You seem to have completely missed my point, which is that regardless of the historical origins, their theology pretty much already is Baptist. I don't say this casually, I have direct personal experience with the Evangelical Free Church because when I was an undergraduate I was involved with a Campus Crusade for Christ chapter that was connected to a local Evangelical Free Church, and theologically, I found them virtually indistinguishable from the Baptists.

As for why they don't call themselves 'Baptist', it is mainly because to them, 'Baptists' are a denomination, but, according to them, they are not a denomination.

Always glad to see Lunn mentioned, but this citation is the only one you seem to use. You could add the remainder of p. 218 and 1/4 of p.19, too. From either the 1955 reprint, or the 1933 1st edition.

Or some other Lunn. He's all too forgotten.

Why not simply post from Lunn? Too many here just jibe.

Spot on.

So, expose the folk to him.

Soft pedal the spiritualism related stuff, but there's lots more.

That is the message Hans is espousing here, but I think his vid shows the inevitable landslide Luther started...

I think that the mention of Martin Luther is the Catholic corollary to Godwins law.

That sounds like something Hitler would say.

The Catholic Church consists of 23 Sui Juris Eastern and Western Churches in full communion with each other and The Holy See. The Latin Rite Church is one of these.

We could call it "Etsy's Law"

There's a Presbyterian church in the Squirrel Hill District of Pittsburgh called the Sixth Presbyterian Church.

Back to the OP, I would assume your friend is referring to common lie about how the RCC seized to be the "true" church under the rule of Constantine...I have heard this nonsense many times. The belief is that when Constantine ended the Roman persecution of Christians, the Catholic Church became a pagan religion, accepting pagan roman traditions.

All you simply need to do is look at the life of Constantine to argue this point. Start there

Which possesses an original Tiffany stained glass window. Large window. Very beautiful. In the front left-hand corner. I was there for a conference several years ago and took notice of it. Between the sessions, I went to the pastor, who at that time was James T. Boice, and asked him if it was a Tiffany He admitted that it was.

Tiffany windows have a very distinct pattern to them.