St. Patrick... the Baptist?

[mnwickens]

Just happened to come across this article recently and it made me smile. Maybe it will make you smile also.

http://www.carmichaelbaptist.org/Sermons/landis1.htm

MNW

[DefensorFidei]

[DefensorFidei]

Quote:Patrick believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He did not believe that salvation comes through catechism, communi*n, confession or christening.

Neither does the Catholic Faith. Where does this man get the idea that the Catholic Faith teaches that there is something salvific about learning a catechism, partaking of communi*n, confession to a priest, or christening?.

Salvation is a covenant and we enter that covenant through baptism. This guy should at least try to learn what the Church teaches and use the proper terminology!

He believes what Baptists have always believed, that all are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in His Son, coming in repentance, and by His blood.

Which is also what the Church teaches. Salvation is by grace through faith. To teach anything else is the heresy of Pelegianism, which the Church has rejected as heretical

He believes in the free gift of the Holy Spirit which comes to the believer at the moment of salvation. He does not believe that the gift of the Holy Spirit is a separate work of grace, nor is He manifested by speaking in tongues (John 14:16).

He also firmly conveys the message of the eternal security of the believer in that those who are genuinely saved have put on immortality (II Timothy 1:10).

Delusional. St. Paul warned his "spiritual children" against falling away from the Gospel and forfeiting their part in Heaven. The idea of "eternal security" is neither taught in scripture nor is it part of a covenantal relationship with God.

He confirms his belief that men must be drawn by God in order to be saved (John 6:44).

So does the Church. That teaching and that verse are in the Catholic Catechism. The Church also acknowledges predestination. This guy needs to understand the Catholic Faith better, not the bilge which he has been taught and is regurgitating here

Patrick affirms his conviction in the sonship of the believer (John 1:12). He believes that while Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God, every true believer in Christ is also a son.

That is a thoroughly Catholic belief.

And the great Irish theologian attests to the fact that all believers are joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17).

And one who is an heir can be disinherited for evil behavior. If you are going to try to apply typology, then you have to use the entire type, not just the part that you find appealing to your carnal mind. Inheritance is only for faithful children. The unfaithful are disinherited.

Patrick's doctrine is also recorded by his disciples. Comgall writes, "religion does not exist in bodily efforts..." Muirchu states that the ancient poet Dubthac was redeemed under the ministry of Patrick and that he "...first on that day believed in God and it was imputed to him for righteousness" No mention of baptism for salvation. No mention of a confessional. No mention of communi*n. Patrick taught his disciples well that salvation comes only by and through the grace of Almighty God.

This is hardly an argument. One comment doth not a whole body of teaching make. Unless, of course, you are a Baptist trying to rewrite history!

BTW -- It is more likely that St. Patrick was more Eastern Orthodox in his worship than Roman Catholic. But the main tenants of the Faith would still be the same and NOT BAPTIST!!

[GoodSamaritan]

[GoodSamaritan]

The article is built upon a foundation of sand. Common sense should tell you this but here's why:

Quote:At the time of Saint Patrick the Romish church was only en embryo".

Nonsense. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop, initiated the term Catholic for our Church in 107 AD. The Council of Nicea was a distinctly Catholic Council held in 325 AD, a full 70 years before Patrick was even born. Embryos don't hold Councils like Nicea, authoritative and universal churches do.

Quote:In St. Patrick's time the authority of the bishop of Rome was not generally recognized."

Incorrect. Clement of Rome, bishop in 96 AD was already writing letters to a church in Corinth that had requested clarification of teachings and guidance in the faith. This was while John, an original Apostle was still alive and a much shorter distance away in Ephesus. Yet the church at Corinth chose to have Rome settle their issue and not an original Apostle. The Bishop of ROme had primacy from the beginning.

Quote:Not one of the early biographers of his life mentions any ties to Rome. Even in all the writings of Saint Patrick himself there is never any mention of connection with Rome.

This is patently false. Patrick traveled to Rome in 441 specifically to ask Pope Leo the Great for permission to begin his ministry in Ireland. Leo personally confirmed Patrick's adherence to the Catholic faith and approved Patrick's ministry. Patrick was the son of a Catholic deacon and grandson of a Catholic priest. He was ordained a Catholic priest and then bishop, then sent to Ireland on a papal mission. Of COURSE he was Catholic. The Church did not send Baptists to evangelize, did they? Read 'The Letter' by Patrick and you'll find his belief in a ministerial priesthood, sacraments, purgatory, penance, and the like.

What we have here is a Protestant polemic who takes Protestant beliefs about Catholicism and tries to extrapolate these beliefs (unproven and factually incorrect) to Patrick. Weak.
God Bless.

Ron

[Jim]

Quote:Embryos don't hold Councils like Nicea, authoritative and universal churches do.

You're right, it goes to show you that there is power of stupidity in large numbers. Never understimate the power of unanimous ignorance and self-righteousness.

Example?: Council of Nicaea.

[Jim]

Quote:This is patently false. Patrick traveled to Rome in 441 specifically to ask Pope Leo the Great for permission to begin his ministry in Ireland. Leo personally confirmed Patrick's adherence to the Catholic faith and approved Patrick's ministry. Patrick was the son of a Catholic deacon and grandson of a Catholic priest. He was ordained a Catholic priest and then bishop, then sent to Ireland on a papal mission. Of COURSE he was Catholic. The Church did not send Baptists to evangelize, did they? Read 'The Letter' by Patrick and you'll find his belief in a ministerial priesthood, sacraments, purgatory, penance, and the like.

And yet, you will see this only in the "great, secret" archives of the all-powerful "catholic church".

It's a wonder that noone sees these "documents"

Like I said before...."If you speak a lie, loud enough and long enough" There's your example of being "polemic", since he likes to use that word so often.


Another thing that is so funny is that supporters of the catholic church have all of these "documents", that apparently make all other documents outside of the Vatican null and void.

(Tongue in Cheek)"Ladies and Gentlemen, forget all that you now know, or think you know....the Vatican has the sole authority to teach everyone in the world what is right and wrong. Forget your bibles, you don't need them, you would interpret them incorrectly anyway. Follow us, we, and we alone know the way to get to heaven"

[Guest]

Jim Wrote:

Quote:This is patently false. Patrick traveled to Rome in 441 specifically to ask Pope Leo the Great for permission to begin his ministry in Ireland. Leo personally confirmed Patrick's adherence to the Catholic faith and approved Patrick's ministry. Patrick was the son of a Catholic deacon and grandson of a Catholic priest. He was ordained a Catholic priest and then bishop, then sent to Ireland on a papal mission. Of COURSE he was Catholic. The Church did not send Baptists to evangelize, did they? Read 'The Letter' by Patrick and you'll find his belief in a ministerial priesthood, sacraments, purgatory, penance, and the like.

And yet, you will see this only in the "great, secret" archives of the all-powerful "catholic church".

It's a wonder that noone sees these "documents"

Like I said before...."If you speak a lie, loud enough and long enough" There's your example of being "polemic", since he likes to use that word so often.


Another thing that is so funny is that supporters of the catholic church have all of these "documents", that apparently make all other documents outside of the Vatican null and void.

(Tongue in Cheek)"Ladies and Gentlemen, forget all that you now know, or think you know....the Vatican has the sole authority to teach everyone in the world what is right and wrong. Forget your bibles, you don't need them, you would interpret them incorrectly anyway. Follow us, we, and we alone know the way to get to heaven"

Jim

'Tongue in cheek', if only it were Jim. You clearly believe that that is our creed.

Most of the documents quoted are a matter of historical record. Some of which are held in the Vatican Library but most are held by Libararies and Universities all around the world. Not held nor controlled by the Catholic Church.


Are every protestant, catholic or secular historian who disagrees with you part of some grand conspiracy?

Everytime you have been asked to cite other sources which you claim exist which discount the accepted historical record you have failed to do so. Why?

We have cited sources which are recognised to be reliable. Reliable in that researchers have demonstrated by using the highest standard of academic rigour and peer revue that the documents are genuine.

[Jim]

Quote:Are every protestant, catholic or secular historian who disagrees with you part of some grand conspiracy?

Could not the same be said about you?

Quote:Everytime you have been asked to cite other sources which you claim exist which discount the accepted historical record you have failed to do so. Why?

Why have you not either? Besides, what you consider "accepted historical record" is erroneous to others. I do not worry about the information contained in the documents you have given, I challenge the sources. If the sources are corrupt, then the contents cannot be trusted. Do you not know what the bible says about this type of thing?:

Gal. 5:9
"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

Quote:We have cited sources which are recognised to be reliable.

Not by me or any other right thinking individual.

You cite sources, yet you do not cite the bible itself. And when you do, you cite other people's views on it, and it is only rhetoric. What does the Holy Spirit reveal through scripture? Of course you don't know what that is, because you believe the catholic church only has the "authority" to reveal scripture.

[Guest]

Jim Wrote:

Quote:Are every protestant, catholic or secular historian who disagrees with you part of some grand conspiracy?

Could not the same be said about you?

You didn't answer the question.

But to answer yours. No, as my posts do not infer such a conspiracy. Nor did I post a sticky about the New Roman Empire

Quote:Everytime you have been asked to cite other sources which you claim exist which discount the accepted historical record you have failed to do so. Why?

Why have you not either? Besides, what you consider "accepted historical record" is erroneous to others. I do not worry about the information contained in the documents you have given, I challenge the sources. If the sources are corrupt, then the contents cannot be trusted. Do you not know what the bible says about this type of thing?:

What an odd response!

'Why have you not either?' There are threads full of credible sources put to you by agentsmith goodsamaritan defensorfidei and cjen.

You have claimed that there are 'other' sources that contradict those early christians. Where are they Jim? Again you have not cited them.

Quote:We have cited sources which are recognised to be reliable.

Not by me or any other right thinking individual.

Well, why don't you cite the ones which you recognise to be reliable

You cite sources, yet you do not cite the bible itself. And when you do, you cite other people's views on it, and it is only rhetoric.

Every opinion you have regarding the Bible and it's interpretation is unique to you Jim? You opinions are not informed by others? When the preacher in your Church preaches do you close your ears? Is your own view is only valid one?

[Jim]

I have givine citations of scripture throughout my posts. If youbeleive the doctrine of the catholic church, and the citations of fallible men override scripture, then you are entitled to believe that.

Quote:Every opinion you have regarding the Bible and it's interpretation is unique to you Jim? You opinions are not informed by others? When the preacher in your Church preaches do you close your ears? Is your own view is only valid one?

Every scripture in the bible is revealed by the Holy Spirit, not the catholic church. When my pastor preaches, I listen very carefully because he is a wonderful man of God, solely devoted to Christ. I do not close my ears for fear of missing something given to me by the Holy Spirit, through his mouth. The Lord's view is the only valid one.

[NCUNIT33]

Jim is correct the only valid truth (view) is from the word of God!
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

The Catholic Church has so much man made doctrine, they no longer reconize what is truth.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

The truth is the truth!

Jim Norman

[Guest]

Jim from the Eucharist thread:

Quote:The true early church "fathers" or whatever you want to call them (I will tell you then that I am staying as far away as I can from catholic terminology), did NOT believe in the "Eucharist".

I want you and everyone else to understand the difference between your early "church fathers" and the people of whom I speak.

It is a simple question. To which I am still waiting for an answer.

Who are the 'other' Church Fathers/people of whom you speak?

You brought them up not me.

Who are they and please cite me your sources?

This is not an unreasonable request as it is you who have used them to defend your position.

Could please cite them specifically where they oppose the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist?

[mnwickens]

Was not the eucharist thread closed?

Quote:Most of the documents quoted are a matter of historical record. Some of which are held in the Vatican Library but most are held by Libararies and Universities all around the world. Not held nor controlled by the Catholic Church.

Ah, but that is part of the conspiracy, even those who claim to be neutral are really catholic. But really, no. There are many scientists who have been told so long that evolution is true that they end up believing it. I believe there are also many historians who have been told things in class so many times that they are now believing it.

Quote:Are every protestant, catholic or secular historian who disagrees with you part of some grand conspiracy?

Just because we think everyone is against us does not mean we believe in a conspiracy nor are we paranoid.

Quote:Everytime you have been asked to cite other sources which you claim exist which discount the accepted historical record you have failed to do so. Why?

We have cited sources which are recognised to be reliable. Reliable in that researchers have demonstrated by using the highest standard of academic rigour and peer revue that the documents are genuine.

When you can link the majority, the vast majority of wealthy, influential and leading families and individuals for hundreds of years to the catholic church then it is easy to see how just about any history can be written or re-written. When we look back and see the extreme hardship someone faced if they turned on the catholic church you can see why people hesitated to rebel or debunk the records. But days have changed, you can no longer burn me at the stake, which, to be honest, has been done multitudes of times before to Christians by the catholic church. However, we have had enough of the inquisition thread also...

But you have also ignored writtens by councils that Jim has repeatedly, repeatedly posted.

Which bias is the right bias to be biased by?

MNW

[Guest]

mnwickens Wrote:Was not the eucharist thread closed?

No

Just because we think everyone is against us does not mean we believe in a conspiracy nor are we paranoid.

Okay

Quote:Everytime you have been asked to cite other sources which you claim exist which discount the accepted historical record you have failed to do so. Why?

We have cited sources which are recognised to be reliable. Reliable in that researchers have demonstrated by using the highest standard of academic rigour and peer revue that the documents are genuine.

Yet to see to cited references to documented evidence.

But you have also ignored writtens by councils that Jim has repeatedly, repeatedly posted.

Which councils?

MNW