RCC Missionaries in South America

[saturneptune]

A few years ago, we had a Southern Baptist missionary from remote sections of South America come and give a presentation to our church. He related that one of the main problems was that the Catholic Church had such a strong hold on the local population in remote areas, that it was almost impossible to share the Gospel.

Not only did the Catholic missionaries spread their warped view of the Gospel and Scripture, they would compromise with the local population and incorporate into the Catholic faith the worship of nature, animals, moon etc and sort of combine them together to come out with a very strange product.

Has anyone else ever heard of this, or experienced it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

A few years ago, we had a Southern Baptist missionary from remote sections of South America come and give a presentation to our church. He related that one of the main problems was that the Catholic Church had such a strong hold on the local population in remote areas, that it was almost impossible to share the Gospel.

Not only did the Catholic missionaries spread their warped view of the Gospel and Scripture, they would compromise with the local population and incorporate into the Catholic faith the worship of nature, animals, moon etc and sort of combine them together to come out with a very strange product.

Has anyone else ever heard of this, or experienced it?

Couple of questions.

1) You are baptist right?
2) What if there were Methodist Missionaries?
3) How about if the country were predominately Anglicans?
4) Would you consider these two denominations to be sharing the gospel or spreading their "warped view of the gospel?"
5) If not how is that any different than the Catholics witnessing the gospel as they understand it to the population?
6) You yourself have said catholics can be saved. Then it stands reason that there are saved catholics devoted to spreading the gospel by which they were saved so that others be saved and if they accept the teachings of these saved missionaries then they too are provided the opportunity for salvation. So whats the beef?

 

[saturneptune]

Couple of questions.

1) You are baptist right?
2) What if there were Methodist Missionaries?
3) How about if the country were predominately Anglicans?
4) Would you consider these two denominations to be sharing the gospel or spreading their "warped view of the gospel?"
5) If not how is that any different than the Catholics witnessing the gospel as they understand it to the population?
6) You yourself have said catholics can be saved. Then it stands reason that there are saved catholics devoted to spreading the gospel by which they were saved so that others be saved and if they accept the teachings of these saved missionaries then they too are provided the opportunity for salvation. So whats the beef?

Well, for one, Methodists and Anglican missionaries tell the Gospel. We might have minor differences, but Baptist missionaries work together with many missionairies in their area to tell about salvation through faith in Jesus.

I said many Catholics are saved despite their church. If Catholic missionaries spread the Gospel based on the Bible, and not their works doctrine, that would be one matter. They do not stop there. They also mix in the local fables of worshipping nature with their doctrine to maintain a peaceful presence. Besides that, other denominations do not throw monkey wrenches into the efforts of SBC missionaries.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, for one, Methodists and Anglican missionaries tell the Gospel. We might have minor differences, but Baptist missionaries work together with many missionairies in their area to tell about salvation through faith in Jesus.

A couple of notes to make. Anglicans differ quite a bit and have more than minor differences with the baptist. Methodist as well. Maybe not the ones that remain faithful to Wesley but certainly the ones who have taken a liberal turn teaching homosexuality is not sin. Second point catholics tell about salvation through faith in Jesus. The primary difference between baptist and catholics in this statement regards how faith is viewed. Catholics believe the "saving faith" is one where Faith is acted upon rather than just an intellectual assent.

I said many Catholics are saved despite their church.

It doesn't change the fact that according to you they have a saving faith and continue to do so with in their church enviroment. And it may be that this faith that can exist (according to you) with in this "weird view of the gospel" must mean that it is adiquate to pass on that others might be saved.

If Catholic missionaries spread the Gospel based on the Bible,

Which I believe they do.

and not their works doctrine,

what a weird statement. If they believe their doctrine is based on the bible, which they do, then whats the difference. Thats like saying as long as Baptist Missionary spread the Gospel based on the bible rather than their doctrine of sola intellectual assent rather than Faith that must be expressed by working in love.

that would be one matter. They do not stop there. They also mix in the local fables of worshipping nature with their doctrine to maintain a peaceful

This isn't true often when people mix local fables of worshiping "nature" or "voodoo" with the Catholic faith it isn't because the church allowed it. What happens is that the locals do that beyond the teachings of the church that ends up their own thing. The Catholic Church has adapted pagan holiday tradition and christianized it. For instance Halloween. Druids use to worship Samhein. Striping it of its pagan influence the Catholic Church made it a christian celebration or all hallows eve. This is no different from what baptist do taking Halloween and making it a Harvest Festival with Christian overtones. Just like Christmas the church took the pagan holiday Sol Invictus popular among the Romans and made it a celebration of the birth of Christ. Certainly they had some reason to assume that Jesus was born around that time but No one really knew when so take away the pagan aspect of it and celebrate the incarnation. Baptist well many baptist I know don't have an issue with this celebration and often have bumper stickers that say "remember the reason for the Season". And the season started as a "Christ's - Mass" Celebration of the incarnation by having liturgical celebration on that day ie Mass in Christmas.

Besides that, other denominations do not throw monkey wrenches into the efforts of SBC missionaries.

How do Catholics throw wrenches into the efforts of the SBC missionaries?

 

[saturneptune]

Baptists believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Catholics add Baptism, belonging to the church, and many other rituals. I am not sure what you mean by "Catholics must act on faith" but there is no act to it. We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and that alone. Act on faith, sounds like works to me.

 

[targus]

Baptists believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Savedbymercy has been all over the board claiming that Baptists believe in salvation by works since faith is a work.

So what are you gonna do?

People believe what they like about other's faith.

I'd say that God alone has the perfect understanding.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Baptists believe in salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

OH I know! However, what you mean by faith is intellectual assent as in your view of "faith alone" there is no responsibility to act upon that faith.

Catholics add Baptism, belonging to the church, and many other rituals.

Catholics didn't add Baptism. Jesus did. He said you must do it. Therefore If I have faith must must follow him in obedience and be baptized. If I don't obey him in obedience to what he says I must do then you must ask yourself. Do I then have faith if I refuse to obey Jesus? I would hope your answer is no. By the way Baptist have their own rituals. Rituals don't take away from salvation by faith.

I am not sure what you mean by "Catholics must act on faith" but there is no act to it.

I will explain it to you simply if you truelly believe something you act on it that is faith. Thus if I believe that I will be judged at the end of the world and that God wants me to be loving then I will act loving not just feel like I'm being loving. That is what Catholics mean when they say that.

We are justified by faith in Jesus Christ and that alone.

But if you don't act on that faith do you really have it? I'm am justified by Christ alone. But my Faith shows how that justification is revealed. Thus being justified I work out my salvation with fear and trembling

Act on faith, sounds like works to me.

Which proves to me that your "faith" isn't faith but purely intellectual assent.

 

[saturneptune]

Thinking,
Try living up to your name. Jesus commanded us to be Baptized. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Baptism does not save, never has, never will. If someone is saved, works will follow. One does not have to act on them, they naturally want to do them. Act on means making yourself do it.

No one would not be Baptised if they are saved. That was not the question. The question is, what saves? Terms like act on, works, and obeying the Lord in Baptism, is a series of things that happens after salvation, not to effect salvation.

Intellectual assent as you call it, is nothing but knowing something like, George Washington is the first President. Believing in Jesus is the totality of your being loving Him, and He being the center of your life. Big difference.

You are very mixed up about the relationship between grace, faith, works, and salvation. You, Walter, and Westminister need to go to Gospel 101

 

[saturneptune]

Savedbymercy has been all over the board claiming that Baptists believe in salvation by works since faith is a work.

So what are you gonna do?

People believe what they like about other's faith.

I'd say that God alone has the perfect understanding.

Of course I do not have a perfect understanding. Never been to a day of seminary in my life. I do have enough sense to know the Bible does not teach confessing sins through a priest, transsubstantiation, praying to Mary and the saints, and requiring baptism for salvation.

 

[targus]

Of course I do not have a perfect understanding. Never been to a day of seminary in my life. I do have enough sense to know the Bible does not teach confessing sins through a priest, transsubstantiation, praying to Mary and the saints, and requiring baptism for salvation.

You miss my point.

Savedbygrace claims that "faith" is a work.

You say that one is saved by "faith".

So savedbygrace would say that you believe in salvation by works.

My point being that it is easy to misunderstand the beliefs of others.

 

[WestminsterMan]

Thinking,
Try living up to your name. Jesus commanded us to be Baptized. That has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Baptism does not save, never has, never will. If someone is saved, works will follow. One does not have to act on them, they naturally want to do them. Act on means making yourself do it.

Hmmm...

Acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16
16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 3: 20-21
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

John 3:5
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Note:
Look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

John 3:22
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

In Matthew 28:19
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Jesus sure did place great emphasis on His command to Baptise only to have modern Christians view it as merely symbolic. Looks as though you got some 'splainin to do.

You are very mixed up about the relationship between grace, faith, works, and salvation. You, Walter, and Westminister need to go to Gospel 101

Right....

WM

 

[saturneptune]

Hmmm...

Acts 2:38
38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, AND be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 22:16
16And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

1 Peter 3: 20-21
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

John 3:5
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Note:
Look at all of the accounts in the gospels about Jesus’ own baptism. Jesus is baptized with water and look what happens to him when he comes up out of the water (or is sprinkled)... the spirit descends upon him – water and the spirit.

John 3:22
22After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

In Matthew 28:19
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

Jesus sure did place great emphasis on His command to Baptise only to have modern Christians view it as merely symbolic. Looks as though you got some 'splainin to do.



Right....

WM

He did not say one time one had to be baptized. You are more interested in taking verses out of context to fit your new found cult than you are the truth. Maybe you can confirm that in the book of Maccabees. Funny, you did not mention Eph 2. So how does water save someone? I guess the same way being in the presence of the Lord's physical body does after Communion.

 

[saturneptune]

You know WM, most people, in the course of a lifetime, go from less mature to more mature in the understanding of Scripture. Is there anyway you can explain how that is accomplished by going from Baptist to Catholic. What is the deal? You like stained glass windows?

Oh, and while you are at it, since according to you or Maccabees, whichever, baptism is required for salvation, would you care to explain the thief on the cross?

Would you care to explain the fact that Paul was saved on the Road to Damascus before Baptism?

Do you care to explain how Stephen made it to heaven without baptism?

Would you care to explain how Jesus proclaimed that "salvation has come to this house" before they were baptised?

Need I go on. Instead of spending time making up conclusions on out of context verses for the purpose of advancing a denomination that you know is false, maybe you should be telling others about Jesus.

 

[WestminsterMan]

He did not say one time one had to be baptized. You are more interested in taking verses out of context to fit your new found cult than you are the truth. Maybe you can confirm that in the book of Maccabees. Funny, you did not mention Eph 2. So how does water save someone? I guess the same way being in the presence of the Lord's physical body does after Communion.

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

An argument from silence is no argument at all.

WM

And someone who has an agenda of supporting false doctrine is not worthy of being here. I would not dare go to a Catholic web site with the sheer purpose of disrupting their twisted beliefs. I cannot figure out why you are even here, or for that matter, why you are allowed to post such garbage.

It is just plain rude to put it nicely.

 

[WestminsterMan]

You know WM, most people, in the course of a lifetime, go from less mature to more mature in the understanding of Scripture. Is there anyway you can explain how that is accomplished by going from Baptist to Catholic. What is the deal? You like stained glass windows?

Can you get anymore insulting? Why not try addressing the scripture that I provided?

Oh, and while you are at it, since according to you or Maccabees, whichever, baptism is required for salvation, would you care to explain the thief on the cross?

Clearly you completely ignored the scripture that I posted...

First we don't know if he was baptized or not. Secondly, Jesus had yet to make His sacrifice, so your point is moot.

Would you care to explain the fact that Paul was saved on the Road to Damascus before Baptism?

Are you confident that Paul was never baptized?

Do you care to explain how Stephen made it to heaven without baptism?

I could go into the concepts of baptism by desire and baptism by blood, but me thinks that would be a complete waste of time.

Would you care to explain how Jesus proclaimed that "salvation has come to this house" before they were baptised?

The scripture says repent AND be baptized. Apparently, you just don't understand. Baptism isn't the sole means of salvation - no one believes that - it is by the sacrifice of Jesus where He atoned for our sins. Baptism is, however, a very big part of the process as Jesus Himself proclaimed.

Need I go on. Instead of spending time making up conclusions on out of context verses for the purpose of advancing a denomination that you know is false, maybe you should be telling others about Jesus.

Well then... contextualize the scripture that I posted.

WM

 

[WestminsterMan]

And someone who has an agenda of supporting false doctrine is not worthy of being here. I would not dare go to a Catholic web site with the sheer purpose of disrupting their twisted beliefs. I cannot figure out why you are even here, or for that matter, why you are allowed to post such garbage.

It is just plain rude to put it nicely.

For one thing I am not proselytizing, I am simply challenging some of your statements. For another, I don't believe I am supporting "false doctrine" - that is merely your unsupported opinion. Heck - I can say the same about some of your beliefs but, without a logical argument, it would be just as meaningless as your statements.

Look - if you get angry every time someone takes exception to your accusatory talk, then that isn't my problem. Get over it.

WM

 

[saturneptune]

For one thing I am not proselytizing, I am simply challenging some of your statements. For another, I don't believe I am supporting "false doctrine" - that is merely your unsupported opinion. Heck - I can say the same about some of your beliefs but, without a logical argument, it would be just as meaningless as your statements.

Look - if you get angry every time someone takes exception to your accusatory talk, then that isn't my problem. Get over it.

WM

That is exactly what you are doing, proselytzing. Your posts are not a difference of opinion amongst our core beliefs. They are challanging what Baptists believe. You still do not answer the question, why are you here? There is not one poster here who would invade Catholic boards for the purpose of disrupting their core beliefs.

So actually, you get over it, over far enough to move to your own faith.

 

[WestminsterMan]

That is exactly what you are doing, proselytzing. Your posts are not a difference of opinion amongst our core beliefs. They are challanging what Baptists believe.

What?... I am not challenging what Baptists believe because I am still a Baptist (just not one of your ilk). I am, however, challenging what you are stating as the correct belief while simultaneously claiming that those of other beliefs are all wrong - and by definition - that IS a difference of opinion!

You still do not answer the question, why are you here? There is not one poster here who would invade Catholic boards for the purpose of disrupting their core beliefs.

So actually, you get over it, over far enough to move to your own faith.

The nature of intellectual discussion is what it is - and it isn't to disrupt anything. You just get all puffed up when you have no response. Let me remind you that this is the "Other Christian Denominations" forum. Further note that I seldom venture outside of this area. That having been said, I neither need nor seek your advise about my faith.

Ultimately - I'll end by reminding you of your poke into my eye here:

You are very mixed up about the relationship between grace, faith, works, and salvation. You, Walter, and Westminister need to go to Gospel 101

WM

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinking,
Try living up to your name. Jesus commanded us to be Baptized

I am thinking. Look at what you just said... Jesus commanded us to be baptized. Logically its not an option. If not an option then it is a requirement. Very logical flow to it. Ie... Command ... Command is an imperative... Imperative are not options... Commands are not options... if not optional (which it is not) then it is required... thus the command is required.

That has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

You are the one who brought up baptism. I just responded to you.

Baptism does not save, never has, never will.

Logical how do you make this logical jump? IF Jesus commanded us to be baptized then baptism is required. But lets break this down. Can some one be saved and not baptized? Yes. If a person has faith in Jesus Christ and in life cannot make it to be baptized because they are prevented not by their own will but by circumstance the church teaches yes they will be saved. But if a person has faith in Jesus Christ and does not avail themselves to obey Christ though they can...do they really have faith?

If someone is saved, works will follow.

No, if someone has Faith works will follow just as readily as salvation. In essence we are saying the samething. Faith in Jesus saves but for it to be a real faith works must follow.

One does not have to act on them, they naturally want to do them.

Yes one naturally does what they have faith in. A person who has faith in drugs to make them happy will naturally do drugs. A person who loves Jesus and has faith in him will naturally do the works even when they don't feel like it. Why because they have faith in Jesus and want to please him. Its a very natural response.

Act on means making yourself do it.

Sometimes you have to do it. I love my wife. I don't mind doing things for her. I want to do things for her. I love her. However, I don't want to do things for her when I'm tired. But I love her so I force myself to do things for her. Just because I make my self do those things for her when I'm tired or don't want to because something else is more immediate to my interest doesn't mean I don't love her. It show me I love her all the more that when my nature doesn't want to serve her I do it anyway. Faith in Jesus is the same way.

No one would not be Baptised if they are saved.

Just So! NO one would not be Baptized in they had faith in Jesus which it seems you equate to salvation. Thus baptised expresses their faith in Jesus in a real way and grace is given to the person being baptised.

That was not the question. The question is, what saves? Terms like act on, works, and obeying the Lord in Baptism, is a series of things that happens after salvation, not to effect salvation.

It seems you have a definition problem when it comes to salvation. What does salvation mean to you? I can honestly say I have been saved. I am being saved and I will be saved. How about you?

Intellectual assent as you call it, is nothing but knowing something like, George Washington is the first President. Believing in Jesus is the totality of your being loving Him, and He being the center of your life.

If you are totally in love with Jesus don't you act on that love? Don't you do works expressing that love? I think where we differ is you have a "puppy love" sort of understanding of faith. You give intellecual assent to Jesus and have a deep down feeling of love for Jesus in your heart. However, those things are nice. It is only when those things work in consert to remake your whole person who actually lives for Christ. And living for Christ means your life is centered on him and all you do is about him. That is Faith. However, If you mean all a man needs do is believe and have a heart felt belief and doesn't obey christ does he really have faith? I think not. Thus intellectual assent with a side of proper conviction and feeling is the sum of faith I think you are trying to express.

You are very mixed up about the relationship between grace, faith, works, and salvation. You, Walter, and Westminister need to go to Gospel 101

You may be suprised but I've taken Gospel 101 as have Walter and Westminister. Additionally, I have my undergrad from a protestant university and my graduate degree from another protestant university. And the more I study the more convinced I am in the Catholic faith. You see I was baptist for many years. But the more honestly I approached scripture and the faith. I was lead to the Catholic Faith. I'm not the only one like that. Francis Beckwith Professor of Philosophy & Church-State Studies at Baylor University and President of the Evangelical Theological Society has been lead similarily. Just to name one.