Would Baptists even exist without Catholicism?

"St. Anthony, Hammer of the Heretics, pray to God for us!"

Quick question, who is the one intersessor between God and man? Jesus! Why then ask Anthony to interceed for you? Isn't Jesus up to the job? When the pope visited Australia a few years ago, he cannonised Mary McKillop as our first Australian saint, and he told us Australians that now, because he had done so, our prayers would be answered more quickly. So, if I were a Catholic praying to God the day before, baptised, believing, filled with His Spirit, He wouldn't hear me as well as the next day, when Mary McKillop, with a certificate signed by the pope, turns up and tells Him to get on with it? Jesus lives to interceed for me! It isnt something he does unwillingly. He enters the Holy of Holies by right of his own blood and delights to interceed for me, God the father likewise sent him for that very reason, and his Spirit dwells within me and cries Abba, Father. Romans 8:31-34. Do you think that the pope was correct, and that Australian prayers were more important to God after we got our own saint to give them a higher priority that they would have had if they only relied on the blood of Jesus? Why ask a saint for help when you can ask God?
Take care, Colin

 

Dear Ed, I hope my last post was not too intemperate. I value civilised discussion, and trust I was not out of line.
God bless, Colin

 

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, fair dinkum, mate. I was a little intemperate myself in rubbing yer face in our little habit of asking our brothers and sisters in Heaven to intercede for us.

You know, sometimes the members of the Catholic Faith make statements that are just not understandable. Let me take your side for a moment. I believe in a sovereign God who rules the universe according to His divine will. How does the prayers of others change that divine will or make the answer come any faster, as you have asked. For that matter, IF the divine will is set so that the outcome is set regardless, then really, to what point is prayer at all?

Or could it be that God can change His mind within the parameters of the divine will? Is the divine will broader than the narrow picture I have just painted for it.

Consider:

Ge 6:6 ¶ And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

God CHANGES HIS MIND!!

Ex 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Look at that intercession!! God had planned evil to his people, but Moses changes the divine mind.

Here's an interesting one:

1Sa 15:35 And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Didn't God "see" the future and know that Saul would do the things he did? Why did He choose to make Saul king in the first place if He knew the ultimate outcome of Saul's kingship? And yet, we see God changing His mind.

2Sa 24:16 And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

God is IN THE ACT of smiting the people, and comes to a place of repenting and changing His mind regarding the chastizement. And King David interceded for them, which no doubt helped in bring mercy to triumph over judgement.

I do understand your distress (and actually I am kinda willy with it too) in regards to such a statement as "Now your prayers will be answered faster." On the other hand, think perhaps of the Body of Christ as a community working together for a purpose. Let's say that purpose was to move a gigantic rock and one or two people were laboring over it. Then another joins and another and pretty soon, by the joining of many, that which few could do gets done.

I know you will say, but we are talking about God here, not about people and a rock, but I know you remember in Scripture the power of communal prayer. Look at how Ninevah moved God to compassion through ALL repenting and praying for mercy. Look at how we here on earth, when we really have a serious problem in a church, call a prayer meeting and urge everyone to pray.

There seems to be a dynamic in prayer in which the more voices which are praying towards an end, the more we seem to command our Lord's attention to the issue.

And actually, my prayer, in one sense, is pretty much in keeping with the idea of God's sovereignty. "St Anthony, pray for me." leaves the door wide open for St. Anthony to pray according to the divine will.

Ultimately, prayer is a mystery to us. It is considered the hardest work of believers. But we do have scriptural evidence of men praying and changing the hand of God. How that adds up in the overall divine will, I do not know.

As for the mediatorship ("There is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ.") you made an important distinction without even realizing it when you said that Christ is our High Priest. Remember, a high priest offers Yom Kippur for the covenantal nation. Go back and study the work of the high priest in the Jewish nation and you will see this (you may need to find some commentaries which describe the rite in more detail for you).

Heb 9:15 ¶ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Christ's mediatorship, in that context, has to do with the fact that only Christ is the Head of the New Covenant and the only One Who could not only establish it, but KEEP IT IN FORCE by His ever offering (mediating) the Blood of the New Covenant for the "new nation" (1 Peter 2:9) which is the Church. If your supposition is true, than ANY PRAYER, whether by saints in Heaven or us on earth is wrong and contrary to His sole mediatorship, correct?

See, you are thinking of mediation between individuals and God, and the Scriptures are talking about His mediating of the New Covenant, which is a corporate mediation that the high priest does on behalf of the nation. Such does not rule out that we can pray for one another. And surely, the saints in Heaven, who are MORE ALIVE than you or I can begin to imagine ("Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man......"}.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

If the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction over the Church in other areas, why did Clement I write as the Bishop of Rome to settle the schism in Corinth? Why didn't the Apostle John, who lived closer to Corinth, step in and take care of the problem there? The Bishop of Rome did have jurisdiction even while the last of the Apostles was still alive.

If Luther wanted only to bring reform to the Catholic Church from within, why was he teaching heresy a year or more before he made his post on the church door?

And if Tetzel was so guilty in regard to selling indulgences, then why did Luther write a letter that amounted to an apology to Tetzel?

Pauline

[ May 17, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: Pauline ]

 

"our little habit of asking our brothers and sisters in Heaven to intercede for us."

Hi again, thanks for the reply. We all agree prayer is a good thing, and Biblical. I am not so sure that trying to contact people who have died to pray on our behalf is Biblical. Do you also think that dead people's prayers are more effective than live people's prayers? Paul asks churches to pray for him, but even in Acts, where he is not writing to a church, but we just get him in real life situations, I dont remember him asking "St Stephen" or some deady to pray for him.
On a different subject, do you think that the Papal States (when they existed) were about the most perfectly governed of any society in human history? With the pope himself their direct ruler, were they the truest expression of realised Christianity ever? Should we study their laws and adopt them for our own societies?
Have fun, Colin

 

I am not so sure that trying to contact people who have died to pray on our behalf is Biblical.

I know. It's hard in your position to imagine this because you have been taught against it. It kinda clangs around the mind. You know, even as a convert who has come to accept the doctrines of the Church, I still sometimes have a bit of trouble with these things. There is objective understanding, and then there is experiential understanding. I have an objective understanding of the unity of all believers, but sometimes that reality seems far away. I imagine for someone who sees physical death as dividing the Body of Christ into two compartments -- living and "dead" -- such reality is incomprehensible.

Do you also think that dead people's prayers are more effective than live people's prayers?

How about saying it this way: do you think that the prayers of the righteous are more effective than the prayers of those who are less righteous? You see, there are some very strict requirements to meet before the Church declares one to be a saint. The life must be holy, impeccable, and filled with good deeds. Then there must be two MEDICALLY VERIFIABLE miracles in answer to prayer to that particular person. Then there is an investigative committee. This all can take a considerable amount of time, but we are determining whether or not that person is of a special holiness.

I dont remember him asking "St Stephen" or some deady to pray for him.

Deady, eh? Never heard that term before.

There was no ability to pray to those who had gone before until Christ descended into Paradise and realeased them to Heaven. This couldn't be done until the heavenly YOM KIPPUR was finished (Heb. 9 - 10). Study the type in the Old Covenant. Until the high priest returned from the temple, Yom Kippur was not considered finished. Therefore, when Christ went into the heavenly temple, made without hands as it says in the Scriptures, that sacrifice for the Church would not be complete until He returned to earth, which I believe He did in AD70 (ever hear of Preterist Eschatology?). After that, prayers could be offered to the saints, and as is testified by the writings in the Roman catacombs, this was indeed the case.

In a different subject, do you think that the Papal States (when they existed) were about the most perfectly governed of any society in human history?

Not at all. Far from it, actually. Even the mose cursory reading of the Church's history will show you that there we popes who were very poor at administration and ran the Church very poorly.

With the pope himself their direct ruler, were they the truest expression of realised Christianity ever?

Only if that particular pope was one of the godly and wise ones. I am a theocratic monarchialist, so I do believe in kingship instead of democracy, and the rule of moral and theological law (10 commandments) over the lives of the people. But that will not take place till the fullness of the kingdom comes.

Should we study their laws and adopt them for our own societies?

I don't KNOW their laws, therefore, I am unable to sufficiently give answer to this.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Catholic Convert wrote:

But others on your side have acknowledged that there was (such as this Tetzel person), and your own acknowlwdgment that there were bad popes (and some of them would naturally influence the doctrine).

The Pauline wrote:

John may have died by this time. Or if not, he was exiled on the Isle of Patmos. While he did write Revelation and his epistles there, still, this is what God had inspired him (as the last inspired apostle) to do. Taking care of a church problem was left up to a bishop, and one who was not exiled and ready to die. Clement may have been the most able bishop in the area to deal with that, but that still does not mean he was what would later be called a "pope", with its claims to "infallibility", and its political rule.
That could develeop only after the Church became favored by the emperor in the first place, and then took its prominent place in the empire.
The first pope in the real sense of the word is acknowledged by historians to be Leo I. He liked the Roman govt. so much he copied its structure with the Roman bishop as a sort of religious emperor. It had been developing that way before, but that was when the authority of the pope was solidified, and then, in retrospect, every bishop of Rome since the first century was considered a "pope", as was Peter.

It is only called heresy becaue it went against "the Church". But if the Bible is the real authority, and the Church contradicted the Bible, then it should have been challenged. At first he tried to convince the Church from within. But when it became obvious that they would not accept it, it became time to separate. (Just like the original Church and the synagogue it tried to reform, but was soon expelled and had to go off on its own).

 

For a little different twist on this, the Masons played a large part in the downfall of the Catholic church. Re.the start of protestant churches with the Church of England. Without the split their would be no Baptists. I believe one segment of the Baptists now condemn the Masons.
Thanks ..Jim

 

But others on your side have acknowledged that there was (such as this Tetzel person), and your own acknowlwdgment that there were bad popes (and some of them would naturally influence the doctrine

You need to understand the difference between doctrine and administration.

The WAY that Tetzel was going about selling indulgences was definately overboard and was eventually corrected. That was an adminstrative problem. But the practice of indulgences still exists today in the Roman Church. That is because it is a doctrine, which cannot be changed.

The Church has been plagued through 2 millenia with bad administrative decisions. Not every man elevated to the papacy is a good administrator. Likewise with every bishop over a diocese. Blessed is the church when they have men both holy in life, and wise in administration.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

[ May 18, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

Eric B,
You are reading very different historians than I have read. And I read widely from non-biased sources, some of which are Protestant and some of which are secular, as well as from Catholic writers.

Check out any good encyclopedia for a list of the popes from Peter down to today.

The mis-information about the later institution of the Catholic Church simply does not hold up in an honest study of history. As Cardinal Newman wrote, "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Pauline

 

But when the Church is claimed to be infallible, isn't that both the doctrine and administration (such as the office of the pope). If the administration can be bad, then the doctrine it teaches can be as well

And to be deep in Scripture would be to cease to be Catholic. All "history" is is the record of the fall from the faith prophesied in the New Testament. (Matthew 24:5, 11-12, Acts 20:28, 2 Cor.11:3, 4, 12-15 Gal.1:6-10, 2 Thess.2:1-12, 1 Tim.4:1-3, 4:1-4, 2 Peter 2:1-3, 3:3-16 1 John 2:18, 19, 4:1-3, 2 John 7-11 3 John 9, 10)
The Bible's teachings about salvation, the church and Christian practice still stands regardless of what people calling themselves Christians would actually do after it was written. We must not use "history" as the ultimate determination of what the Bible really teaches, because that is exactly what the Jesus Seminar is trying to do. (Jesus had wives, Thomas was the true Gospel, etc)
I still think even "unbiased" secular encyclopedias are simply taking the church's word for it that the papacy began with Peter. They themselves do not know the Bible enough to test this theory scripturally.

 

But when the Church is claimed to be infallible, isn't that both the doctrine and administration (such as the office of the pope).

No. Not at all. Kindly get a copy of the Catholic Catechism or read the Catholic Encyclopedia online and you will find no such idea that administration is going to be done infallibly. Infallibility is only in matters of morals and doctrine, thus, when the Church ruled on Galileo's theorems and made him recant, that had nothing to do with either morals or doctrine.

And to be deep in Scripture would be to cease to be Catholic.

Baloney!!! Go tell that to Scott Hahn. Or any number of the converts who have come into the Church from Protestantism. Don't even try to run it by me. I never studied the Bible as intensely as I did when I was checking out the Catholic Faith, and my study led me right to the Barque of St. Peter.

The problem you have is that you do not have a proper foundation, and without that, the Bible LOOKS like a Protestant book. Only when you understand the familial covenantal structure of God's kingdom will you understand the Catholic Church.

All "history" is is the record of the fall from the faith prophesied in the New Testament

More hogwash. Let's look at just one of the verses you quote, since you claim that Catholics do not know the Bible.

Mt 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

Now, may we put this in CONTEXT, please?

Mt 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, WHEN shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?]

So we see that Jesus' answer is giving the disciples the WHEN of what will happen. Now, what things are being asked about?

Mt 24:1 ¶ And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Now WHEN was the Temple destroyed. Does the date AD 70 mean anything to you? Probably not. Hint: Titus and the armies of Rome, in what was referred to as the Jewish Civil War, laid siege to Jerusalem for 3 1/2 years, culminating in the complete destruction of the city and the Temple. Everything which Matthew 24 warns against came to pass in the destruction of Jerusalem, right down to the Temple being razed flat.

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the supposed "falling away of Catholicism from the faith" and other nonsense like it. Christ prophesied that He would return before all who heard Him speak would die (Matt. 16: 28). So unless you can find a 2,000 year old Jew floating around on this planet somewhere, all that He prophesied in relation to His return, including the destruction of the Temple in Matt. 24, already took place.

The fact that YOUR "private interpretation" of Scripture does not click with Catholic theology does not prove Catholic theology wrong. As I found out, much to my chagrin, it proved to me that I knew neither Church history, good exegesis, covenantal theology, or the writings of the Church Fathers, all of which support the Catholic and Orthdox understanding of the Scriptures.

Cordially in disagreement,

Brother Ed

 

Hi again,
I know that the New Testament is different to the Old, but trying to contact the dead was a real no-no in the old, and now in the New Testament, or indeed, only after the New was completed, its a good thing? Hebrews certainly speaks of Jesus enthronment in heaven, but chapter 11 lists old "saints" only as witnesses to the power of faith, and says nothing about trying to contact them, or pray to them. You seem to have set up a doctrine which has no Biblical support, or indeed possibility of Biblical support (since it only started after 70 AD). Jesus says when he returns, every eye shall see, and not to be decieved by false claims that he has returned. If he returned in 70 AD, then how come the whole world was not judged then? How come no scriptures attest to this? Wouldn't it be reather important?
Getting more confused (probably because we stand on our heads down under),Colin

 

Dear Ed,
short additional note. You suggest that praying to "saints" is actually more effective than praying with fellow believers in a prayer meeting. I find prayer meetings where you meet and share and pray with believers a real strenghtening. Would I be better off just staying at home and enlisting saints a-z for my requests?
This really doesn't seem Christian to me, All the best, Colin

 

Since you are a student, perhaps this would be a good exercise for you:

Which "world" was Christ talking about judging:

Kosmos?

Oikoumene?

Ge?

or

Aion?

May I have your answer please, for the 1 million dollar prize (don't get too excited, the million is in old Confederate "Jeff Davis" notes I have laying around here somewhere -- ).

As for the prohibition about prayers to the "dead".

Are the saints dead?

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Wasn't the flat earth a doctrine (based on an interpretation of the Bible), that was one of the issues staked on the infallibility of the Church? This is a perfect example!

I never said it was a "Protestant book", though I believe some if the issues the Protestants dispute with the Catholics are biblical. This "covenantal theology" seems to be some other authority to interpret the Bible with, rather than such doctrines being truly derived from the Bible. (Funny, one Calvinist on that board also today began talking about some "covenant" other than the New Covenant which supposedly proves his doctrine). The New Covenant is clear that it is our final authority. Any other "covenants" used to set our doctrines and practices are surely an addition to scripture.

I knew that. My only point on that was that false prophets would arise, soon after the Church was established; I was not using that to identify Catholicism in particular, so it does prove what I was saying in regards to Church
"history" as a guide to truth.

 

The flat earth theory was never connected in any way to the infallibility of the Pope or of the Catholic Church. The notion that it was is a good example of how many Protestants misunderstand the Catholic doctrine on infallibility. And, also there is always their tendency to confuse infallibility and impeccability. Therefore their attempts to disprove infallibility fall because their comments were never based on a right understanding of it.

Pauline

 

The Roman Catholic Cult has existed for quite a while just as has Satan himself.To ask what is the relationship between the Ana-Baptist Church and the RCC is simple, they killed our ansestors , robbed them of possesions , and in short made their lives close to hell on earth.Could we exist without them?Yes, just as all good can and will someday exist outside of evil.There is absolutly nothing needed to be credited to the RCC by the Baptists.Baptists existed before the RCC , and before the reformation. Therefore we are not protestant , and you will find no traces of the RCCult in a Baptist Church.

 

My, my, my.....

What a NICE way to introduce yourself to the board in your very first post.

Lessee.....is that the Jack Chick "gospel", or the "gospel of Lorraine Boettner, or perhaps the true gospel according to Jimmy Swaggart, another well known anti-Catholic?

I'm sure that all the orphans the Church fed and cared for, all the battered women who have been taken care of, all the sick who have been visited and ministered to FREE OF CHARGE in Catholic missionary hospitals around the world, and the millions of others who have received various helps from the Church have a much different opinion than the distorted one which you present.

Do you have a useful comment to make DOCTRINALLY, with Scripture to back it, or do you just want to sit there growling and foaming at the mouth?

 

Eric --

The Bible mentions the word "covenant" 280+ times in both the NT and the OT. Therefore, I would say that the sheer number of mentions, including the fact that our Lord said "This is the Blood of the New Covenant." would lend to the covenant an importance for the Christian.

Since our Lord established a New Covenant in His Blood, I want to know all I can about that covenant -- how it works, what it does, etc.

I'm sure you must feel the same.

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed