Catholic Verses Baptist

Even Catholics will admit that infants have no faith at all. They are saved by the magical powers of "sacraments" performed by priests who have been "given powers" that EVEN though the priest goes into apostacy - he still RETAINS those magical powers.

That idea of salvation is VERY different from the Gospel that Baptists believe.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob,

tell me what is that VERY different idea of salvation.

Where did you get that information that infants are saved by the magical powers?

 

Get used to Bob. He isn't trying to be deceptive, he really believes what he says.

 

Thanks

 

I truly enjoy taking part in discuissions where my points and questions are completely ignored. Y'all PM me when you decide to allow Presbyterians to participate, OK?

 

TP -- yes, non-Baptists can participate. I did not respond to your specific question as I am not a Baptist either. I too was waiting to hear what other said on this. My guess is that our views are fairly similiar.

J -- I am not definitely a RC basher as others may be. However, that is indeed my understanding of their official doctrine - "works" is part of the equation, not just grace through faith. I have even seen a show on EWTN (the Catholic network) titled "Why grace is not enough" whereby the speaker argues that very point. (That being said, I am also somewhat familiar with an evangelical Catholic church.)

 

Friend,

check this out about the RCC position: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

 

Hi, Bob. Long time, eh ?

About those magic powers, remember, if a baby loses his/her salvation, now those powers ain't very magic, are they ?

 

...The ultimate source of faith and everything else, in the opinion of this Baptist.

I read your post a few days ago, tragic_pizza. I figured someone else would probably answer. Maybe, when you ask a question, you need to throw in a few "good natured darts" to stir people up - ya think?

 

Catholic vs. Baptist-

It is written: "On this Rock I will build my Church (called out assembly), and the Gates of hell will not prevail against Her(not it)." Jesus, The Christ, circa A.D. 33. Book of Matthew, Chapter 16, verse 18.

It is written: "All power(authority) is given unto ME in heaven and in earth; GO ye therefore and TEACH all nations... and lo I am with you even unto the end of the world." Jesus, The Christ, same book, Chapter 28, Verses 18-20.

"Are you authorized?" is the crux of the matter. "By whose authority do you do these things?", asked the Jews of Jesus. He firmly established where His authority came from--in fact He told them that if they did not believe that He was I AM THAT I AM, they would die in their sin. The Jews as a nation had real problems with Jesus and who He is--the world also. This includes the world of religion.

Yes, Jesus has all authority. He is God in the flesh(the POTTER). He has delegated some of that authority to His soon-to-be Bride--commonly called His Church (not an individual).
The so-called Holy See(Roman Catholicism) either stands or falls on the meaning of Mt. 16:18. Jesus is either giving the authority to the Apostle Peter or He is not. If the authority is vested in the so-called Apostolic Succession (papacy), the Holy See is right: their religion is the only one with proper authority. The consequence of that is: everything religious done outside the pervue of the Holy See is null and void. The so-called reformers are without authority--they are de-frocked Roman priests without authority.

What if the Holy See is wrong? What if there is no Apostolic Succession? The Church at Rome never had such authority and still has none. The first corollary to this is: those that have to "reform Rome" have no authority either--a reformation of nothing yields nothing.

Bring on the "Baptists." This is a "catch-all" term which is full of ambiguities. There is no entity called The Baptist Church. There are dozens of groups called Baptist. They obviously cannot agree--adding to the confusion. Brethren, God is not the author of this confusion. Jesus said He would build Her and that He would be with Her until the end. Many say that the truth of all of this is lost in antiquity. That is a ploy of the Wicked One. God said that a thousand years is but a day to Him--using that time reference, Jesus was on this world less than two days ago. There are a lot of things the religious world would like to "shroud" in antiquity--particularly The Truth.

The Bride, the Lamb's wife, without spot, wrinkle or any such thing has been in every generation. She is still here, as Jesus promised, preaching the unadulterated Word of God. She will continue until Jesus returns for Her.

In the meantime, shall we trace Her back to Her founder? Let's go.

The Holy See points out that all churches were started by some man or woman, save one, theirs, started by Jesus in A.D. 33. They are right about everything-- except one: their origin. The Holy See, historically, other than the Catholic Encyclopaedia, cannot trace their authority prior to a man--Emperor of Rome, called Constantine had his "VIDI VICI VINCI" nightmare.(do a word study of the word: pontiff)
He decided to have a marriage: The State and the Church(so-called). Then he called a Church Council--at a place called Nicea, circa 325 A.D.
Any information regarding the Holy See and Apostolic Succession prior to the 4th century is pure speculation, conjecture, and unnecessary inference promulgated by the so-called Holy See.(also reinforced by the destruction of any information to the contrary) As has already been pointed, the Scripture does not support Apostolic Succession; in fact such a doctrine is contradicted. This is why the Holy See tried so vehemently to destroy any translations of the Scripture which they had not approved--particularly the English translations. In fact many English (and German) copies were gathered and burned along with the translators. What happened to some of the translators and most of the preachers/believers borders on the bizarre. In reality, the Holy See does not want anyone to read the Scripture--much less preach The Word. Why? Because The Word exposes the darkness with the true light--that of the Real Gospel--all others are anathema.

Who were these Christians being killed by Christians? They had different names. One cannot trace "The Faith once(for all) delivered to the Saints" by a name. Book of Jude, Verse 3. One must look at what they believed and practiced.

Having done that, I am persuaded that all True Churches have had a "Baptistic" Faith and Practice; and that they can be found in every generation. Some of the beliefs are: inerrancy of the Word of God; salvation by grace through faith, not of works; absolute separation of church and state; no connection with the Council of Nicea; no connection with the so-called reformation in the 16th century; a perpetuity in every generation; absolute freedom of religion for all; believer's baptism only; closed communion; no alien baptism; no pulpit affiliation; etal.

Most of the above are what I call Baptistic. Some may be attributed to groups not called Baptist. All groups called "Baptist" do not ascribe to this partial list. The point is: there is a Faith and Practice today which has been in existance in every generation all the way back to A.D. 33. This Faith once for all delivered to the Saints has never come out from the Holy See (Rome), nor has She ever been reformed.

Let God be found True, and every man a liar." That is a wonderful Scripture. Watchtower: beware, it applies to you to.

 

"VIDI VICI VINCI"
"
I saw, I conquered, I am Vincent?

 

...The ultimate source of faith and everything else, in the opinion of this Baptist.</font>[/QUOTE]What part of the above would the Roman Catholic Church argue against?

All I am saying is that, as regards systems and doctrines, the Baptists and Catholics aren't as different as they may like to believe.

 

I don’t think they would argue with any of it (nor should they!).

I am not an expert in the systems and doctrines of the RCC. But of what I do know, I think there are more differences between the Baptists and Catholics than there are between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians.

I’m not going into the “gruesome” details (there are others here who “live” for that). I will say that one is saved by the grace of God through faith in His Son, period. There is no human institution, whether the RCC, a Baptist Church or otherwise that ensures the salvation of anyone, apart from a personal relationship with Christ.

It seems to me, based on what I know from some Catholic friends and relatives, that they tend to place a lot more “faith” in the systems of their Church (priests, sacraments, traditions, etc) than do Baptists. Most Baptists would probably, at the very least, agree that these aren’t really necessary.

 

What about:

VINI VIDI VICI

Do I get a prize?

 

I don’t think they would argue with any of it (nor should they!).

I am not an expert in the systems and doctrines of the RCC. But of what I do know, I think there are more differences between the Baptists and Catholics than there are between, say, Baptists and Presbyterians.

I’m not going into the “gruesome” details (there are others here who “live” for that). I will say that one is saved by the grace of God through faith in His Son, period. There is no human institution, whether the RCC, a Baptist Church or otherwise that ensures the salvation of anyone, apart from a personal relationship with Christ.

It seems to me, based on what I know from some Catholic friends and relatives, that they tend to place a lot more “faith” in the systems of their Church (priests, sacraments, traditions, etc) than do Baptists. Most Baptists would probably, at the very least, agree that these aren’t really necessary. </font>[/QUOTE]Unless one speaks of modes of baptism, the nature of the elements of the Lord's Supper, etc.

The point is that, though the systems of the church are different, they are no less cenrtal to the faith of the Baptist than of the Roman Catholic.

 

It is: Veni Vidi Vici.
I came I saw I conquered.
It has nothing to with emperor Constantine, the remark belongs to Julius Caesar.
To be honest Michael hidden among the details of that particular post of yours in this thread are a number of inaccuracies. I do however agree strongly with the post by you that came after that.

 

mioque

Right - Veni, instead of Vini
I hoped I could remember the correct Latin quote of Shakespeare's Caesar. I don't get a prize.

I take full responsibility for the latter post with which you "strongly" agreed. However, in the previous post where you found "inaccuracies" I think you may have me confused with another poster - maybe?

 

I thought you would never ask.

In Christ,

Bob

 

But the question of magical powers - that remain with the Priest -- needs to be addressed.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The "systems" are quite different, in both number and meaning or efficacy. Not only that, the Baptist "systems" are less central to Baptists than are the Catholic "systems" to Catholics. That is my point. "Systems" do not save.

Obviously, many Catholics recognize this and certainly there are probably many Baptists who may not. Nobody is perfect.

Many Baptists (those who know why they are Baptist) view their "faith" as more of a movement. This movement is back to a more simple Christian (Biblically based) "system", where the proper traditions and rituals are limited to those that are Biblically prescribed.

There may be Baptists who would disagree with my characterization. If they do, then that would be a prime example of one of the Baptists more famous tradidions.