• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Another Catholic question (sorry guys!)

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Ahistorical revisionist nonsense!
And another person who has no respect for the Apostles themselves, and even thought it was the Apostles themselves that wrote the Scriptures, Matt would find them incapable of discerning which ones God inspired and which ones God did not inspire. Matt do you really believe the Apostles could not tell when they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?? Were they that dumb, and the RCC that smart??
 

lori4dogs

New Member
I will support Johndeerefan in this. I was taught - by a Lutheran priest - that they believe in co-substantiation. That Christ is present with the earthly elements - not that the elements become the body and blood of Christ like the Catholic church teaches. Whether they believe what Baptists think is a heresy is a non-issue because that's not what matters. What matters is Biblical theology.



I'm disagree. JDF was quite direct, succinct and hit at the heart of wrong teaching and yet he was banned. That is sad.

You were taught by a Lutheran "PRIEST"!
Must by a new synod that calls their pastors 'priest'.

No make a call to your local Lutheran pastor and get your facts straight. Or read for yourself on the LCMS website.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Again, I understand Transubstantiation. DHK had made the comment that Lutherans do not believe that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist. He said they believed in Consubstantiation which was true except with the LCMS. Here is what Wikipedia says about Lutherans and Consubstantiation:
"It is occasionally reported that the LCMS and other Lutherans teach the doctrine of consubstantiation. Consubstantiation is generally rejected by Lutherans and is explicitly rejected by the LCMS as an attempt to define the holy mystery of Christ's presence."[9]

Ann you can even use Wikipedia. They usually have their facts straight.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
You were taught by a Lutheran "PRIEST"!
Must by a new synod that calls their pastors 'priest'.

No make a call to your local Lutheran pastor and get your facts straight. Or read for yourself on the LCMS website.

JDF was banned for his continuous nasty, snarky, un-Christian behavior. You only get a little taste of his snarkiness here.

And to admit he was pretty snarky, Ann, and say it was only because others were doing the same. Aren't we Christians called to higher standard??
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JDF was banned for his continuous nasty, snarky, un-Christian behavior. You only get a little taste of his snarkiness here.

Actually, I've already copied and pasted Rachel Malloy's explanation of why I was banned, so you're not calling me a liar, you're calling your fellow Catholic a liar.

Again, the message I got from the administrator of that site was that I was banned for "proselytizing" and for "promoting beliefs contrary to Catholicism".

You keep calling me a liar and stating that I was banned for Unchristian behavior and yet, every single time I ask you to give an example of my "Unchristian behavior", you're unable to come up with even one example.

Like I said, I strongly encourage anyone here who believes what you have to say to go over there, look at my posts, and come back and show us which one of my posts there backs up your claims about me and why I was banned.

I also want to point out that you criticize me for being blunt, stating that "we" Christians are to be held to a higher standard but then, you go and lie about me and attack me and my church, an entire group of Christians you claim are your brothers and sisters in Christ.

So, when you talk about a "higher standard", I have ask, higher than what, exactly?

And, for the record, annsni is correct. Many Lutherans do call their pastors "priests". In fact, among Europan Lutherans, it is the most common title for a Lutheran pastor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Total nonsense Johndeerefan: you said that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, they don't. They DO believe that Christ is present in the host.

Which, by definition, is transubstantiation.

They definitely believe that what you Baptist think of Holy Communion is sheer and utter heresy.

Lori, why do you hate Baptists so? Which Lutherans believe that the Baptist understanding of communion is "heresy"?

Your contributions to Catholic Answers was sheer dribble.

"Dribble"? Really?
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Which, by definition, is transubstantiation.

I'll let other posters from other denominations that believe Christ is present in the bread and wine tell you the difference.


Lori, why do you hate Baptists so? Which Lutherans believe that the Baptist understanding of communion is "heresy"?

Johndeerefan: I participate in prayers groups with Baptist, attend a Baptist church more often than many Baptist do and have a lot of respect for Baptist who are making in effort to bring the lost to a saving knowledge of Christ. I love Baptist. It just makes me sad when I run across ones who are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they aren't even able to see another Christian from another denomination as being redeemed by the blood of Jesus.


"Dribble"? Really?

You made some points, but there are a lot non-Christians who participate on that board that were wanting basic and essential answers to Christian belief.
Your rabid anti-Catholicism was such a distraction I wonder if any of those people saw the Christian faith as being hope for their lives, or just that Catholics and non-Catholics can't stand each other. That is what I found so sad.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
ohndeerefan: I participate in prayers groups with Baptist, attend a Baptist church more often than many Baptist do and have a lot of respect for Baptist who are making in effort to bring the lost to a saving knowledge of Christ. I love Baptist. It just makes me sad when I run across ones who are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they aren't even able to see another Christian from another denomination as being redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

I certainly don't hate my Baptist brothers and sister in Jesus
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You made some points, but there are a lot non-Christians who participate on that board that were wanting basic and essential answers to Christian belief.

Ah, so now that you've been proven unable to back up your accusations, you're changing your story to "you made some points".

Your rabid anti-Catholicism...

Could you please give me an example of my "rabid anti-Catholicism"?

ohndeerefan: I participate in prayers groups with Baptist, attend a Baptist church more often than many Baptist do and have a lot of respect for Baptist who are making in effort to bring the lost to a saving knowledge of Christ.

What about those who are making an effort to bring Catholics to a saving knowledge of Christ?

I love Baptist.

You do? And you show that "love" by lying about us and attacking us?

I certainly don't hate my Baptist brothers and sister in Jesus

Are you sure about that? Because you've said far worse about us than I've ever said about any Catholic and yet, you claim that I hate Catholics.
 

Peggy

New Member
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

The Formula of Concord, Articles VII and VIII show that Lutherans, at least classical Lutherans, believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. That's what I was taught as a Lutheran.

Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are two ways to attempt to describe what is a mystery of faith and can only be accepted by faith.

In the last 500 years we have tried to reason our way out of believing in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Consubstantiation is a theological doctrine that (like transubstantiation) attempts to describe the nature of the Christian Eucharist in concrete metaphysical terms. It holds that during the sacrament, the fundamental "substance" of the body and blood of Christ are present alongside the substance of the bread and wine, which remain present. The doctrine of consubstantiation is often held in contrast to the doctrine of transubstantiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiation

The Formula of Concord, Articles VII and VIII show that Lutherans, at least classical Lutherans, believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Lord's Supper. That's what I was taught as a Lutheran.

Transubstantiation and consubstantiation are two ways to attempt to describe what is a mystery of faith and can only be accepted by faith.

In the last 500 years we have tried to reason our way out of believing in the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.
Thank you Peggy.
That would explain why we were once taught that Lutherans believed in Consubstantiation was a doctrine of the Lutherans, and that now they are trying to distance themselves from that doctrine. Thanks for the clarification.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
ohndeerefan: I participate in prayers groups with Baptist, attend a Baptist church more often than many Baptist do and have a lot of respect for Baptist who are making in effort to bring the lost to a saving knowledge of Christ. I love Baptist. It just makes me sad when I run across ones who are so dogmatic in their beliefs that they aren't even able to see another Christian from another denomination as being redeemed by the blood of Jesus.

I certainly don't hate my Baptist brothers and sister in Jesus
Here is what Paul said:

Romans 9:1-3 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
--Paul had such a burden for his unsaved "kinsmen" the Israelites, that he said he would take their place in being condemned to Hell (if possible) just so that they would be saved. This prayer is incomprehensible. Only one other time in Scripture do we see such a sacrificial prayer, and that is with Moses who prays that his name be blotted out of the Book of Life if the Lord would not forgive the Israelites. Again, an example of a very sacrificial prayer born out of love.

Romans 10:1-2 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
--Again, look at the heart's desire and prayer of Paul. It is that Israel might be save. Now consider the reason. They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.

You may be in the same boat. You pray. You go to prayer groups--both Catholic and Baptist. You say you believe both Catholic and Baptist doctrine, else why would you go to Baptist prayer groups. But the truth is that you cannot be both and believe in both at the same time. The one preaches a gospel of grace. The other preaches a message of salvation by works. Only a gospel of grace saves. A message of works cannot save. You have zeal, but not according to knowledge. There are many on this board that have nothing against Catholics per se, but are horrified against the doctrine they teach--doctrine which has and is sending millions to Hell.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Are you able to explain this verse. Grace and works do not mix. For example baptism is a work. It is man that does the baptizing and man that receives the baptizing. It is a work of man done in obedience to God, just like prayer, reading God's Word, going to church, evangelizing, partaking in the Lord's Supper, etc. All of these are works. They are commands that we as believers keep. And we keep them after we are saved, not before. They are not requirements to be saved. They are commands to be kept after we are saved. Baptism is the first command that a believer does in obedience to the Lord after he is saved. The command is "Repent and then be baptized." Repentance (salvation) is always first. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (salvation), and then be baptized. That is always the order. Baptism is a step of obedience after salvation. It is a work. Salvation is a one time event in a person's life where God does a work in a person's life and the Spirit of God comes and indwells that person for life. He is changed at that time. The change is forever. At that time, the time when he trusts Christ as Saviour, he is made a new creature in Christ. He is born into God's family. He does not keep on being born. It is a one time event, not a process. His sins: past, present and future are forgiven right then and there. He is given eternal life. He is justified, made righteous in the sight of God. All of this happens at one time in a person's life, just as marriage happens one time in a person's life, and then the person remains married.

RCC doctrine and Bible doctrine are totally incompatible. You cannot believe both at the same time. You must decide between the two. You have a zeal (are religious) but (like the Jews) not according to knowledge.
I pray you find the "right knowledge." Christ, not works, saves. He is the only one that can save; not the church, not the magesterium, not baptism, but Christ and Christ alone. Salvation is by grace and grace alone. One must accept that grace by faith and faith alone.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ann you can even use Wikipedia. They usually have their facts straight.

Since every professor in college right now would disagree with you, I'll skip Wiki.

I made a mistake in saying "priest" - he was Pastor Dave. It was a long time ago (over 20 years ago), so I misspoke.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
JDF was banned for his continuous nasty, snarky, un-Christian behavior. You only get a little taste of his snarkiness here.

And to admit he was pretty snarky, Ann, and say it was only because others were doing the same. Aren't we Christians called to higher standard??

I didn't see nasty unChristian behavior and I think I saw one snark.

So the members over at that site that were snarky to him have a different standard to you? Interesting.
 

JohnDeereFan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
annsni said:
I made a mistake in saying "priest" - he was Pastor Dave. It was a long time ago (over 20 years ago), so I misspoke.

You may have made a mistake concerning "Dave", but on the whole, you were correct. Like I said, it's not uncommon for Lutherans to refer to the pastors as priests.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
You may have made a mistake concerning "Dave", but on the whole, you were correct. Like I said, it's not uncommon for Lutherans to refer to the pastors as priests.

Johndeerefan you don't know much about Lutheranism do you? It is VERY uncommon for a Lutheran to refer to their pastor as a priest.

I do know of ONE exception. There is a Lutheran Benedictine Monastery in Oxford, Michigan. This is the ONLY place I ever ran into Lutherans referring to their ministers as priest and calling them father. It is an interesting monastery and retreat house which is not associated with any of the major synods.

Please feel free to call ANY local Lutheran Church or go to ANY Lutheran board and ask if it is common to call their pastors 'priest'.

Here is the link to the monastery in case your interested.

http://www.staugustineshouse.org/
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Since every professor in college right now would disagree with you, I'll skip Wiki.

I made a mistake in saying "priest" - he was Pastor Dave. It was a long time ago (over 20 years ago), so I misspoke.

I'd say you might call your local Lutheran pastor and ask. I was taught what you were at my Baptist College about Lutherans and consubstantiation. However, a simple research by you would prove my point.

Are you just going to go by what you were told they believe or what they actually believe. I think DHK's posting pretty much proves they deny believing in consubstantiation.

Find out for yourself, Ann. Don't just trust what some Baptist professor taught.
 

lori4dogs

New Member
In that link to the Lutheran monastery, look at the photographs provided by the link to the left of the homepage. Under the link for the chapel you will find a lot of pictures. If you scroll down the pictures you will see one with a crucifix, praying bench which is in front of the 'tabernacle' which is where they keep the blessed sacrament. The bread and wine already consecrated as the body and blood of Christ.

If Lutherans don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ, why the tabernacle?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WalkswithJesus

New Member
And another person who has no respect for the Apostles themselves, and even thought it was the Apostles themselves that wrote the Scriptures, Matt would find them incapable of discerning which ones God inspired and which ones God did not inspire. Matt do you really believe the Apostles could not tell when they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?? Were they that dumb, and the RCC that smart??

I believe the reason for the revisionsit remark was rlated to your commenting on the Itala being a Waldensian work for the 2nd century. I asked you about this in an earlier post. The Vetus Itala is an old latin translation of the Septuagint - which of course would be closer to the Cathlic Bible with additional hebrew texts - then our protestant version.

Your reference to Waldensians in antiquity is counter to modern historical research and scholarship - at least in the worls I have read. What is your source for this position? I asked this earlier but you must have missed that post ... From my rsearch - especially thise widely accepted and recent in scholarship place the origins of he Waldenses at the earliest in the 9th century ... can you give me a source for your second century and a tie to the Vetus Itala?

THANKS
 

lori4dogs

New Member
Top