Anti-Catholics or Anti-Catholicism

[John3v36]

Anti-Catholics or Anti-Catholicism?!?

Can you be one without being the other?

I thank you can.

Saint John

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yes you can.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Grasshopper]

Yes.

 

[Priscilla Ann]

Yes, you can be one without being the other. Just because I disagree with Catholic doctrine does not mean that I am against Catholics.

Priscilla Ann

 

[BobRyan]

The Jewish leaders were wrong at the time of Christ - but Christians were predominantly Jewish in the early NT church.

There is an example of opposing doctrinal error while embracing the people that were held by it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Of course we can be anti-catholicism but not be anti-catholics.

Catholics are people, and we love all people.

Mike

 

[DHK]

Yes, we love the sinner, and hate the sin (i.e., false doctrine).
DHK

 

[LandonL]

Oh my gosh. I've never seen complete agreement on a thread in this forum before. Congratulations.

Oh, and I agree too.

 

[Melanie]

Good to see, yes that holds with all folks and all creeds in my humble opinion.....

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

"Can you be one without being the other?"

Of course!

I have family members who are catholic and I love them. I just keep witnessing and praying they will see the Truth...

§ue

 

[following-Him]

Can you be one without being the other?

Yes, you can. It grieves me that so many catholics are misled by the false doctrines of the catholic church, but we can still love and pray for them and hopefully witness to them.

Blessings

Sheila

 

[Jude]

Of course, properly understood, the term 'catholic' is NOT exclusive to the Roman Church. I, for one, consider myself to be 'Catholic'. I do not agree with all that Rome teaches. Yet, of course, I recognize her as a true church, as I would the Orthodox. Can you love a Roman Catholic and yet disagree with some Roman novelties? Yes indeed. Can I, as an Anglican Catholic, love, for example, Baptists, with whom I disagree on a number of things. Yes.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by Jude:
Yet, of course, I recognize her as a true church, as I would the Orthodox.

Curious to know: What do you think about the Baptist Church?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Curious to know: What do you think about the Baptist Church?

Joseph Botwinick

I've been on this board for a long, long time, and never been asked this before.
Well, of course, I'm an Anglican, which means...

(paraphrased and borrowed from another source)

Faith

The Anglican Church is first and foremost a Bible Church. The beliefs held by the Anglican Church are thoroughly grounded in Holy
Scriptures. A priest takes an oath at his ordination to "teach nothing as necessary to eternal salvation, but that which ... may be concluded and proved by the scripture". The use of the Bible is a prominent part each
worship service and about eighty percent of the 'Book of Common Prayer' is taken from the Bible directly. An orderly reading of the Bible is provided through the use of a lectionary so that within the course of a year the people will heard or read a majority of the Old and New testaments.

The Anglican Church is also a creedal church, which means that we believe that the
ancient creeds of the Church (the Apostles's Creed, the Nicene Creed and the Athanasian Creed) express succinctly and literally the Faith of the
Church as it has been since ancient times. In the creeds, we express our firm belief that God is one God in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit; that God the Son became man, born of the Virgin Mary as our Lord Jesus Christ; that Jesus was born fully God and fully man; that by our
Lord's sinless life, death and resurrection, He gained access for us to God the Father and the way for us to be His children. We also believe in
the eternal communion of all Christian saints and the final judgment and resurrection into a new life in a new kingdom.

We are also a Catholic Church. This means that the faith, we teach and practice is in the mainstream of traditional Christian thought as foundthroughout the history of the Church since the time of the Apostles. Our orders are valid, i.e., can be traced back, by the laying on of hands, to the very beginning of the Church. The Anglican Church believes, as do all Catholic churches, that there are seven sacraments: Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Confirmation, Penance, Anointing, Marriage, and Ordination. A sacrament is a an objective and effective sign of the continued presence and saving activity of Christ our Lord among His people and the way in which he conveys to us His grace.

Now, does the Baptist Church share any of the above? Well, of course, it is a Bible Church, but it is not strictly a 'Creedal church, though it also holds to the major tenets of the Christian faith, such as the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Atonement of Christ, His Resurrection on the 3rd day, His Ascension and to the promise of His coming again. It also practices Communion and Baptism. But there is also much that she lacks. She certainly is not 'Catholic'... Her 'orders' would be, in our view 'irregular', with no connection to the Catholic and Apostolic faith. However, that connection is not completely severed, as she holds to (as I said before)many of the major Doctrines of the Christian faith. She lacks a history that goes back to the beginning, and therefore, has embraced many of the innovations of the Reformers (such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Memorialism and Congregationalism) that simply have no basis in the universal experience of the Catholic faith.
These are serious divisions, and I believe, serious errors of the Baptist Church. Sola Scriptura was never embraced by the early church, and has led to 100's of denominations, with 'every man doing what is right in his own eyes'. Sola Fide, an equally serious error, leads to 'easy believism' and a rather-cavalier attitude toward holiness.It's viewsalvation/justification/sanctification is seriously flawed. Memorialism, as with the others mentioned, simply has no warrant in the Bible or the early Church, or for that matter, for the Church's first 1500 years of existence. And so, Baptists have orders that are irregular, and many doctrines that I simply cannot agree with for I find no basis for them in the 2000 year history of the Church. Now, does this mean I don't believe that Baptists are Christians, or that they don't have a church, or that they aren't blessed by God because of these deficiencies? Absolutely not.
But you did ask me what I thought of the Baptist church.

But I should also add some positives...
1. Baptists have a level of committment that is extremely high.
2. Baptists have a deep love for the Bible
3. Baptists READ their Bibles, and memorize it
4. Baptists have missionary zeal perhaps unparalled in the Christian world
5. Baptists love evangelism, and don't simply wait for 'nice people to show up'.
6. Baptists try to practice what they see as a 'pure' religion, without the 'additions of men'.
7. Baptists have let me on this Board
8. Baptists love the Lord deeply

Enough for now...

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

So,

While you would not recognize the Baptist Church as a "true church", you would recognize her as a Christian Church? How does that work? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Or is it moral relativism? Please explain this contradiction to me.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
So,

While you would not recognize the Baptist Church as a "true church", you would recognize her as a Christian Church? How does that work? Isn't that a bit contradictory? Or is it moral relativism? Please explain this contradiction to me.

Joseph Botwinick

That's not exactly what I said. Baptists are, those who have been baptized and confess Christ, are Christians. A Baptist Church is not an oxymoron, but, it is not the Church in all it's fullness. It does not hold the 'Catholic faith', as most would understand that term, at least, again, with the Catholic doctrines that I mentioned in my above post. That would be, I believe, the Anglican view.

I have worked in a few conservative ecumenical groups. It is clear that the men I've worked with, even with 'irregular' orders, and doctrines held to which I could not subscribe, were clearly Christians. But when one would say, "We all love the Lord, let's just ignore our denominational differences and just serve the Lord," I know that I couldn't agree, and know that it's not that easy. The differences ARE there, and they are important.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes doctrinal error is "important" to reject (and has consequences if it is swallowed). Doctrinal truth is "important" to grasp and to earnestly desire to know more.

But that does not mean that someone that holds to a different doctrinal view is lost. For examples -- there were the saved Even among the Jews of Christ's day. They were not "lost" just because they were Jews not Christians NOR did the saved among them "suddenly GET lost" when He arose from the dead.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Jude]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

But that does not mean that someone that holds to a different doctrinal view is lost...

No, but clearly, when one surveys all the churches, it is clear that someone is in error, and some, more than others. And some errors could lead to very serious eternal consequences. OSAS IS a dangerous doctrine, IMHO, and leads many to a rather lukewarm faith, and gives a false sense of security. 'Memorialism' and 'Sola Scriptura' and 'Congregationalism', while I disagree with these, don't, by themselves, cause people to lose their salvation. That said, I do believe that Sola Scriptura is one of the chief causes of our divisions. The Anglican triad of Scripture, Tradition and Reason would well-serve the Protestant world.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
But that does not mean that someone that holds to a different doctrinal view is lost. For examples -- there were the saved Even among the Jews of Christ's day. They were not "lost" just because they were Jews not Christians NOR did the saved among them "suddenly GET lost" when He arose from the dead.

In Christ,

Bob

I am gonna restate this statement and you tell me if my interpretation of your statement is accurate:

You believe that Jews who rejected Jesus are saved. You believe there is salvation outside of Jesus Christ. You are a universalist who says there are many ways to God and eventually, people of all faiths will be saved and end up in heaven, no doubt, if they do good works and earn their way in.

Is the above correctly stating what you believe?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Jude:
The Anglican triad of Scripture, Tradition and Reason would well-serve the Protestant world.

I agree with you on Sola Scriptura, but I'm a little leary of the formula, "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason", when I've read quotes from some liberal Anglicans in which they justify heretical innovations (ie, same-sex unions, ordinations) in the Church based on what they percieve as "Reason".