Catholic Who Embraced Jesus As Lord And Savior Continued

[37818]

We are saved by grace alone but our response to God’s grace is faith working through love.
Saved by Faith Alone? - Catholic Stand

". . . We love him, because he first loved us. . . ." -- 1 John 4:19.

Now Abraham was justified without works, (Genesis 15:6) ". . . But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. . . ." -- Romans 4:5 (James 2:23).

Now the work is not the requirement, but rather being justified by works is the evidence of already being justified without the work! (Genesis 22:12; James 2:24).
But because the works cannot be the requirement (Romans 11:6), total failure of one's works does not result in the loss of salvation (2 Corinthians 3:11-15).

 

[The Biblicist]

I know that Jesus does not accept the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. My beliefs are no business of my priest. I am a Baptized practicing Catholic and thus I have every right to receive the wafer and the chalice of wine during Mass.

John, do you believe the Supper is sacramental or symbolic?

 

[John Yurich]

John, do you believe the Supper is sacramental or symbolic?

I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion which states that Jesus is present in, with and under the bread and wine. I also accept the Baptist doctrine of the Lord's Supper that states it is just symbolic.

 

[John Yurich]

how about using the term Real Presence? You seem to accept the Lutheran view -which as a Baptist, you should be horrified with. How do you know Jesus accepts that one? I am not trying to be confrontational, I am really wondering. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit led you to this?. Have you studied Baptist/Catholic/Lutheran apologetic materials? Also, curious as to your response to my above testimony.

I accept the real presence as taught by the Lutheran Church. I also accept the Baptist doctrine of Holy Communion that it is just symbolic. Jesus accepts the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion and also accepts the Baptist doctrine of Holy Communion because they both are scriptural. I can't find your testimony. I will find it later.

 

[The Biblicist]

I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion which states that Jesus is present in, with and under the bread and wine. I also accept the Baptist doctrine of the Lord's Supper that states it is just symbolic.

This is taken from Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church:

"Q: In Communion, do we commune with the sacrificed body and blood of Jesus, or the resurrected body and blood of Jesus?

A: The answer to your question is that we receive in, with, and under the bread and wine the true body and blood of Christ shed on the cross, Jesus Christ Who is now risen and ascended and sits at the right hand of God the Father. He is the same Christ, and when he gave us the Sacrament, as the Lutheran Confessions affirm, "he was speaking of his true, essential body, which he gave into death for us, and of his true, essential blood, which was poured out for us on the tree of the cross for the forgiveness of sins" (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration VII, 49).

In the Sacrament, our Confessions further teach, the same Jesus who died is present in the Sacrament, although not in exactly the same way that he was corporeally present when he walked bodily on earth.

With Luther, the Formula of Concord speaks of "the incomprehensible, spiritual mode of presence
according to which he neither occupies nor yields space but passes through everything created as he wills....He employed this mode of presence when he left the closed grave and came through closed doors, in the bread and wine in the Supper...."[FC SD VII, 100; emphasis added].

All major historic Baptist Confessions repudiate this view.

Lutheran's do not believe in the Baptist perspective of the communion. Baptists do not believe it is a "sacrament" or that the real presence of Christ's body and presence are PRESENT in the bread and wine. Baptists do not believe it is sacramental - meaning - actual grace is communicated in or through the Supper.

Baptists believe the bread symoblizes his body and the wine symbolizes his blood and thus is DECLARATIVE of the gospel but does not convey grace.

The Lutheran view is just as contradictive to the Baptist view as the Catholic view is contradictive to the Baptist view - You can't have it both ways as they contradict each other.

 

[The Biblicist]

I accept the real presence as taught by the Lutheran Church. I also accept the Baptist doctrine of Holy Communion that it is just symbolic. Jesus accepts the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion and also accepts the Baptist doctrine of Holy Communion because they both are scriptural. I can't find your testimony. I will find it later.

The designation "Baptist" means very little these days as it could be a descriptive of any kind of theological view. The only thing it may convey is that immersion is used as their mode of baptism.

However, as you know, the use and employment of Biblical terms mean absolutely nothing as it is not the use of the terms but the meaning that determines whether or not that person or institution agrees with the Biblical meaning.

For example, there are extremely few denominations among thousands within Christendom that deny they believe in grace for salvation. Rome certaily proclaims that. Lutheran's proclaim that. Baptists proclaim that. Most Christian cults proclaim that (SDA, JW's, LDS, etc.).

My point is that the Lutheran's do not believe in the same meaning of "grace" as do confessional Baptists.

Indeed, any person or institution that denies eternal security of TRUE believers repudiate the meaning of salvation by "grace." Why? Because the only way one can lose salvation is not due to any failure on God's promise but a failure due to man (works). Few understand the Biblical meaning and extent of "works." Most define its meaning and scope to external actions as did the Pharisees but the Biblical meaning and scope includes all actions by man both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL actions. All who claim a TRUE born again child of God can be lost and go to hell do not believe in the Biblical meaning of "grace" but are believers in justification by works.

 

[The Biblicist]

I accept the Lutheran doctrine of Holy Communion which states that Jesus is present in, with and under the bread and wine. I also accept the Baptist doctrine of the Lord's Supper that states it is just symbolic.

Neither Catholic parishes or Lutheran congregations are New Testament churches. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true church of Christ. Both are paedobaptists and thus their ordinances deny the gospel of Christ. The church has to do with service and the very first step of service is baptism. Salvation is not sufficient to be a member of a New Testament church, but is only one of two requirements. Look at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. Having gone and evangelized the nations and then baptizing the evangelized are prerequisites for the final step wherein the church of Christ is found - assembling together of baptized believers in an instructive observing congrgation.

 

[Walter]

Neither Catholic parishes or Lutheran congregations are New Testament churches. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no true church of Christ. Both are paedobaptists and thus their ordinances deny the gospel of Christ. The church has to do with service and the very first step of service is baptism. Salvation is not sufficient to be a member of a New Testament church, but is only one of two requirements. Look at the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20. Having gone and evangelized the nations and then baptizing the evangelized are prerequisites for the final step wherein the church of Christ is found - assembling together of baptized believers in an instructive observing congrgation.

So are ALL churches which believe that Grace is imparted by sacraments apostate in your opinion? Presbies, Methodist, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Reformed and many others all baptize infants.

 

[The Biblicist]

So are ALL churches which believe that Grace is imparted by sacraments apostate in your opinion? Presbies, Methodist, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Reformed and many others all baptize infants.

Can you find that kind of church in the pages of the New Testament? Can you find "grace" defined like that in the New Testament? If so, book, chapter and verse please? If not, then such are New Testament churches in faith and order.

Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no New Testament church. There can be saved people meeting as there is in many kinds of other Christian institutions.

 

[Walter]

Can you find that kind of church in the pages of the New Testament? Can you find "grace" defined like that in the New Testament? If so, book, chapter and verse please? If not, then such are New Testament churches in faith and order.

Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no New Testament church. There can be saved people meeting as there is in many kinds of other Christian institutions.

Early Christians did not employ gimmicks such as "Karate For Christ" or "Weightlifters for God" to lure people into their assembly. The message of the cross was the only drawing power they ever used (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18).

 

[Walter]

Can you find that kind of church in the pages of the New Testament? Can you find "grace" defined like that in the New Testament? If so, book, chapter and verse please? If not, then such are New Testament churches in faith and order.

Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no New Testament church. There can be saved people meeting as there is in many kinds of other Christian institutions.

The early church assembled together every Lord's day to partake of the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist) (Acts 20:7), sing (Ephesians 5:19), pray (Acts 2:42), give of their financial means (1 Corinthians 16:1,2), and hear preaching from God's word (Acts 20:7). These elements of worship served to edify (build up) the saved (Hebrews 10:24-25). These elements exist in Catholic Churches all over the world. Most baptists are so bored with their 'memorial service ' they only try to tack it on at the end of their services four times a year.

 

[The Biblicist]

Early Christians did not employ gimmicks such as "Karate For Christ" or "Weightlifters for God" to lure people into their assembly. The message of the cross was the only drawing power they ever used (Romans 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18).

Or BINGO either!

 

[The Biblicist]

The early church assembled together every Lord's day to partake of the Lord's Supper (the Eucharist) (Acts 20:7), sing (Ephesians 5:19), pray (Acts 2:42), give of their financial means (1 Corinthians 16:1,2), and hear preaching from God's word (Acts 20:7). These elements of worship served to edify (build up) the saved (Hebrews 10:24-25). These elements exist in Catholic Churches all over the world. Most baptists are so bored with their 'memorial service ' they only try to tack it on at the end of their services four times a year.

You can't be serious???? You think external forms prove doctrinal orthodoxy????? Roman Catholicism is not merely an embarassment to God but pure filth in his eyes as they pervert the gospel, usurp his very Son and illicit sex permeates the preisthood or have you been reading/watching the news?

 

[Walter]

You can't be serious???? You think external forms prove doctrinal orthodoxy????? Roman Catholicism is not merely an embarassment to God but pure filth in his eyes as they pervert the gospel, usurp his very Son and illicit sex permeates the preisthood or have you been reading/watching the news?

Clean up your own cover ups and filth first! The percentage of Protestant (yes, Baptists ARE protestants) clergy involved in diddling children is higher than in the Catholic Church.
StopBaptistPredators.org

 

[Walter]

Or BINGO either!

NOT a gimmick to lure people into the church and you know the difference! Baptist churches are full of gimmicks to 'evangelise and get them out'!

 

[Walter]

Biblicist, I remember you are a Baptist successionists. You are aware that the theory has been debunked by your OWN Baptists historians, are you not? Here is one of your own BEGGING you to stop promoting such a STUPID theory!
'Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)'

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, I remember you are a Baptist successionists. You are aware that the theory has been debunked by your OWN Baptists historians, are you not? Here is one of your own BEGGING you to stop promoting such a STUPID theory!
'Thankfully intellectually honest Baptists, such as James McGoldrick who was once himself a believer in Baptist successionism are conceding that this "trail of blood" view is, frankly, bogus. McGoldrick writes:

Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers. (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)'

Didn't notice that I had left the Baptist forum. Now I understand where you are coming from. My mistake never intended to even come on this part of the forum.

 

[Adonia]

So are ALL churches which believe that Grace is imparted by sacraments apostate in your opinion? Presbies, Methodist, Anglicans, United Church of Christ, Reformed and many others all baptize infants.

The only true faith tradition is his sect, don't you know! His is the only one that has got it all right, all others are apostates.

 

[Walter]

Didn't notice that I had left the Baptist forum. Now I understand where you are coming from. My mistake never intended to even come on this part of the forum.

Yeah, had not witnessed your posts on this forum in a long time. You must have thought you entered the twilight zone for such posting to pop up in the Baptist Only Forums, lol

 

[Adonia]

Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers.

Oh my, that has got to hurt! Yes you are correct, Mr. John Smythe, the inventor of the Baptist sect, was indeed a former Anglican minister. It didn't take long for the splits to happen post Luther. In 1517 Luther wrote his letter and in 1609 Mr. Smythe was going his own way. Of course their were earlier splits from Luther, among them Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin. So in the end the question to ask is: Which Protestant got it right?