Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[Adonia]

And yet, you can't name one thing I've said about the historical record of the Christian experience that's incorrect.

I have said that I agree with you and what you pointed out about what the ECF's said concerning this small portion of the Christian experience. I merely took it a step further to elaborate more on how the ECF's would interpret said Scriptures, so perhaps another thread is in order.

 

[Hollow Man]

I have said that I agree with you and what you pointed out about what the ECF's said concerning this small portion of the Christian experience. I merely took it a step further to elaborate more on how the ECF's would interpret said Scriptures, so perhaps another thread is in order.

No, you said:

you folks try real hard but you can't ignore or change the historical record of the Christian experience down through the ages.

To which I responded by pointing out, rightly, that you have not named one thing I've said about the "historical record of the Christian experience" that's incorrect.

 

[JonC]

That my friend is a very reasoned opinion, so I will say to you well done! It is some good food for thought and in the end when we slip these earthly bonds we might find it to be true. But, for the meantime, I will keep to my current belief that the Catholic Church of today is the same as the one from back then.

We typically hold our believes until convened otherwise. I fault no one for this. I just think it good to know where we are each coming from (helps avoid speaking past one another, especially in a disagreement).

 

[Adonia]

To which I responded by pointing out, rightly, that you have not named one thing I've said about the "historical record of the Christian experience" that's incorrect.

Well, it looks we are on different wavelength's here. You kept your comments concerning the ECF's limited to them saying the scriptures are the ultimate authority, or am I missing something? On that little part of the historical record you are correct and I never said you were incorrect - that was someone else.

Now, there are hundreds of other issues concerning the scriptures and what Christendom as a whole believed for centuries concerning the historical record that we have not delved into that can be debated. From what I know about the Baptist faith tradition vis a vis orthodox Christianity, I think that you might not be as correct about them as you were about the little portion we discussed earlier. Basically, I have heard all the arguments before and find them less than credible.

 

[Hollow Man]

Well, it looks we are on different wavelength's here. You kept your comments concerning the ECF's limited to them saying the scriptures are the ultimate authority

Yes, because that was the topic.

I never said you were incorrect - that was someone else.

That's odd, because it was addressed to me and had your name on it.

From what I know about the Baptist faith tradition vis a vis orthodox Christianity,

Baptists are orthodox, [edit]

 

[Adonia]

We typically hold our believes until convened otherwise. I fault no one for this. I just think it good to know where we are each coming from (helps avoid speaking past one another, especially in a disagreement).

Exactly. I also think we all might be in for some surprises on the other side as regards the faith traditions that we practiced while on our journey here on earth.

People might ask why am I a Catholic for instance and the answer is pretty simple. It was the faith tradition that I was bought up in and a familiar place for me to return to after my sojourn away from the Lord. I had been to other places of worship as I was contemplating a spiritual return, but none of them seemed right on the mark to me.

Then one day I walked back into a Catholic Church to attend Mass and I realized how much I liked our liturgical way of worship. Plus the teaching of the "Real Presence" of Jesus in Holy Eucharist, and all the other things the Catholic Church teaches. The I started reading the writings of the ECF's and I believed the Catholic Church is indeed the same one they were in. So here is where I am.

I don't look askew at anyone else and what faith tradition they are in, it all comes down to the individual person and where they find a spiritual home. In the end to me it's really all about Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of our sins that we can get because of His sacrifice.

 

[Adonia]

Baptists are orthodox, Einstein.

Well then we have a different view on what being an "orthodox" Christian is. To me (and many) first and foremost it's an acceptance of the 7 sacraments. We believe they exist as our Eastern Orthodox brothers believe they exist - you don't.

So no, you are not an "orthodox" Christian my friend. You follow the lead of a man named John Smyth who abandoned Christian orthodoxy (as a former Anglican minister he was somewhat orthodox) but he went his own way in the 17th century. That's your faith tradition's origin - not orthodox as defined through the centuries.

 

[Adonia]

That's odd, because it was addressed to me and had your name on it.

I believe you are mistaken. Point out the post where I said it please.

 

[Hollow Man]

So no, you are not an "orthodox" Christian my friend.

You can insult me all you like, but, yes, I'm well within the bounds of orthodoxy.

Can't say the same for you.

 

[Shoostie]

"He Himself, therefore, having declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,'

This Bread? It's bread, he said so.

So, either Jesus' body is made of bread and he literally broke off a piece of himself to share, or Jesus thought it was unnecessary to state the absolutely obvious that he was using symbolism?

 

[Hollow Man]

This Bread? It's bread, he said so.

So, either Jesus' body is made of bread and he literally broke off a piece of himself to share, or Jesus thought it was unnecessary to state the absolutely obvious that he was using symbolism?

Funny that Catholics don't believe worship means worship, that brothers means brothers, etc, but have no problem believing that flesh is literal bread.

 

[Adonia]

You can insult me all you like, but, yes, I'm well within the bounds of orthodoxy.

Can't say the same for you.

I didn't insult you, I was just stating the facts. Your brand of Christianity is not what was practiced in the early days and for hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of years - not by a longshot. Seriously, you don't even agree with Martin Luther and the other early so called "Reformers".

 

[Adonia]

Funny that Catholics don't believe worship means worship, that brothers means brothers, etc, but have no problem believing that flesh is literal bread.

Only because Jesus was quite clear in what He said. "This IS my body" and "This IS my blood". Why don't you believe what Jesus actually said?

 

[Particular]

I didn't insult you, I was just stating the facts. Your brand of Christianity is not what was practiced in the early days and for hundreds, upon hundreds, upon hundreds of years - not by a longshot. Seriously, you don't even agree with Martin Luther and the other early so called "Reformers".

Neither is todays Roman Catholicism what was practiced by the early church.
However, based upon scripture alone, Baptists are more accurate to the early church than Roman Catholics are.
Baptist's have the same form of baptism. Baptist's, like the Apostles, partake in communion, knowing the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood, given as an atonement for sin. Neither the Apostles, nor Baptists, believed in an alchemy of mystical chemistry happening with the bread and wine.
Prayer and Services were not liturgical, but were heart felt expressions of faith. The State wasn't needed to keep the believers in fellowship with God.
So, Baptists are much closer in practice to the early church than Roman Catholics are.

 

[Adonia]

This Bread? It's bread, he said so.

So, either Jesus' body is made of bread and he literally broke off a piece of himself to share, or Jesus thought it was unnecessary to state the absolutely obvious that he was using symbolism?

I simply quoted the words of a Christian from the 2nd century (100+ AD) of him relating what had been taught to him and other Christians about this issue.

You don't even get what I posted right, he actually said: "For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus".

Now seriously, who would have a better take on this issue - a man from the 2nd century where the teaching that was handed down was so close to the Apostles, or men from the 16th and 17th centuries who decided what the truth now was?

 

[Hollow Man]

Neither is todays Roman Catholicism what was practiced by the early church.
However, based upon scripture alone, Baptists are more accurate to the early church than Roman Catholics are.

Well, sure. That was the whole point of the Reformation. The Catholic Church had gradually become so heretical and corrupt over time that it was no longer recognizable as Christianity.

 

[Adonia]

Baptist's have the same form of baptism. Baptist's, like the Apostles, partake in communion, knowing the bread and wine represent Christ's body and blood, given as an atonement for sin. Neither the Apostles, nor Baptists, believed in an alchemy of mystical chemistry happening with the bread and wine.

If a baptism is done in the proper way like Catholics do, i.e. in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and with water (symbolism) it is sufficient. Catholics, like the Apostles also partake of Holy Communion, (the highlight of our worship service) knowing that the bread and wine contains the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ, that it is indeed His body and blood, just like He (Jesus) said and the Apostles believed, the same truth that they passed on to their successors. (see my quotes from the Early Church Fathers posted earlier).

The only thing you got right was the part about Baptists not believing in the "Real Presence". The other things you said came about only by your particular biblical interpretation.

Baptists believe in a "go it alone" idea that was far from those Apostolic days. There were no "Free and Independent" churches back then where everyone read the scriptures (which were not even compiled yet) and decided things for themselves.

There was hierarchy, a central authority, who told every Christian alive what to believe and how things should be seen. This is proved by such things as the letters to the Corinthians where they were told how they were getting things wrong and they had better get with the program.

So no, the early Christian Church in those days was assuredly not Baptist.

 

[Particular]

If a baptism is done in the proper way like Catholics do, i.e. in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost and with water (symbolism) it is sufficient. Catholics, like the Apostles also partake of Holy Communion, (the highlight of our worship service) knowing that the bread and wine contains the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ, that it is indeed His body and blood, just like He (Jesus) said and the Apostles believed, the same truth that they passed on to their successors. (see my quotes from the Early Church Fathers posted earlier).

The only thing you got right was the part about Baptists not believing in the "Real Presence". The other things you said came about only by your particular biblical interpretation.

Baptists believe in a "go it alone" idea that was far from those Apostolic days. There were no "Free and Independent" churches back then where everyone read the scriptures (which were not even compiled yet) and decided things for themselves.

There was hierarchy, a central authority, who told every Christian alive what to believe and how things should be seen. This is proved by such things as the letters to the Corinthians where they were told how they were getting things wrong and they had better get with the program.

So no, the early Christian Church in those days was assuredly not Baptist.

The major error is that Roman Catholics are taught that the sacraments (of which communion and baptism are two) impart grace upon the recipient.
Of course there is no such teaching in the Bible. In order for grace to be grace, meritorious works cannot be the cause that effects God to action. Grace must be unmerited favor.

Romans 11:6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

The ultimate problem the Roman Catholic Church has is that it teaches legalism and works to attain salvation as well as to retain salvation. The Apostle Paul condemns such legalism in his letter to the Galatians.
Sadly, Rome was given the opportunity to repent and instead, it doubled down on its legalism. God has now turned his back on the Roman Catholic Church as it continues to lose members and have its sins exposed to the world.

 

[37818]

Jesus Christ said, "Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." [John 3:5]. Six times in John's gospel do we hear the double amen twenty-six times. It is His own strengthening of God's affirmation. Hence it is to you the only way to be "regenerated," amen amen - with water and the Holy Spirit. Furthermore He becomes the doorway through which we enter the Church, His Kingdom, amen amen.

JoeT

John 3:3-6 is teaching about two births. And not a thing about baptism [immersion].

". . . And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . ." -- Matthew 18:2-3.

". . . Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?. . ." -- John 3:3-4.

In John 3:5-6, Jesus explained being born again. There are two births.

 

[Particular]

Baptists believe in a "go it alone" idea that was far from those Apostolic days. There were no "Free and Independent" churches back then where everyone read the scriptures (which were not even compiled yet) and decided things for themselves.

There was hierarchy, a central authority, who told every Christian alive what to believe and how things should be seen. This is proved by such things as the letters to the Corinthians where they were told how they were getting things wrong and they had better get with the program.

So no, the early Christian Church in those days was assuredly not Baptist.

To your second point. The church has always been established on Christ alone. This is why the scriptures are our guide, not the teachings of a State Controlled Church.
The Church at Rome, having slept with the harlot of the Roman Empire quickly became apostate and illegitimate as a light for Christ and His body. Like Corinth, it is a catastrophe. When a Catholic studies God's word and questions the Church as the Bereans questioned Paul, that person leaves the Roman Catholic Church. We have many former Catholics at my church who weep over their lost loved ones who call themselves Catholics, but know nothing of God's mercy and grace.
So, yes, the early church was much, much, closer to Baptists than to Rome.