Catholics Visiting The Baptist Forum Part 2

[MarysSon]

I find it odd that you would eat human flesh and drink human blood and then proclaim that the action caused God to impart his grace upon you.

And yet, you DON’T find it “odd” that 8-day-old babies had to have their foreskin cut off as part of the Covenant with God??

You DON’T find it “odd” that a virgin became pregnant with God??

You DON’T find it “odd” that an all-powerful God would come down to die an agonizing criminal’s death on a cross because His people screwed up?

You DON’T find it “odd” that the very people He came to save were the ones who killed Him??

You DON’T find it “odd” that men in the 16th century decided to change God’s rules because they were fed up with the leaders of His Church??

You DON’T find it “odd” that this movement which sought to “correct” the mistakes of the Church resulted in the perpetual splintering of the Body of Christ – to the tune of tens of thousands of competing sects – ALL teaching different doctrines??

God doesn't need to explain to YOU in great detail why He chose to have us feed on His flesh and blood – as the Jews fed on THEIR paschal lamb. He left you PLENTY of evidence in the OT AND the NT and gave you the grace to believe.

Whether you DO or not is up to YOU . . .

 

[Particular]

And yet, you DON’T find it “odd” that 8-day-old babies had to have their foreskin cut off as part of the Covenant with God??

You DON’T find it “odd” that a virgin became pregnant with God??

You DON’T find it “odd” that an all-powerful God would come down to die an agonizing criminal’s death on a cross because His people screwed up?

You DON’T find it “odd” that the very people He came to save were the ones who killed Him??

You DON’T find it “odd” that men in the 16th century decided to change God’s rules because they were fed up with the leaders of His Church??

You DON’T find it “odd” that this movement which sought to “correct” the mistakes of the Church resulted in the perpetual splintering of the Body of Christ – to the tune of tens of thousands of competing sects – ALL teaching different doctrines??

God doesn't need to explain to YOU in great detail why He chose to have us feed on His flesh and blood – as the Jews fed on THEIR paschal lamb. He left you PLENTY of evidence in the OT AND the NT and gave you the grace to believe.

Whether you DO or not is up to YOU . . .

You make my point that Roman Catholicism is a legalist religion that rejects grace for works. Notice how you attempt to make Christianity like the Mosaic Law.

 

[MarysSon]

You make my point that Roman Catholicism is a legalist religion that rejects grace for works. Notice how you attempt to make Christianity like the Mosaic Law.

Nice cop-out.
I didn’t make ANY claims. All I did was posit some very Biblical points for YOU to ponder.

Your evasive response speaks VOLUMES about your contradictory claim that the Catholic position on the Last Supper was “odd” – yet none of the other points I made were

Think about them and get back to me – if you can . . .

 

[37818]

The Sacrifice which concluded on the Cross began the night before in the Upper Room.

No. But was fully finished on the cross prior to Jesus' physical death, John 19:28 with the death of His soul, Isaiah 53:10 on the cross.

Now there are two things I have with my faith in God's Christ. Having eternal life knowing God, John 17:3. Knowing I have eternal life, 1 John 5:12-13, Titus 1:2. And in that knowing, knowing for sure about going to Heaven, should I die, 2 Corinthians 5:8. Now what do you think you have better? Where as you could know too, 1 John 5:9-13.

 

[37818]

Again – the Epistles of Ignatius were never called into question until recently because they are simply far too important to the development of Christendom. Protestant scholars try to debunk them as “forgeries” like they do every other EFC writing that supports Catholic doctrine.

You have presented ONE such objection to these writings – but the weight of scholarship rests with the fact that the Epistles of Ignatius were genuine. I can produce MANY sources that claim they are genuine - for example:
- St. Ignatius of Antioch: The Epistles - Paul A. Boer Sr.
- The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch - by St. Ignatius Of Antioch, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, D. P. Curtin
- Ignatius of Antioch: Estimated Range of Dating: 105-115 A.D. - Ignatius of Antioch
- St. Ignatius of Antioch - Saint Ignatius of Antioch | Biography, Writings, & Martyrdom

Although there are some spurious writings attributed to Ignatius (Epistles to the Tarsians, Antiochans, Philippians, et al) – the Seven Epistles he wrote on the way to his martyrdom were NEVER called into question until recent Protestant scholarship had problems with the doctrines in them.

So – once again – the onus is on YOU to prove they were forgeries -= not ME to prove what has always been held throughout the centuries as fact.

The Apostolic authority of the NT does does not teach what is found in those so called Ignatius letters. I reject them as false teaching.

 

[MarysSon]

The Apostolic authority of the NT does does not teach what is found in those so called Ignatius letters. I reject them as false teaching.

No – YOU reject them because they don’t jive with your 21st century Protestant sensibilities.

Your Protestant Fathers iin the 16th century agreed with much of what was in the letters of Ignatius. it was only over time that their successors and ecclesiastical descendants “adjusted” their doctrines to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.

Many of your Protestant Fathers wouldn’t recognize you today as having followed their lead . . .

 

[37818]

No – YOU reject them because they don’t jive with your 21st century Protestant sensibilities.

Your Protestant Fathers iin the 16th century agreed with much of what was in the letters of Ignatius. it was only over time that their successors and ecclesiastical descendants “adjusted” their doctrines to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.

Many of your Protestant Fathers wouldn’t recognize you today as having followed their lead . . .

LOL, I concider myself a baptist not a Protestant. Yes I know the Baptist label is a post reformation name. The NT are 1st century documents, with 1st century teachings.

From the NT I was lead to believe in Christ so to know God, and know I have eternal life, with the certainty of going to Heaven when I die. John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-13; Titus 1:2; 2 Corinthians 5:8.

 

[MarysSon]

LOL, I concider myself a baptist not a Protestant. Yes I know the Baptist label is a post reformation name. The NT are 1st century documents, with 1st century teachings.

From the NT I was lead to believe in Christ so to know God, and know I have eternal life, with the certainty of going to Heaven when I die. John 17:3; 1 John 5:9-13; Titus 1:2; 2 Corinthians 5:8.

Doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether you don’t “consider” yourself a Protestant.

There are THREE types of Christians:
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant

That’s it. If you ain’t one of them – you ain’t a Christian.

Baptists are Protestants. The origins of your sect go back only as far as 1606 when your founder, John Smyth, launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

 

[Yeshua1]

Doesn’t matter a hill of beans whether you don’t “consider” yourself a Protestant.

There are THREE types of Christians:
Catholic
Orthodox
Protestant

That’s it. If you ain’t one of them – you ain’t a Christian.

Baptists are Protestants. The origins of your sect go back only as far as 1606 when your founder, John Smyth, launched it in Amsterdam, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

The true Church of Jesus was the First Baptist church in Jerusalem, and not the False one of pagan Rome!

 

[Particular]

No – YOU reject them because they don’t jive with your 21st century Protestant sensibilities.

Your Protestant Fathers iin the 16th century agreed with much of what was in the letters of Ignatius. it was only over time that their successors and ecclesiastical descendants “adjusted” their doctrines to further divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.

Many of your Protestant Fathers wouldn’t recognize you today as having followed their lead . . .

The extant letters of Ignatius all date as hundreds of years after his life. We have only a small sample of extant documents (quite unlike the thousands of scriptural documents). To say that what we have available may not be what Ignatius actually wrote is a fair statement. Yet, you seem to think they should be canonized.

 

[MarysSon]

The true Church of Jesus was the First Baptist church in Jerusalem, and not the False one of pagan Rome!

That's funny - the ONLY Church we read about from the end of the first century on is the CATHOLIC Church.
We don't hear about the Baptist sect until the beginning of the 17th century.

STUDY your history . . .

 

[Particular]

That's funny - the ONLY Church we read about from the end of the first century on is the CATHOLIC Church.
We don't hear about the Baptist sect until the beginning of the 17th century.

STUDY your history . . .

Funny, how all the Apostles and early church members had believers baptism, yet you seem to care less about scripture than about your preferred Western Civilization documents of choice that have little to do with scripture.

 

[utilyan]

The true Church of Jesus was the First Baptist church in Jerusalem, and not the False one of pagan Rome!

John Smyth is the First Baptist, he was an Anglican priest, left baptized himself. and then later left the baptist church he created because he realized you need connect to the real church you can't just make up a fake church out of thin air.

 

[utilyan]

Funny, how all the Apostles and early church members had believers baptism, yet you seem to care less about scripture than about your preferred Western Civilization documents of choice that have little to do with scripture.

Funny no one complained about infant baptism until 1500 years later.

Even you Saint John Calvin says infant baptism is a go.

In fact the Calvinist position renders baptism meaningless, God simply chose to love this one and chose to hate that one.

We could cut any mention of "BAPTISM" from the bible and Calvinism still works because it throws it away.


Mark 16

16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved;

CALVINIST 16
16“He who has been saved shall believe and be baptized;

Would there be any objection with the backwards verse?

Tell us what is WRONG with the backwards verse?

 

[Particular]

Funny no one complained about infant baptism until 1500 years later.

Even you Saint John Calvin says infant baptism is a go.

In fact the Calvinist position renders baptism meaningless, God simply chose to love this one and chose to hate that one.

We could cut any mention of "BAPTISM" from the bible and Calvinism still works because it throws it away.


Mark 16

16“He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved;

CALVINIST 16
16“He who has been saved shall believe and be baptized;

Would there be any objection with the backwards verse?

Tell us what is WRONG with the backwards verse?

Why does baptism need to be mystical for it to have meaning? Why not baptize because it symbolizes the fact that the Holy Spirit immerses us into Christ by Christ's atoning sacrifice?
As for infant baptism, since there is no infant baptism in the Bible, we don't baptize infants.

 

[utilyan]

God does not need to turn bread into flesh or wine into blood for a person to remember Jesus atoning sacrifice. Transubstantiation is an alchemy term that applies to the Roman Catholic mysticism never taught by Christ Jesus or his Apostles.

"God does not need to turn bread into flesh or wine into blood for a person to remember Jesus atoning sacrifice."
Indeed. Which is why it makes present Calvary.


1 Corinthians 11
29For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly.

Give an example of judging the body wrongly.

If you judge it to be bread then you have not judged the body rightly.

 

[utilyan]

I find it odd that you would eat human flesh and drink human blood and then proclaim that the action caused God to impart his grace upon you.

Even so , some found it odd that if you eat a forbidden fruit that looked good enough to eat that God would depart his grace upon you.

 

[utilyan]

Why does baptism need to be mystical for it to have meaning? Why not baptize because it symbolizes the fact that the Holy Spirit immerses us into Christ by Christ's atoning sacrifice?
As for infant baptism, since there is no infant baptism in the Bible, we don't baptize infants.

Colosians 2

11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The Circumcision of Christ is Baptism. Circumcisions are done at 8 days old.

Infant baptism is a greater example of someone entering by GOD's CHOICE rather then self-proclaiming by your OWN CHOICE.

 

[utilyan]

Why does baptism need to be mystical for it to have meaning? Why not baptize because it symbolizes the fact that the Holy Spirit immerses us into Christ by Christ's atoning sacrifice?
As for infant baptism, since there is no infant baptism in the Bible, we don't baptize infants.

John 3
12“If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

If you can't believe the earthly things Jesus tells you, how will you believe the heavenly things?

This isn't about spiritual mechanics and mysticism. This is about TRUST.

If God declares all your sins forgiven by eating a hot dog, it is what it is he calls the shots on existence and the laws of it.

The reason we are in the pickle in first place is because two folks had the bright idea that maybe God was just kidding about something physical having spiritual consequences.

Think about this Particular if we GOT RID of baptism what do you lose? NOTHING. Your theology would still work.

IF baptism was never mentioned in the bible nor life, what is lost? It is absolutely pointless.


It has been a continuous theme throughout scripture of our sense of reliability vs trusting God.

Where do you get off stating baptism doesn't do anything? It comes from YOUR sense reliability and leaning on your understanding.

You can make a clear instruction book in a matter of minutes. Would you forget to add by the way folks Baptism doesn't actually do anything, its just symbolic.

That was not hard to write at all. But according to your LOGIC God was too STUPID to mention that obviously important particular.

Look if I say YOU are saved by faith alone. Am I DIVINE AUTHOR because I could pull off in seconds something only an idiot would neglect to mention in forty thousand words! ?


The way you believe things could have easily been written out, EVEN YOU could have done a better Job.

That's a plain objective FACT, If you can scribble in the bible you could have it all clear up PERFECTLY.

So whats the conclusion? For me to buy into your theology I HAVE TO BELIEVE, REQUIRED to BELIEVE, the author of scripture is a complete idiot. And you BELIEVE it too, which is why we REQUIRE your explanation for everything.

OR. Maybe you are WRONG and we should just believe what it says.

 

[Deadworm]

mailmandan doesn't know Greek or Hebrew, and so, doesn't read academic commentaries on specific biblical books.
Consequently, he simply refuses to recognize the objective fact that in both Hebrew ("amunah") and Greek ("pistis") the word for "faith" also means "faithfulness." Period.

Nor can he escape the implication in Romans 1:28 that "adokimos" means both "disqualified" and "reprobate" and hence "unsaved." Nor can he duck the same implication for "adokimos" in 1 Cor. 9:27. No distinction is made in 9:23, 27 between reward and salvation. Thus, in his magisterial commentary on 1 Corinthians Hans Conzelmann speaks for the scholarly consensus when he says, "By behaving thus, Paul secures his own personal salvation (p. 161)." Nor can mailmandan duck the scholarly consensus that James' rhetorical question,in 2:14 "If a man says he has faith but not works, can faith save him?" expects a resounding No that puts the final nail in the OSAS coffin. Of course, "works" then are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for grace-based salvation and thus works manifest the faithfulness that makes faith true faith. Learn Greek, my friend and you may learn correct doctrine.