Cooperation with Catholics

Words mean things... and they mean even more when the direct implications of what are said become more clear as someone says more on a subject.

Perhaps Catholics do not understand what it is about their doctrine on salvation that people like me find in such conflict with the Bible or maybe they just cannot conceive that someone would doubt the Church's teaching. But to be honest, I think I have heard them express it in enough different ways to be convinced that I understand what they are saying.

BTW, I don't believe Baptists are technically protestant. I don't buy into the whole "Trail of Blood" mythology but I do believe God has preserved a body of biblical believers to Himself in each generation since Christ. I personally don't believe they were necessarily linked to each other in a worldly way. As long as the scriptures are available and the Holy Spirit is at work, nothing else is required.

 

I don't agree that it is a misunderstanding. There are real doctrinal differences. This isn't just a matter of semantics that will go away if we just try to understand each other.

I don't think Baptists have very far to move to be biblically orthodox while Catholics have a wide span. They would need to drop traditional dogmas and papal authority among many other things that they are not likely to do.

For us to work out "those differences" and remain biblical, Catholics would basically have to adopt Baptists doctrine and practice.

 

Let's be realistic here, no baptist church on earth is big enough to meaningfully coöperate with the RCC on anything.
We are always talking about working together with smaller sub-groups on specific issues.
Often that's possible especially if we are jointly opposing something (abortion, euthanasia, pornography) and sometimes it just isn't (Behold the joined IFB/RCC seminary!).
On a more personal level coöperation is easier.
For Jim-Bob the preacher it is easier to work with Zeke the priest than it is for the SBC to work with the RCC. Or to use a reallife example.
My own IFB church was never going to issue a joint statement with the Dutch RC bishops, on the movie the Passion of the Christ.
But little me and a priest most certainly gave a presentation on the background of this film to a mixed group of parishioners of both our local churches before we all jointly visited the Passion.

 

"For us to work out "those differences" and remain biblical, Catholics would basically have to adopt Baptists doctrine and practice."
"
Considering that baptists rarely agree on anything, Catholics (who have the same problem even if they hide it better) will probably feel right at home.

 

Is it your assertation that Catholics don't "preach the gospel" because don't believe in OSAS?

I always thought one's position on OSAS wasn't a deal breaker even though I personally believe in the eternal security of my salvation. I should add that OSAS doesn't do justice to my understanding of security. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the Catholics believe only those who lives display a pattern of holiness and who do not die in a mortal sin will be saved. In Catholicism, your assurance is based on Christ Sacrifice infuesed with your works(which they say are provided by the grace given us through the Holy Spirit) so they definitely reject Once Saved Always Saved.


Luther toward the end of his life saw that he had not seperated enough from the Gospel of Rome in regards to Assurance and saw that works had be divorced from assurance.

Some protestants and baptists followed him(Luther) on this, his final view of assurance, while the particular baptists stayed with his old position of works and a righteousness life being necessary for assurance.

IFBReformer

 

This is a tough issue. As a former catholic I know RCC doctrine all too well. Catholicism done strictly by the books is nonbiblical. I would however not go as far as to say that the baptist doctrine is the "biblical doctrine". Baptist doctrine is certainly closer to biblical than is RCC doctrine - but it's still a human "ism".

As such I would say that we must not compromise doctrine for ecumenical convenience. But we should not automatically separate ourselves from catholics, methodists, episcopalians etc because we have doctrinal diffferences. We'll all find out some day that SOME of our doctrines were a little off. As long as a person trusts Christ's sacrifice for salvation he is my brother!

 

Would it be more accurate to say that you believe that some parts of Catholicism done strictly by the book is non-biblical? This is a statement I would agree with.

I'd agree with that.

The catechism is full of doctrine that most catholics don't know.

About catholic doctrine being nonbiblical... For instance - from where does grace come? From sacraments? No.

What is Mary's role in salvation? Nothing.

But what about the average catholic? If someone believes that Christ dies for our sins and that by Him we are saved then how is that person not a Christian? There are many evangelicals who believe in some degree of a works-salvation. Does that mean that they are not Christians? We cannot expect everyone to have perfect theology. Being catholic does not mean one is a nonChristian.

That being sai I would guess that the percentage of Christians in the RCC is substantially less than in the baptist tradition as a whole.

I would be very surprised to NOT see John Paul II in heaven someday - but that's not my job to speculate.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]I was trying to find the actual wording and context of these quotes and the article you quoted them from said they were in the preface to Luther's commentary on Galatians.

However, I can't seem to find any online translations of Luther's preface to his commentary on Galatians. The translation of the commentary I'm finding all over the net is by Theodore Graebner and did not include Luther's preface. </font>[/QUOTE]While I would not say I am an expert on the life of Luther it would seem to me the writer of that article was. I have seen this else where on the net and Lordship advocates have even admitted this change in Luther's view of assurance.

The fact that he was being critical of Luther's changed view also would tell me that he is not taking Luther's view out of context. If it was an article trying to use Luther's view to support my position, I might be more leary of the quotes - but I will look more into.

But lets assume they are genuine and not out of context which many(not just this articles author) assert - then what would you think of Luther's change?

IFBReformer

 

Golden Dragon,

I think we see pretty things pretty closely here.

I have always appreciated certain aspects of catholic theology - and still do. I also, while a baptist, think WE are just another group of human Christians trying to do what's best.

My belief is definitely that a person can be a Christian and a catholic. My biggest problem is the Mary thing actually. She was a devout woman - but was not (in my opinion) involved in salvation any more than was any other human person. And while I understand sola fide (and do not agree with sacramental grace) I also think that Paul intended sola fide to be a bit of a "reductio ad absurdum". That is he wished to show that works for works sake were empty and that the true faith was that which saved. But I don't think he intended to say that "works" were not an important manifestation of faith.

I have always hated the fact that many baptists (including many on this board) automatically assert that catholics are not Christians, lumping them all together and condemning them to hell based on a certain quote from the catechism. Consider the preposterous assertion that John Paul II was an antichrist. Can anyone understand Christianity and actually think such a thing?