My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm not Walter but my answer - were I Catholic - would be "(Principally) neither, but rather Jesus Christ." (That's also my answer as someone "not in full communion with the See of Rome", BTW.)

:thumbs:..................................................................
and I would change what to whom

 

[evangelist-7]

Was the RCC the true church during all the centuries that it was
persecuting, torturing, and murdering other Christians?
Could a true church do the following? ...

Many people have pointed out the horrible acts of the "Christians" during the Crusades.
Many people have pointed out that Hitler was raised a "Christian".
etc.
However, these people were never born-again (from above) Christians!
They did not have the Holy Spirit inside of them, leading and guiding them,
and teaching them "all things (spiritual)"!
.

 

[Matt Black]

...and your point being?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Walter, that was an interesting testimony. It seems you and I have had similar backgrounds and have been on similar paths. However, rather than landing in the RCC, I ended up Anglican (after a few years of seriously considering Eastern Orthodoxy, while also investigating the claims of Rome). If I get a chance later this evening, I may interact with your OP and note where we have common ground and where we might have some divergence in arriving at our respective conclusions.

At any rate, God bless you, brother.

 

[Matt Black]

Amen to that!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I did, and I sure hope you did also. :wavey:

As stated before...... the man who wants salvation already HAS it. The man who hungers and thirsts (desires it) after righteousness is a blessed character (Matt. 5: 2-6). :thumbs:

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm not Walter but my answer - were I Catholic - would be "(Principally) neither, but rather Jesus Christ." (That's also my answer as someone "not in full communion with the See of Rome", BTW.)

Good answer! :applause:

Our trust is in a PERSON.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Great Perry White's Ghost!!! Can we no longer have assurance of salvation?

Why dont you just stop evading the question & answer it directly. Have you direct access to the Lambs Book of Life.......therefore a yes or a no is sufficient.

Whatever answer you come up with is pretty humbling.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

...and your point being?

regarding the Spanish inquisition I recollect a discourse from the film "A Man For All Seasons" which went.

Cromwell:
The King wants Sir Thomas to bless his marriage. If Sir Thomas appeared at the wedding, now, it might save us all a lot of trouble.

The Duke of Norfolk:
Aaahh, he won't attend the wedding.

Cromwell:
If I were you, I'd try and persuade him. I really would try... if I were you.

The Duke of Norfolk:
Cromwell, are you threatening me?

Cromwell:
My dear Norfolk... this isn't Spain. This is England.

and at a different point in the play-

Duke of Norfolk:
Why do you insult me with this lawyer's chatter?

Sir Thomas More"
Because I am afraid.

Duke of Norfolk:
Man, you're ill. This isn't Spain, you know. This is England.

Which of course Thomas More lost his head in the end.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Since I have the book, "The Reformation" written by Will Durant, please allow me to quote the final sentences from his books epilogue.....

"One lesson emerges above the smoke of battle: a religion is at its best when it must live in competition; it tends to intolerance when and where it is unchallenged & supreme. The greatest gift of the Reformation was to provide Europe & America with that competition of faiths which puts each on its mettle, cautions it to tolerance, and gives to our frail minds the zest and test of freedom."

I say, amen to that!

 

[Walter]

May I ask what type of Baptist were you...SBC, Independent, Reformed?

As I expected, there are lots of different questions and some will take some time to answer. This one is easy! The church I was raised in is CBA. I spent a few years as an undergraduate at Biola University before transferring and graduating from Cal. Baptist University (SBC)

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Walter, that was an interesting testimony. It seems you and I have had similar backgrounds and have been on similar paths. However, rather than landing in the RCC, I ended up Anglican (after a few years of seriously considering Eastern Orthodoxy, while also investigating the claims of Rome). If I get a chance later this evening, I may interact with your OP and note where we have common ground and where we might have some divergence in arriving at our respective conclusions.

At any rate, God bless you, brother.

I'm currently making my way through Henry Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua and I'm interested on your and Matt Black's thoughts regarding the Oxford Movement, or Tractarian Movement. You can pm me if you like since this thread is about Walter. Thanks.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I expected, there are lots of different questions and some will take some time to answer. This one is easy! The church I was raised in is CBA. I spent a few years as an undergraduate at Biola University before transferring and graduating from Cal. Baptist University (SBC)

Good....now your soteriology?

Sub Question: Dress Code......Im thinkin in California that would be shorts, a tee shirt & flip flops? ....:laugh: Just Kiddin (dude)

 

[Walter]

Didn't Jesus set a standard of speaking in words the Jews didn't understand? After all, they would ask Him a question and He presented them with one parable after another. The aforementioned kinda douses the thought that the Jews would not possibly be outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. They seemed to constantly be outraged by the things He said while understanding none of it.

59 The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60 But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61 and declared, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

62 Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, “Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 63 But Jesus remained silent. Matt. 26:59-63

They got this wrong too, but Jesus didn't explain it to them.




Interesting. Do all Catholics now believe that a fetus is not a person?



Seems a bit odd to make something of an idol out of a Church's history. Would seem to be more important to have a connection with Christ. I guess I'm not too clear on what glory to Christ having a connection to the history of the Church is going to bring?



We are to be going directly to God for the interpretation of His word.



Walter, will you please explain what you believe Baptists have got wrong when they say that Catholics believe in salvation by works. Thanks.

I have time to respond to one of your questions now. The 'salvation by works' question will need to wait until later today or tomorrow. Also, I don't understand your question: 'Do all Catholics now believe that a fetus is not a person?' Church teaching couldn't be clearer on the subject. Individual Catholics may be confused as to what the teaches (maybe someone you know) but the Church is adamant, a fetus is a person. I think I read something on another thread you were on about lawyers for a Catholic hospitol arguing that a fetus is not a person. Certainly the Church does not support their argument and surely this was done without knowledge of Church.

Let's look at John chapter 6. Let me ask you, when Jesus said 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', did anyone say 'how can this man be a door' (or vine)? Or 'how can this man be a plant?' When Jesus spoke in metaphor the people around Him seemed to know it. I ask you to look at the surrounding context of John 6:53 and I do not see how His words could have been clearer. He says He IS the 'living bread' that His followers MUST eat. Doesn't He say in no uncertain terms that 'the bread that I now give is my flesh'? Doesn't He say emphatically, 'truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'
It is true that Jesus spoke in parables (common in that day) but this is no parable. Look at this and some other examples in Scripture where His followers are confused about his teaching. In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (see also Matthew 16:5-12).
Now, let's look at the language used by St.John, a literal interpretation—which may disturb you—drives it home. Here in John 6:50-53 there are several forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” The Jews say how disturbed they at the suggestion they should be eating Christ’s flesh, and the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Isn't Trogo a lot more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey?
Now we get to verse 61 where we no longer have great multitudes of people following Him (why?) but disciples who are having difficulty understanding this. SURELY now He would clear this matter up and explain 'this is all symbolic'! Well, what did He do? He again re-affirms what He has just said: 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?' in verses 61 and 62. Do you think anyone thought Him to mean: “What if you were to see me symbolically ascend?” I don't think you believe that. Didn't the Apostles see Jesus literally ascend to heaven?
When Jesus addresses the twelve what does He not say? He doesn't say: “Hey guys, I was misleading the Jewish multitudes, the disciples, and everyone else, but now I am going to tell you alone the simple truth: I was speaking symbolically.” He asks them if they will take off as well. And their response? “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” verse 68
I used to counter Catholics with: Doesn't our Lord says to the disciples “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” and doesn't this prove that Jesus was talking symbolically (spiritually)? But Jesus did not say "MY flesh is of no avail', He said 'the flesh is of no avail'. Big difference! Jesus would have been contradicting Himself because He just spent a lot of time telling them that His flesh would be given for the life of the world. Isn't The flesh a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace? “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” Mark 14:38
It is the Holy Spirit that brings about the miracle of Christ being able to ascend into heaven bodily while being able simultaneously to distribute his body and blood in Holy Communion for the life of the world.
What confuses most people here is often based upon confusion between spirit—a noun—and the adjective spiritual. When spirit is used, “God is spirit” in John 4:24, it is taling about that which is not material. However, the adjective spiritual is not necessarily referring to the absence of the material; rather, it is referring to the material controlled by the Spirit. Don't His words have two meanings? “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail” Only the Spirit can accomplish the miracle which occurs at Holy Communion and only the Spirit can empower us to believe the miracle

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Let's look at John chapter 6. Let me ask you, when Jesus said 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', did anyone say 'how can this man be a door' (or vine)? Or 'how can this man be a plant?' When Jesus spoke in metaphor the people around Him seemed to know it. I ask you to look at the surrounding context of John 6:53 and I do not see how His words could have been clearer. He says He IS the 'living bread' that His followers MUST eat. Doesn't He say in no uncertain terms that 'the bread that I now give is my flesh'? Doesn't He say emphatically, 'truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'

Good points. It's good to keep in mind the distinctions: After Jesus stated "I am the Door", He didn't say "And this door by which you must enter in is a hole in by body that you must walk through". Likewise, after He stated "I am the Vine, you are the branches," He did not add, "And this Vine I speak of is my physical body which y'all need to graft yourselves onto so you can have literal fruit hanging off of you".

Too often when I was a Baptist I would make sloppy comparisons between these passages without appreciating the distinction, but in the back of my mind Christ's words in John 6:51-57 always haunted me regardless of my attempts to explain them away.

I used to counter Catholics with: Doesn't our Lord says to the disciples “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” and doesn't this prove that Jesus was talking symbolically (spiritually)? But Jesus did not say "MY flesh is of no avail', He said 'the flesh is of no avail'. Big difference! Jesus would have been contradicting Himself because He just spent a lot of time telling them that His flesh would be given for the life of the world. Isn't The flesh a New Testament term often used to describe human nature apart from God’s grace? “Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” Mark 14:38

Yep--he didn't spend all that time telling them that he was giving His flesh for the life of the world (which he literally did on the cross) just to turn around say that HIS flesh wouldn't actually avail for anything afterall. 'The flesh' (in v.63) means his words shouldn't be understood in a carnal manner (as in a gross cannibalistic eating of His flesh), since He contrasts the Spirit and flesh, but rather in a spiritual manner. However, Jesus saying His 'words are spirit' is not the same thing as saying His 'words are symbolic', unless we want to confine the entire spiritual world to the realm of mere symbolism (as modern liberal demythologizers are apt to do).

We would indeed partake of His flesh and blood in a spiritual manner but this would involve real physical eating (munching, even) and drinking...and the Disciples found out how this was to be in the Upper Room.

 

[Yeshua1]

What is lacking in the baptist church, and more importantly...

Why go back to the elements of religion that provides nothing for us, when we are already complete in him?

Wish you the best, but really wonder why heading back into "pagan babylon!"

 

[Zaac]

Why dont you just stop evading the question & answer it directly. Have you direct access to the Lambs Book of Life.......therefore a yes or a no is sufficient.

Whatever answer you come up with is pretty humbling.

DO I need to have access to the Lamb's Book of Life to know that I'm in it?

 

[Walter]

Good....now your soteriology?

Sub Question: Dress Code......Im thinkin in California that would be shorts, a tee shirt & flip flops? ....:laugh: Just Kiddin (dude)

I will do so. I want to suggest that all converts to Catholicism from evangelicalism, struggle with the differences between their former beliefs and their new beliefs. The incorrect ideas of the old faith need to go, if they are entirely incorrect, or transformed, if they are partially correct, and then replaced with the truths of the Catholic Faith. Sometimes you will probably find traces of my old and incorrect beliefs within my conversion to Catholicism. Other times I might, so as to avoid past errors, takes an idea too far in the opposite direction.
'And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.' (Matthew 10:22 [RSV])

Hopefully the following will clear up what 'Steaver' referred to as a 'hoped for salvation' instead of 'assurance of salvation'. If I persevere in faith to the end I will receive salvation. Salvation is a lifelong process that has been given to us by the Grace of our Lord. Obedience to Him is to be done at all times and when we fail we repent, confess and we will be renewed.

Our lives are not our, they belong to Christ. We must give our life to Him and be obedient in His word, we will fall, but we must get back up in His strength and have Faith (Trust) in Him. Faith is a lifelong process as well, it is not a one time deal.

Let's first look at the passage in (John 26-29)

26. But you do not believe, because you are not among my sheep.
27. My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
28. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish. No one can take them out of my hand.
29. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,* and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.

According to this passage Jesus' sheep will be given eternal life and no one will be able to take them away from God. But nowhere does this passage indicate that anyone will choose to remain one of Christ's sheep. The upshot is that Jesus will not disappoint those who are His sheep, but there is nothing about monergism which forces people to remain His sheep. I would agree with you and 'Steaver' that to be one of Christ's sheep means that one is justified, but I think the difference between us is that you think that justification is irrevocable while I don't.
So, in short, there is nothing you can do to be saved. Jesus Christ did it for all of us. What we must do is receive our Lord's Grace and have Faith and be obedient in Him by showing it in our works, that must be consistent with His teachings.

All I have time for today! BTW, dress code: shorts, tee-shirt and Birkenstocks-of course!

 

[Zaac]

I have time to respond to one of your questions now. The 'salvation by works' question will need to wait until later today or tomorrow. Also, I don't understand your question: 'Do all Catholics now believe that a fetus is not a person?' Church teaching couldn't be clearer on the subject. Individual Catholics may be confused as to what the teaches (maybe someone you know) but the Church is adamant, a fetus is a person. I think I read something on another thread you were on about lawyers for a Catholic hospitol arguing that a fetus is not a person. Certainly the Church does not support their argument and surely this was done without knowledge of Church.

Thanks for answering Walter. Yes that's what I was referring to. You had mentioned the certainty. So I wondered why on an issue like whether a fetus was a person or no would a Catholic hospital allow its lawyers to argue against that stance. Apparently the hospital heard from the Vatican on the issue and the lawyers had to recant their defense.

Let's look at John chapter 6. Let me ask you, when Jesus said 'I am the door' or 'I am the vine', did anyone say 'how can this man be a door' (or vine)? Or 'how can this man be a plant?' When Jesus spoke in metaphor the people around Him seemed to know it. I ask you to look at the surrounding context of John 6:53 and I do not see how His words could have been clearer. He says He IS the 'living bread' that His followers MUST eat. Doesn't He say in no uncertain terms that 'the bread that I now give is my flesh'? Doesn't He say emphatically, 'truly, truly, I say unto you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.'

In looking at the context, how does one determine that to be actual as opposed to "I am the vine"?

It is true that Jesus spoke in parables (common in that day) but this is no parable. Look at this and some other examples in Scripture where His followers are confused about his teaching. In John 4:32, Jesus says: “I have food to eat of which you do not know.” The disciples thought Jesus was speaking about physical food. Our Lord quickly clears up the point using concise, unmistakable language in verse 34: “My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work” (see also Matthew 16:5-12).
Now, let's look at the language used by St.John, a literal interpretation—which may disturb you—drives it home. Here in John 6:50-53 there are several forms of the Greek verb phago, “eating.” The Jews say how disturbed they at the suggestion they should be eating Christ’s flesh, and the language begins to intensify. In verse 54, John begins to use trogo instead of phago. Isn't Trogo a lot more graphic term, meaning “to chew on” or to “gnaw on”—as when an animal is ripping apart its prey?
Now we get to verse 61 where we no longer have great multitudes of people following Him (why?) but disciples who are having difficulty understanding this. SURELY now He would clear this matter up and explain 'this is all symbolic'! Well, what did He do? He again re-affirms what He has just said: 'Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before?' in verses 61 and 62.

But Christ was right there in front of them. If He meant what you said He meant, why not cut actual flesh from his body and take actual blood from His body?

 

[Thomas Helwys]

That isn't entirely true either. Often States acted in opposition to the Church. When it suited the state they would appeal for the Church's approval but when none was forth comming they acted alone anyway. A little parousal through Midieval history will show the truth of this. For instance in the fourth Crusade Innocent III (Pope) demanded that the Crusaders not attack on Zara and Constantinople but in order to raise funds the Monarchs chose to anyway. What you don't seem to understand is where the European monarchy and the Catholic church were united wasn't that the Church was in control of each monarch but was the faith of Europeans in general. Thus each monarch following the lead of Frankish king Charlemagne held that they were the defender of the Catholic Faith over their lands. They held this as their responsibility and thus performed it as they saw fit. Thus upon Tyndales execution he didn't appeal to the pope but the person responsible for his execution. The king of England.

Maybe of the State not necissarily the Church.
Yes. Because the Civil authorities believed the same way it was their responsibility to root out heresy.

No baptist weren't state churches. However, Baptists churches supported slavery, hanging of slaves who were christians, they participated in the trail of tears. However, because baptist churches are autonomous they will say "well that wasn't us." Still the belief system are based on similar principles so where one baptist church ok's slavery and killing of Christian slaves or american natives we can apply the principle to baptist in general. Unless you agree that because bad catholics acted badly the Church cannot be held responsible for their action. Thus the argument remains the same and is justified not to mention the Ana-Baptist factions who slaughtered Catholics.


Just because the accuracy of the argument is good and you personally don't want to accept it doesn't mean that it as you say "doesn't work." Let me give you a for instance that is modern. Right now Muslim associated with Al -Queda are attempting to over throw the Malian government right now French forces are prohibiting the spread of that form of Islam. I would guess the majority of the French forces there now will say they are Catholic. I'm sure the Muslims being fought over there believe this is a new crusade, however, is the Catholic Church really responsible for what the French do in Mali? No.

If you're going to debate church history with me, at least be honest. No Baptist individual or church ever persecuted or murdered anyone for their religious beliefs.

Further, where is your historical evidence to support your statement of "Ana-Baptist factions who slaughtered Catholics"? It isn't there. Now, if you're referring to the Munster fanatics, every honest person knows they were atypical of the Anabaptist movement and an aberration. The Anabaptists were pacifists who believed in religious freedom even for their tormentors.

The fact is that the reason state church murderers have religious freedom today is because of Baptists, Anabaptists, and Quakers.