Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

[annsni]

I know that most protestants do no except 2 Maccabbees as canonical: but this support from what we DO except as scriptural as well as N.T. references.
(2 Maccabbees): Omitting some passages in the Old Testament which are sometimes invoked, but which are too vague and uncertain in their reference to be urged in proof (v.g. Tobias, iv, 18; Ecclus., vii, 37; etc.), it is enough to notice here the classical passage in 2 Maccabees, 12:40-46.

When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brethren who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."

There was a reason that Maccabbees was not included in the Scripture and I will say that it is no more a proof of God's Word than any other non-canonical writer at that time.

Passing over the well-known passage, I Cor., iii, 14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based, attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (xv, 29), where St. Paul argues thus in favor of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation. In his Second Epistle to Timothy (i, 16-18; iv, 19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" -- as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the Day of Judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

We are not told that Onesiphorus is dead at all - just that he is separated from his family. We cannot base a whole doctrine on something that is just not in Scripture at all. I will clearly say "May God have mercy on those men and women who are helping the needy in Haiti right now" and not be saying that they're dead and that I'm praying for God to do something for them after they die. It is appointed once to die and then the judgment. No amount of praying for a dead person will change their judgment because God is just and will judge the person rightly whether we ask Him to or not.

 

[DHK]

I know that most protestants do no except 2 Maccabbees as canonical: but this support from what we DO except as scriptural as well as N.T. references.
(2 Maccabbees): Omitting some passages in the Old Testament which are sometimes invoked, but which are too vague and uncertain in their reference to be urged in proof (v.g. Tobias, iv, 18; Ecclus., vii, 37; etc.), it is enough to notice here the classical passage in 2 Maccabees, 12:40-46.

When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brethren who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias, "they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."

Now you know why early Christians or Jews never accepted these books as canonical.
BTW, apocryphal books were to be part of the OT. The OT was completed by 400 B.C. and all books to be canonical had to be written before that date. They also had to be written in Hebrew. Maccabees fails on both accounts. All of the Apocryphal books were written between 100 B.C. and 60 A.D., well after both the Hebrew canon was finished and even the Septuagint (250 B.C. was translated). And they were written in Greek. It would have been impossible for these books to be accepted by Jews into the OT canon.
Besides that they contained unbiblical doctrine as stated above.

Passing over the well-known passage, I Cor., iii, 14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based,

No scholar of Scripture believes this. The only people who affirm such a thing are the Catholics who really have to twist the Scriptures to make it even close. There is no possible way that 1Cor.11-15 can be referring to a purgatory.

attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (xv, 29), where St. Paul argues thus in favor of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead; and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation.

Your mistake here is when you say "the practice in question was something in itself legitimate." Up to that point you were doing well. Then, with that statement you contradicted yourself. It was a practice prevalent at that time. As you say it was an abuse, but not by Christians. It was a practice among the pagans. You are using a pagan practice to justify what you would call a Christian doctrine! Amazing! No wonder your doctrine is pagan as well. If you copy the pagans then your doctrine is pagan. That fits doesn't it? The verse fits as a contrast to the true resurrection.

In his Second Epistle to Timothy (i, 16-18; iv, 19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" -- as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the Day of Judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

You are way off base here. No one is spoken of as dead. Why assume things that are not. One cannot assume that Onesiphorus is dead. There is no reason for it.

2 Timothy 1:16-18 The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain:
17 But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me.
18 The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well.

2 Timothy 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works:
--Was Alexander dead also? Paul "prays" that the Lord reward him as well.

He remembers the good that Onesiphorus had done for him and wishes for the Lord to bless him for it. It really isn't a prayer in the true sense of the word at all, as 1Tim.4:14 would not be considered one either.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I am devoted to the Blessed Mother (so was Martin Luther) and believe she to be perfect example of how to live a life for her Son Jesus.

How do you know that she was a "perfect example" when scripture says so little about her?

Mary by your life and example and want to live more as your precious Son taught us. Pray for me Holy Mother of God, that I might be worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen1

She's dead, Lori. She can't hear you.

I know that most protestants do no except 2 Maccabbees as canonical: but this support from what we DO except as scriptural as well as N.T. references.

Lori, could you please explain, in your infinite wisdom, why, if 2nd Maccabees is inspired scripture and meant to be included in the canon, your own Catholic Church didn't even bother to ratify it until 1546?

Why would they let it languish for almost 1700 years before finally ratifying it at the Council of Trent?

 

[DHK]

No, but I believe the Blessed Mother has a special relationship with her Divine son and can intercede to our Lord on my behalf. I am devoted to the Blessed Mother (so was Martin Luther) and believe she to be perfect example of how to live a life for her Son Jesus.

Mary by your life and example and want to live more as your precious Son taught us. Pray for me Holy Mother of God, that I might be worthy of the promises of Christ. Amen1

The fact is that Mary can't pray for you. She can't see you. She can't hear you. She is not God. She is not omnipresent. She is not omniscient. For her to hear your prayers, as well as all other Catholics all over the globe she would have to claim these attributes, attributes which belong only to God. Therefore you make Mary god.

 

[BobRyan]

Borrowed from 'Scriptural Answers to Protestant Objections'

God Desires and Responds to Our Subordinate Mediation / Intercessory Prayer

1 Tim 2:1-2 - because Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5), many Protestants deny the Catholic belief that the saints on earth and in heaven can mediate on our behalf. But before Paul's teaching about Jesus as the "one mediator," Paul urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people. Paul is thus appealing for mediation from others besides Christ, the one mediator. Why?

1 Tim 2:3 - because this subordinate mediation is good and acceptable to God our Savior. Because God is our Father and we are His children, God invites us to participate in Christ's role as mediator.

1 Tim. 2:5 - therefore, although Jesus Christ is the sole mediator between God and man, there are many intercessors (subordinate mediators).

Paul never once asks for anyone to "mediate between him and God" -- no not even once.

Paul never calls the act of praying to God for the success of the Gospel mission of an evangelist (for example) - an act of "mediation".

In 2Cor 5 Paul says "WE BEG you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God" and even in that extreme case Paul says his role is that as "an ambassador" -- not as a "mediator between God and man".

Therefore Paul is consistent in stating that in all of his writings he has only ever identified ONE mediator between God and man.

Rom. 8:28 - God "works for good with" (the Greek is "sunergei eis agathon") those who love Him. We work as subordinate mediators.

The text does not say that God works for the good of some along WITH others who Love Him as the those who love Him -- the way the edit above would make it appear.

Instead Rom 8 says -

26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;
27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.


It is God the Holy Spirit that is working to intercede for us in Romans 8.

It is God who causes all THINGS to work together for good - TO THOSE who love God.

There is nothing there about "God working along side US to help OTHERS" much less "God mediating for OTHERs along side our own work in mediating between God and man on behalf of OTHERS".

2 Cor. 6:1 - "working together" (the Greek is "sunergountes") with him, don't accept His grace in vain. God allows us to participate in His work, not because He needs our help, but because He loves us and wants to exalt us in His Son. It is like the father who lets his child join him in carrying the groceries in the house. The father does not need help, but he invites the child to assist to raise up the child in dignity and love.

2Cor 6:1 is actually a much better place to make the argument of God working with us in doing something. However the inconvenient detail being left out of the snippet reference above is that INSTEAD of this being a case of our standing along side Christ and mediating BETWEEN God and man -- on man's behalf -- 2Cor 6 "actuallyy says" this -

2 Corinthians 6
1 And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain

We are in that case NOT appealing to God for them - we are appealing to MAN along side God's own work in appealing TO MAN to make a choice in favor of perseverance (in this case).

Instead of the much needed "We work together with HIM in his role MEDIATING between God and man" -- we have something more like "we work with him in URGING YOU to persevere".

It is exactly the opposite kind of "working together with" objective than what the Catholic argument needed.

Heb. 12:1 - the “cloud of witnesses” (nephos marturon) that we are surrounded by is a great amphitheatre of witnesses to the earthly race, and they actively participate and cheer us (the runners) on, in our race to salvation. AMEN!

There is nothing at all in Heb 12 about the "cloud of witnesses cheering us on" found in the text being quoted. The Catholic argument simply makes that up - at that point.

1 Peter 2:5 - we are a holy priesthood, instructed to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. We are therefore subordinate priests to the Head Priest, but we are still priests who participate in Christ's work of redemption.

The "only sacrifices" that we offer to God - according to the NT writers is the "sacrifice of ourselves" -- present YOURSELVES a "living sacrifice".

Never does Peter or any other NT writer talk about "presenting Christ's sacrifice to God on behalf of others" or "mediating as Priest between God and Man along side Christ".

James 5:16; Proverbs 15:8, 29 - the prayers of the righteous (the saints) have powerful effects. This is why we ask for their prayers. How much more powerful are the saints’ prayers in heaven, in whom righteousness has been perfected.WOW, EVER THOIUGHT OF THAT?

That is a good argument - however the RCC is upfront "enough" about it to admit that doing such would be "communication with the DEAD" - which puts a stop to that idea pretty fast.

1 Tim 2:5-6 - therefore, it is because Jesus Christ is the one mediator before God that we can be subordinate mediators.

Wouldn't it have been great for the RCC argument if the key element in the statement above were actually a quote from the Bible??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by annsni
We ask our friend to pray for us - the friend who is standing next to us and hears us and responds to us. Then we take the GIANT leap that the dead are omnipotent and omniscient and that we can ask them to pray for us too? And the Scriptural support for praying to the dead is? Can you show me one place in all of the Bible where a man or woman prayed to a dead person?

I know that most protestants do no except 2 Maccabbees as canonical: but this support from what we DO except as scriptural as well as N.T. references.
(2 Maccabbees): Omitting some passages in the Old Testament which are sometimes invoked, but which are too vague and uncertain in their reference to be urged in proof (v.g. Tobias, iv, 18; Ecclus., vii, 37; etc.), it is enough to notice here the classical passage in 2 Maccabees, 12:40-46.

Two key points before we look at 2Macc 12 in detail.

1. It is VERY significant that you could find NO example of what you were looking for -- in the actual Bible itself. Surely as a non-Catholic prior to joining the RCC - you had to have noticed this glaring problem.

Given the vast amount of praying to the dead that goes on in the RCC today - it is very VERY surprising that not ONE case of it can be found in the actual Bible.

2. The other "inconvenient detail" to keep in mind here - is that 2Macc 12 is ALSO NOT a place where we see someone praying TO THE DEAD!

Nobody in 2Macc 12 addresses a now-dead or then-dead person in prayer!

No not even once!!

What a shocker - that this reference that is supposed to be the ONE example - does not do - the very thing ASKED -- !!!

May I say again -- and I quote -- "!!!"

(Ok that last bit was just for humor )

2Macc 12 -- coming up!

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

When Judas and his men came to take away for burial the bodies of their brethren who had fallen in the battle against Gorgias,

"they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.

Now so far this is downright facinating.

They come across fellow Jews - fellow soldiers who died - in a state of mortal sin - (worship of false gods). And the text clearly says that it was KNOWN to Jews that this violation of the first Commandment was punishable by death. It was the WORST mortal sin that could be committed against God.

Now what is facinating is that EVEN today under the Catholic system - you go straight to hell if you die with unforgiven mortal sin. Purgatory is not even an option!!

And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him [God], that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten...And making a gathering, he [Judas] sent twelve [al. two] drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (for if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep in godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."

First of all - we need to note - that the above is NOT simply a quote of 2Macc 12. Comments are mixed in -- so to help the readers that might not be aware - I provide the "actual" text of 2Macc 12.

40 “Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became Clear to ALL this was why the men had fallen.
41 “so they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the [b]righteous Judge,[/b] who reveals the things that are hidden;
42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

1. The text is an example of praying FOR the dead -- not praying TO the dead.

2. The text is clear that NO BENEFIT - was to be realized by the dead - UNTIL (or apart from) they were resurrected. So no "instant purgatory benefit" is even possible to INSERT here.

3. The act of praying for the dead - included a sin offering in the form of cash. A collection.

So the opening question "can you provide even ONE example of praying TO the dead in all of the bible" remains unnanswered - except for an implied "no" by virtue of no example at all being given in the affirmative.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Catholics! Sheeesh. I think from reading the most recent post that there is a disparity on what the gospel actually is. the New comer to the debate and Matt have alleged they've heard the gospel at mass. The others like DHK and Alive have claimed that all their many years in the CC they never heard the gospel. So how does each side define "Gospel"?

I too have heard the Gospel at my local Catholic church where I have visited - usually for funerals or weddings. It may be unusual compared to what you are used to or at least what you have "heard" about, and it may unusual compared to other Catholic churches. I can only state what I have experienced. In one situation, there was even a sinner's prayer -- just like you would hear in a Baptist church.

 

[BobRyan]

Passing over the well-known passage, I Cor., iii, 14 sq., on which an argument for purgatory may be based,

Good idea - since nobody is identified as being "dead" (or having in any way "died") in 1Cor 3 - nor is anything said to "happen to a dead person" in 1Cor 3.

attention may be called to another curious text in the same Epistle (xv, 29), where St. Paul argues thus in favor of the resurrection: "Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? Why are they then baptized form them?" Even assuming that the practice here referred to was superstitious, and that St. Paul merely uses it as the basis of an argumentum ad hominem, the passage at least furnishes historical evidence of the prevalence at the time of belief in the efficacy of works for the dead;

I fully agree that IF you interpret the text to identify some pagan ritual of baptism -- where living person-A is baptized for dead-person-B (a very Mormon-esk concept) THEN in that case you have the notion of person-A changing the SALVATION status of person-B.

1. However this does not help the RCC argument for praying TO the dead -- since this is not a case of praying TO the dead person in question -- even if we grant the explanation offerred above!!. Thus the initial project remains unfulfilled.

2. This further is conflicted EVEN with RCC doctrine - because there is NO RCC doctrine stating that the unbaptized state of a lost person can be CHANGED via vicarious baptism of the LIVING on behalf of the dead!! So this means that EVEN in RCC terms and contexts -- NOTHING is actually HAPPENING here that would benefit the dead!

To this very day the RCC would argue (as the quote above shows) that all such a pointless act does - is exercise meaningless superstition.

3. What we have left is the RCC proposel that we interpret 1Cor 14 to reference "meaningless superstition" and that such is somehow to be taken as a "valid Bible argument in favor of the resurrection" - which is highly doubtful at best.

4. It is far more likely that the text itself is talking about people who are being baptized - where baptism is the Romans 6 "symbol" of death-burial-resurrection, and Paul argues that it is pointless to enter into the symbol of full water baptism by immersion that symbolizes resurrection - if in fact the dead are not raised. For in that case - not even Christ is raised (and Christ's resurrection is the one being identified with - in the believers participation in baptism according to Romans 6).

and the Apostle's reserve in not reprobating this particular practice is more readily intelligible if we suppose him to have recognized the truth of the principle of which it was merely an abuse. But it is probable that the practice in question was something in itself legitimate, and to which the Apostle gives his tacit approbation.

Indeed and the only APPROVED form of baptism -- the one that is NOT "vicarious" (even by RC standards) which brings us again to my point-4 above and negates the entire

In his Second Epistle to Timothy (i, 16-18; iv, 19) St. Paul speaks of Onesiphorus in a way that seems obviously to imply that the latter was already dead: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus" -- as to a family in need of consolation. Then, after mention of loyal services rendered by him to the imprisoned Apostle at Rome, comes the prayer for Onesiphorus himself, "The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day" (the day of judgment); finally, in the salutation, "the household of Onesiphorus" is mentioned once more, without mention of the man himself. The question is, what had become of him? Was he dead, as one would naturally infer from what St. Paul writes? Or had he for any other cause become separated permanently from his family, so that prayer for them should take account of present needs while prayers for him looked forward to the Day of Judgment? Or could it be that he was still at Rome when the Apostle wrote, or gone elsewhere for a prolonged absence from home? The first is by far the easiest and most natural hypothesis; and if it be admitted, we have here an instance of prayer by the Apostle for the soul of a deceased benefactor.

Lots of "maybe" and "could it be" and "if it be" strung together there - with the hopeful result of coming up wiht "prayer FOR the dead".

Which still leaves us without even a single example of the one asked for -- which was a request for even ONE actual case of "prayer TO the dead".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I am happy for you if your pastor preaches the Word. The fact that you are in a Lutheran Church confirms my suspicion about you connecting "worship" to "emotions." You chose a Lutheran Church because it is liturgical and appeals to the emotions. If it is an evangelical Lutheran Church it will still preach the gospel. The liturgical aspect of it appeals to the emotions. Baptist services tend to be quite a bit more informal, but that doesn't mean there is no worship in them. True worship is not based on emotion.

Really?? I've been in Lutheran churches -- not all that different from my own church -- and I definitely don't see their service being tied to emotions. Nor is ours. Yes, services may (not necessarily) be liturgical. We may have common prayers and common confessions of faith. We may read the Scriptures responsively. But we also have a lot more Scripture readings than most Baptist churches I've ever attended (both SBC and IFB). Almost all preaching is expository.

If anything, "emotional" worship tends to be in the Baptist churches around here. Music that "stirs the soul" (eg makes you feel good), positive preaching, catchy sermon titles, etc. Then, you get to have an invitation at the end of the service. Not quite Joel Osteen, but not that far off either.

 

[Emily25069]

DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.

I attended 3 baptist churches.

The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.

The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.

The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.

Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.

Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.

I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.

Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us. Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them. Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience. I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.

I attended 3 baptist churches.

The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.

The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.

The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.

Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.

Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.

I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.

Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us. Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them. Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience. I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense.

Great post Emily. Thanks for sharing your journey. I hope others - even those - perhaps especially those who disagree with your decision (and there will be many) will appreciate you sharing this.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK


The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.

Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.

Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.


.

Thank you for sharing that.

Do Lutheran's believe in Once Saved Always Saved?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dcorbett]

Then she's not Baptist.

AMEN! One cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[DHK]

If anything, "emotional" worship tends to be in the Baptist churches around here. Music that "stirs the soul" (eg makes you feel good), positive preaching, catchy sermon titles, etc. Then, you get to have an invitation at the end of the service. Not quite Joel Osteen, but not that far off either.

I love the hymns that stirs the soul, the hymns that sing about the blood, exalts the deity of our Lord, and praises Jesus Christ. The emotions evoked hopefully come from the presence of the Holy Spirit and prepare the heart for the preaching of the Word.
On a personal note, that is why I am against much of CCM. Its style would not have that same worshipful effect on the believer. But that is for another thread.
That is one type of emotion that I am sure you can relate to.

The other is carnal. As a former Catholic, and also a close relative of one who is deeply involved in the New Age movement, I speak of another type of emotion. This emotion is created by the environment not the hymns. Candles are burning. Incense often burns. It is quiet and meditative. Often the building if beautiful and ornate. Much is done to make the ceremony as pompous and yet as spectacular as possible. The cloths that decorate altars are made of the most extensive material--usually silk and often embroidery. Everything is always in place. It is the environment, the liturgy, that appeals to the emotion.
As I was growing up, it was even more impressive as it was all in Latin.
High Mass was even more impressive as it was all sung by the priests. (I would never have qualified because I can't carry a tune). But note that the "singing" was more chanting (just like new agers do). It adds to the effect. This all adds to the emotion that appeals to the carnal nature.

 

[dcorbett]

A couple of observations:

Why baptize babies? What siginficance does that have?
Why pray to saints? Jesus is our only intercessor.

My former Pastor Chappell said quite often that "you could drown in
the baptistry and still go to hell" i.e. baptism doesn't save you.

The decision is this: you have to put your faith and trust in Jesus. He doesn't save you by osmosis - you must consciously accept the gift. I can hold a gift out to you all day, but if you don't take it from my hands, it is not yours. You are not saved just because he IS. You are saved when you believe and put your absolute faith and trust in him as the ONLY Saviour. No other name under Heaven.....

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Marcia]

JDF posted: 'The true saving gospel of course is simply belief in Christ provision. Faith in Christ and faith in Christ alone".
Wow, this was the sermon we heard at Holy Family Catholic Church this weekend.

He even quoted Romans 10:9, and Ephesisan 2:8,9. So, yes he was preaching the Gospel message and about the same Jesus who died as a full sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world and wants to redeem anyone who believes he died for their sins and was resurrected by God to prove His diety.

In the whole sermon, not one mention of having to do good works to accomplish that salvation He FREELY gives to those who trust and believe.


There are excellent books on why Catholics utilize the rosary as a method of meditation on the life of Christ. The objection always seems to come up 'the bible condemns vain repititions prayer.' It is the VAIN part of the repititious prayer you should object to. While we recite the ave Maria, we meditate the mystier of Christ life.

If the Catholics preach the gospel, why purgatory? And how do you define grace? The Catholic understanding of grace is not biblical.

The doctrine of purgatory in and of itself shows that the Catholic church does not preach the gospel.

 

[Marcia]

I ask the Blessed Mother of God to intercede for me. Not for special favors.

There is no biblical support for this. I posted on the other thread a statement about this that was ignored. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and Jesus intercedes (Rom. 8).

Mary is not our intercessor in heaven; to appeal to her is totally unbiblical. Why do you ask Mary for intercession when Jesus is the Intercessor and Mediator and Advocate?

 

[DHK]

DHK
I actually find it interesting that you think liturgical worship appeals to the emotions. I had a really hard time with liturgy at first actually. It seemed so dry and silent. It took a while to grow on me, and I cant really say that my emotions are provoked. At least not as much as they were when in my baptist church singing songs that sounded like marches and hearing jokes in the sermons. That was very entertaining actually. Liturgy is very serious.

Let me say that I really appreciate you sharing your testimony.

As a former Catholic, the emotion in the liturgy is different than the emotion in most Bible-based churches. One is based on a carnal emotion; the other based on a Spirit-filled emotion. I explained that in another post. I had the accusation once (by someone unsaved) that they didn't like singing about the blood. It seemed like a horrible thing for them to sing about. But that is what the gospel is all about.

I attended 3 baptist churches.

The first was a Southern Baptist church that started to head towards the whole seeker friendly thing. They used contemporary worship style (of which hubby played the drums) and they didnt mind alcohol at their weddings. It was very non-legalistic. I was very uncomfortable at the time, but my hubby loved it, so we stayed. Looking back, its the church I missed the most. My son plays Upwards basketball there and its nice to see old church family.

The second was a very fundamentalist baptist church. We did a 180 when we started going there. Hymns.. women in skirts only.. KJV only.. strong preaching which I loved at the time. It certainly effected my emotions to hear all that hard preaching. Man did it make me a judgemental woman though! I still have a soft spot for the Pastor there. We only lived in that city 8 months, but they did make us feel so welcome and hubby and I learned to play the part very well.

The third was sort of a middle ground. It was independent fundamental, but they used the NASB. They had high standards, but no legalism. Good preaching much of the time. When I started to go through my dark period, I met and emailed with the Pastor quite a bit actually. He did his best, but I think I was already turning the other way. There were too many things that I was reading in my bible that he (and other baptists) was telling me were not so. (various topics include alcohol consumption, baptism, and the Lords Prayer).. Well, I should say that when I started meeting with him, I really wanted the baptists to be right. I first met with him to talk about how I can know I am saved. We talked about how easy the gospel was.. if it was so easy, why are people that I know getting saved 2 and 3 times in their adult life? How can I be sure that I really meant it when I made that decision, since I fail so often? I struggled a lot with judgementalness. I thought for sure that if i had the Holy Spirit within me, that that would be gone.

Three completely different churches.
Many of the things you were either confused or concerned about were "non-essential" or things that really didn't matter in the light of salvation. After coming out of the Catholic Church I wasn't baptized until two years later. I had always taken a stand on alcohol so that wasn't an issue with me. Things like the Lord's Prayer I would go to my pastor and he would teach me, or I would go straight to the Word of God, and find out what I could. I was blessed to have some good teachers shortly after I was saved. Thus I never doubted my salvation. This seems to have been one of your biggest problems, unfortunately.

Anyhow, he did his best. Honestly.. he was a good man who spent a lot of time with me, but I just couldnt really get past the fact that "making a decision" is in fact adding something to my salvation-a work. People didnt make decisions in the bible. They were either given faith, or they werent. They were cut to the heart. They fell on their knees. They didnt make a decision. It was a gift.

But people did make decisions. The jailer in Acts 16:30,31 made a decision to "believe on the Lord and be saved," and then later was baptized. That was his decision. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." It is a decision. Even in Acts 2, on the Day of Pentecost, after being convicted of the Holy Spirit 3,000 made a decision. There is no place in the Bible where an unsaved person is given faith. A person must put their faith in the Lord to be saved. That is what the Philippian jailer had to do, as did the thief on the cross. Nowhere do we find God giving a person faith before they are saved. God gives faith (as he does other spiritual gifts) only to the saved.
Thus I can point to a date and time when I put my faith and trust in Christ. I know for sure, based on the promises in His Word, that if I were to die right now, I would go to heaven.

Once I realized that it wasnt me or my decision for Christ, I finally had peace and assurance of salvation. Its all there in my bible. I finally get it that it is not by works and that my works are filthy rags. I know this is all taught in baptist churches, but for some reason, it didnt get explained to me well there..., and then the whole emphasis on making a decision just got in the way because I was leaning too much on my ability. .. also, the law/gospel/law sandwich that is present in many of those churches also muddies it up. It really should be more of a gospel/law/gospel sandwich, which is how the Lutherans do it. I appreciate it so much. I know I am forgiven for much. I love God much now.

As long as you got it right now; that is what counts.

I also understand what being "born again" means. It doesnt mean "making a decision". It means that God does something to you. Just like I couldnt choose to be born the first time, I cant choose it the second time. It is a gift from God. .. and I do believe that baptism is partly attatched to that.

There is no baptism attached to the new birth. It also is by faith.
After reading the story of Nicodemus, look at 1Pet.1:23 and then John 1:12,13:

John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Being born of God is still an act of receiving Christ and becoming God's child.

Baptism is a work, but it is not our work to God. It is Gods work to us.

No, Man does the work. Man does the baptizing. Man receives the baptizing. God does nothing. We get baptized because in Mat.28:19, Christ commanded it. We do it in obedience to him, and that is all. What happens? We get wet. It is symbolic of Christ's death and resurrection; and of our death to our old life of sin, and of our new life in Christ. But it has nothing to do with salvation. It is simply the first step of obedience in the Christian's life after salvation.

Look at all the scriptures on baptism. They all have forgiveness and washing sins away attatched to them.

No they don't. You need to have a good Bible Study here.

Nowhere is it something we do for God to show what has already taken place. God is not bound to baptism as we see many believers who believed without and made it to heaven, but for our sakes, he attatches His promises of forgiveness to it, so that we can have a pledge of a good conscience.

There is no promise of forgiveness attached to it--none. This is Catholicism, and where Catholicism is very wrong.

I can look at my baptism, and have an assurance that God put his name on me in baptism. It really is a beautiful thing, and I wont ever trade it for the empty "obedience" version ever again. It makes no scriptural sense.

But it is not any assurance of salvation at all. What about the thief on the cross? He wasn't baptized. Salvation is only a picture of what has already happened in a believer's life. It is not related to salvation at all. It simply gets you wet. It is done in obedience to Christ. Our assurance comes from the promises of Christ in His Word.

"He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son hath not life."
It is that simple.

 

[dcorbett]

There is no biblical support for this. I posted on the other thread a statement about this that was ignored. The Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us and Jesus intercedes (Rom. 8).

Mary is not our intercessor in heaven; to appeal to her is totally unbiblical. Why do you ask Mary for intercession when Jesus is the Intercessor and Mediator and Advocate?

The pope before this one actually was rallying to elevate Mary as co-redemptrix, equal to Jesus, did you know that? THAT is totally whacky and non-scriptural.