Questions Regarding Baptist Theology

[Yeshua1]

As I stated in my introduction thread I have some questions regarding theology. They basically revolve around doctrines of transubstantiation and priestly confession.

1. Transubstantiation:
What is the Baptist view of Luke 22 19-21 and John 6:
"50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

After 10 years in Catholicism that seems rather clear and seems to strongly support transubstantiation. What is the Baptist refutation and answer for this?

2. Priestly confession:
John 20:
"21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
It seems to rather strongly suggest the ability of priests to forgive and retain sins. What is the Baptist interpretation?

Again I want to reiterate that I am earnestly seeking and await your answers. Thank you. God bless.

Jesus was referring to His coming death on the Cross, and that in order to be saved by Him, we mustby faith receive His death as fill atonement for our sins!
NOTHING to do with changing the elements toflesh and blood!

 

[rsr]

To the OP: Just so you know, the vast majority of the response here has not come a Baptist. If you really want Baptist responses, and not page after page of One Baptism's interminable posts and asides from other non-Baptists, you might try asking on a Baptist only forum.

 

[Aragorn]

To the OP: Just so you know, the vast majority of the response here has not come a Baptist. If you really want Baptist responses, and not page after page of One Baptism's interminable posts and asides from other non-Baptists, you might try asking on a Baptist only forum.

I didn't realize One Baptism wasn't a Baptist.

 

[tyndale1946]

I didn't realize One Baptism wasn't a Baptist.

Click on the big blue circle where his name is... This is his Profile Page highlighted in blue... Click on that... It will bring up different areas that pertain to him only... Click on information... It will tell you all about him that he wants known... Click on anything highlighted and it will bring up another website... He is definitely not Baptist!... You can find out a lot about people with this handy tool but only what they want you to know... Glad to be of assistance!... That will be twenty bucks... Just kidding... Brother Glen

 

[Joseph shall add]

Has he not make you all priest and kings? So show me this new priesthood you are speaking of as being shown in the new testament.

 

[One Baptism]

Priestly confession:

John 20:

"21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."

It seems to rather strongly suggest the ability of priests to forgive and retain sins. What is the Baptist interpretation?

Again I want to reiterate that I am earnestly seeking and await your answers. Thank you. God bless.

In short:

One will want to compare John 20:19-23 KJB, with the parallels in the other Gospels, such as Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-20; Luke 24:36-49; especially see Luke 24:47-49 KJB.

Repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his [Jesus'] name. Notice that word "preached".

Then return to the Gospel of John, and read the remaining context of verse 31;

John 20:31 KJB - But these [signs, etc.] are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.​

Then, read how the apostles and disciples understood Jesus, in Acts 2:38, 10:43, 13:38-39; then see also 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 2:5-11; 1 Timothy 1:20, etc.

The following may be of help to you also:

Desire of Ages, pages 805.4-806.3 -

"... Whose soever sins ye remit," said Christ, "they are remitted; ... and whose soever ye retain, they are retained.". Christ here gives no liberty for any man to pass judgment upon others. In the Sermon on the Mount He forbade this. It is the prerogative of God. But on the church in its organized capacity He places a responsibility for the individual members. Toward those who fall into sin, the church has a duty, to warn, to instruct, and if possible to restore. "Reprove, rebuke, exhort," the Lord says, "with all long-suffering and doctrine." 2 Timothy 4:2. Deal faithfully with wrongdoing. Warn every soul that is in danger. Leave none to deceive themselves. Call sin by its right name. Declare what God has said in regard to lying, Sabbathbreaking, stealing, idolatry, and every other evil. "They which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:21. If they persist in sin, the judgment you have declared from God's word is pronounced upon them in heaven. In choosing to sin, they disown Christ; the church must show that she does not sanction their deeds, or she herself dishonors her Lord. She must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven. He who despises the authority of the church despises the authority of Christ Himself.​

But there is a brighter side to the picture. "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted.". Let this thought be kept uppermost. In labor for the erring, let every eye be directed to Christ. Let the shepherds have a tender care for the flock of the Lord's pasture. Let them speak to the erring of the forgiving mercy of the Saviour. Let them encourage the sinner to repent, and believe in Him who can pardon. Let them declare, on the authority of God's word, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9. All who repent have the assurance, "He will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea." Micah 7:19​

Let the repentance of the sinner be accepted by the church with grateful hearts. Let the repenting one be led out from the darkness of unbelief into the light of faith and righteousness. Let his trembling hand be placed in the loving hand of Jesus. Such a remission is ratified in heaven.​

Only in this sense has the church power to absolve the sinner. Remission of sins can be obtained only through the merits of Christ. To no man, to no body of men, is given power to free the soul from guilt. Christ charged His disciples to preach remission of sins in His name among all nations; but they themselves were not empowered to remove one stain of sin. The name of Jesus is the only "name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. ..."​

Therefore, see the instance in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13 KJB, combined with 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 KJB. See specifically 2 Corinthians 2:7,10 KJB, in which the whole body of believers [since we are all a Royal priesthood, an holy nation, kings and priests, etc] "forgive" a person who repented of their sinning lifestyle within the church, and Paul, hearing about their judgment, simply agrees with their judgment after the fact, ie., in following (I ... also).

See also Matthew 26:28; Mark 1:4; Luke 1:7, 3:3; Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:22, 10:18 KJB.

See also Matthew 6:12; Luke 11:4; 1 John 1:9 KJB.

See also Exodus 34:7; Numbers 14:18; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13 KJB.

Etc.

I pray that this is helpful to you and all.

 

[One Baptism]

I didn't realize One Baptism wasn't a Baptist.

When I left Roman Catholicism, after 30 years in it, I was leaning toward Baptist, for some time (I knew a Russian Baptist (a good friend) and we studied together a short while), but I found through studying the scriptures [KJB] and history, that the Baptists, recently and now, are more Roman Catholic in their doctrine than they used to be. This is not to unnecessarily offend any here, but I speak in the theological level, the doctrinal level only, not about any singular persons. I can document, through the Baptist own writings, that they:

1. Did not always worship on the first day of the week. Sunday sacredness (etc.), as the majority do now, though there are still small groups keeping and honoring the 4th commandment, in regards the holy 7day Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Their seminaries have been infiltrated by Jesuits, and now promote their bible, and doctrines. It has filtered down, and some simply are not desirous to change their tradition for thus saith the Lord.

2. Did not always teach immortal soul/spirit theology, which also seconds Papal Rome's dogmas, as a well as paganism in the world in general. Again, I have documentation, showing that Baptists, in the past, used to agree with the scriptural [KJB] and reformational teaching on the state of the dead, ie. soul sleep, no consciousness in death.

3. Thus, did not always teach eternal torment for the finally impenitent, as they echo Romanisms doctrine now.

4. Did not always teach preterism or futurism as they do now, following the Jesuit formulated doctrines.

5. Did not always follow Romanism's lead in regards Michael the archangel, in which they attack the Deity of Jesus Christ in his heavenly form, which I also have the documentation for in regards Baptists. Reformation, etc. They used to believe what Seventh-day Adventists believe.

6. The uniting of church and state, they used to value separation of the two, and freedom of conscience.

There are other points to which Baptists, now, are united with in doctrine and practice with Romanism. They don't have to accept this word, but if they will research, they will find what I have stated to be the truth, and I do not mean any of it in a cruel way. I am simply speaking upon a factual and theological level.

I am only interested in The Truth, and I follow Him. Thus it was He which led me directly to the door of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and I had never even heard of them before, but this because of two reasons.

I have answered the questions from the perspective of the Bible [KJB], [edited]

 

[rsr]

I've seen many ridiculous posts on this board, but this one seems to rise to a new level of inanity. I'll see your Jesuit and raise you two Dominicans.

 

[JonC]

As I stated in my introduction thread I have some questions regarding theology. They basically revolve around doctrines of transubstantiation and priestly confession.

1. Transubstantiation:
What is the Baptist view of Luke 22 19-21 and John 6:
"50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever."

After 10 years in Catholicism that seems rather clear and seems to strongly support transubstantiation. What is the Baptist refutation and answer for this?

2. Priestly confession:
John 20:
"21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."
It seems to rather strongly suggest the ability of priests to forgive and retain sins. What is the Baptist interpretation?

Again I want to reiterate that I am earnestly seeking and await your answers. Thank you. God bless.

First, there exists no biblical support for the doctrine of transubstantiation. If you carefully read in Acts, this “Communion” began as a meal in remembrance of Christ – his body broken and blood shed for our redemption. The church in Corinth abused the supper to an extent as it became non-communal and individualistic, and Paul corrected their concept in his letter to them. The Lord’s Supper was, in Scripture, both a participation in the New Covenant and a proclamation of Christ’s death until He returns.

The link between bread/wine and body/flesh, however, is biblical. That said, there exists no biblical basis that suggests, much less dictates, that the bread becomes literal flesh and the wine literal blood. Transubstantiation became a mandatory Catholic doctrine in the 13th Century (by the Fourth Council of the Lateran). But biblically, it is something done in “remembrance” rather than a sacrament and mode of divine grace.

From a Baptist perspective, it is an ordinance. Unfortunately it is an ordinance that, I believe, has lost significance and become a mere symbol in reaction to the doctrine of transubstantiation (and perhaps also to Luther’s doctrine of the sacramental union, although this doctrine may be defended biblically).

Second, the priesthood presented in Scripture is something that Baptists would refer to as a “priesthood of believers”. An example of this can be found in Peter’s first epistle as he refers to the Church as a “chosen race”, a “royal priesthood”, a “holy nation”, and a “people for God’s own possession” as the “people of God” who had received mercy. The individual believer assumes the role of “priest” as a servant of Jehovah and has a High Priest in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). As such, Christ is our mediator and we confess to one another (James 5:6) and build up one another in the Body of Christ (1 Thess. 5:11).

I hope that explains what Baptists believe. Insofar as the Baptist rejection of Transubstantiation and the priestly confession is the same as every other denomination’s rejection of those teachings. They are Catholic traditions, not Christian doctrines.

 

[One Baptism]

I've seen many ridiculous posts on this board, but this one seems to rise to a new level of inanity. I'll see your Jesuit and raise you two Dominicans.

Evidence which is demonstrable is edifying. Words without knowledge, vanity.

I counsel you to be very wary of the Jesuit order, myself knowing its origins (the Serpent himself) and goals, and also would counsel you to beware, the order of Opus Dei, the political arm of Rome, as well as its various orders of knights, like Columbus (fascist), Malta, etc. Other orders are more structural, used for other purposes. Beware also of the media, as it is controlled by them as well, for instance, tridentine Knight Mel Gibson, who promotes their agenda of religious humanism. On this level, I would recommend to you the series, From Crete to Malta -

It has several parts, not that many though.

 

[rsr]

Thanks, but it would be more edifying to watch my grass grow than to investigate how Mel Gibson controls the media or how the Knights of Columbus are fascists. You really need to expand your reading horizon and cut back on the Ellen White. Just some advice from your friendly Jesuit.

 

[tyndale1946]

When I left Roman Catholicism, after 30 years in it, I was leaning toward Baptist, for some time (I knew a Russian Baptist (a good friend) and we studied together a short while), but I found through studying the scriptures [KJB] and history, that the Baptists, recently and now, are more Roman Catholic in their doctrine than they used to be. This is not to unnecessarily offend any here, but I speak in the theological level, the doctrinal level only, not about any singular persons. I can document, through the Baptist own writings, that they:

1. Did not always worship on the first day of the week. Sunday sacredness (etc.), as the majority do now, though there are still small groups keeping and honoring the 4th commandment, in regards the holy 7day Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Their seminaries have been infiltrated by Jesuits, and now promote their bible, and doctrines. It has filtered down, and some simply are not desirous to change their tradition for thus saith the Lord.

2. Did not always teach immortal soul/spirit theology, which also seconds Papal Rome's dogmas, as a well as paganism in the world in general. Again, I have documentation, showing that Baptists, in the past, used to agree with the scriptural [KJB] and reformational teaching on the state of the dead, ie. soul sleep, no consciousness in death.

3. Thus, did not always teach eternal torment for the finally impenitent, as they echo Romanisms doctrine now.

4. Did not always teach preterism or futurism as they do now, following the Jesuit formulated doctrines.

5. Did not always follow Romanism's lead in regards Michael the archangel, in which they attack the Deity of Jesus Christ in his heavenly form, which I also have the documentation for in regards Baptists. Reformation, etc. They used to believe what Seventh-day Adventists believe.

6. The uniting of church and state, they used to value separation of the two, and freedom of conscience.

There are other points to which Baptists, now, are united with in doctrine and practice with Romanism. They don't have to accept this word, but if they will research, they will find what I have stated to be the truth, and I do not mean any of it in a cruel way. I am simply speaking upon a factual and theological level.

I am only interested in The Truth, and I follow Him. Thus it was He which led me directly to the door of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, and I had never even heard of them before, but this because of two reasons.

I have answered the questions from the perspective of the Bible [KJB], [edited]

I have a lot of friends who are SDA and although I understand some of their doctrine, not that I agree with all of it, but also not being cruel but factual what is soul sleep?... I don't believe that my Baptist brethren believe it... I know I don't... I also believe that the KJB from Genesis to Revelation doesn't teach it... I found a great article that I believe explains it, and those who want to look at it and comment on it may... I'm starting a thread... What Is Soul Sleep?... Brother Glen

 

[One Baptism]

I have a lot of friends who are SDA and although I understand some of their doctrine, not that I agree with all of it, but also not being cruel but factual what is soul sleep?... I don't believe that my Baptist brethren believe it... I know I don't... I also believe that the KJB from Genesis to Revelation doesn't teach it... I found a great article that I believe explains it, and those who want to look at it and comment on it may... I'm starting a thread... What Is Soul Sleep?... Brother Glen

Would you like to be my friend also, for if I can get an email from you, I can dialogue with you personally, and discuss or study anything you would like from scripture [KJB], and be able to answer any questions you might have for a Seventh-day Adventist. In ministry, I dialogue with those of all manner of faiths and practices.

 

[One Baptism]

Thanks, but it would be more edifying to watch my grass grow than to investigate how Mel Gibson controls the media or how the Knights of Columbus are fascists. You really need to expand your reading horizon and cut back on the Ellen White. Just some advice from your friendly Jesuit.

1964, Paul VI amplified "Miranda prorsus" with the decree "Inter Mirifica", saying, "... It is, therefore, an inherent right of the Church to have at its disposal and to employ any of these media insofar as they are necessary or useful ...", "... The most important of these inventions are those media which, such as the press, movies, radio, television and the like, can, of their very nature, reach and influence, not only individuals, but the very masses and the whole of human society ...", "... a truly Catholic press should be set up and encouraged. Such a press-whether immediately fostered and directed by ecclesiastical authorities or by Catholic laymen-should be edited with the clear purpose of forming, supporting and advancing public opinion in accord with natural law and Catholic teaching and precepts. ..." - Inter mirifica

 

[Bro. James]

I've seen many ridiculous posts on this board, but this one seems to rise to a new level of inanity. I'll see your Jesuit and raise you two Dominicans.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ignatius of Loyola has been implicated in a lot of bad stuff all the way back to inquisitions and such. The are some interesting references to infiltration methodology in the Jesuit and the K of C oaths. Satan has his minions everywhere--including high places. See Ephesians 6:12.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[rsr]

Yes, and the Jesuits were responsible for the sinking of the Titanic. You can look it up.