Ten doctrines which render Rome outside of Christ

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” (EWF mentioned that in an above post) that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistent for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

Do you consider yourself born again?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I know you have decided (long ago) that scripture is the only and final authority in matters of the Christian faith. I believe that bible makes it clear that the Church is the final authority. But years ago (on this forum) Carson Weber was discussing 'sola-scriptura' and put forth some ideas which conflicted with what I had always been taught as a Baptist.

In Matthew 18:15-18 we see Christ instructing His disciples on how to correct a fellow believer. It is extremely telling in this instance that Our Lord identifies the Church rather than Scripture as the final authority to be appealed to. He Himself says that if an offending brother "will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" Matthew 18:17 – that is, as an outsider who is lost. Moreover, Our Lord then solemnly re-emphasizes the Church’s infallible teaching authority in verse 18 by repeating His earlier statement about the power to bind and loose Matthew 16:18-19, directing it this time to the Apostles as a group rather than just to Peter: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." Matthew 18:18

Of course there are instances in the Bible where Our Lord does appeal to Scripture, but in these cases He, as one having authority, was teaching the Scriptures; He was not allowing the Scriptures to teach themselves,as I believe you were asserting in this post. For example, He would respond to the Scribes and the Pharisees by using Scripture precisely because they often tried to trip Him up by using Scripture. In these instances, Our Lord often demonstrates how the Scribes and Pharisees had wrong interpretations, and hence He corrects them by properly interpreting Scripture.

Not your church!

 

[Reformed]

It is a prophecy. Can you pin a moment before Jesus existed where the whole world made pure grain offerings all day long.

. 11“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

Or we can say God is joking this isn't going to happen.

Malachi 1:6-12 contains a condemnation of Israel's unfaithful priests. You are attempting to use verse 11 to defend the blasphemous practice of transubstantiation, but this passage is teaching no such thing. V. 11 is closer in application to Romans 11:5, "In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson write, "God has chosen the "remnant" and rejected the rest of the nation."[1] Paul writes in Philippians 2:10-11, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The point is that God will be glorified by all people, everywhere. Pure worship of God's name will be by his saints, but even those who are His enemies will confess Him (Phil. 2:10-11).

The truth is that transubstantiation has no biblical support. It is a papist invention.

[1] Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson, p. 669.

 

[utilyan]

Malachi 1:6-12 contains a condemnation of Israel's unfaithful priests. You are attempting to use verse 11 to defend the blasphemous practice of transubstantiation, but this passage is teaching no such thing. V. 11 is closer in application to Romans 11:5, "In the same way then, there has also come to be at the present time a remnant according to God's gracious choice." G.K. Beale and D.A. Carson write, "God has chosen the "remnant" and rejected the rest of the nation."[1] Paul writes in Philippians 2:10-11, "so that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." The point is that God will be glorified by all people, everywhere. Pure worship of God's name will be by his saints, but even those who are His enemies will confess Him (Phil. 2:10-11).

The truth is that transubstantiation has no biblical support. It is a papist invention.

[1] Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson, p. 669.

No sir, I want to see how you believe achieved the prophecy that God stated:

. 11“For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the LORD of hosts.

#1 there is only one pure offering acceptable to God. Jesus Christ on the Cross.

Now if you don't believe in this prophecy say that then. Don't dodge this. Has the prophecy God is making here already happened, will happen or will never happen. Pick one.

 

[utilyan]

We've waited 500 years for a verse that doesn't exist, We can wait 500 more.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Thanks for the interaction on this thread. To the many who objected to the premises of the article cited in the OP, this is Baptist Board. We don't exist to give you the warm fuzzies. Remember in the OP I wrote I was throwing gasoline on the fire. That should have told folks they weren't in for a kum-by-ya moment.
So, on that note, this thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1:30 AM Pacific.