Hi Gina,
You wrote, "A number of people you tend to quote did not follow the Catholic church as it presents today."
Every single one of the individuals I believed above adhered to Catholic distinctives that you - as a Baptist - would consider "Catholic" and therefore "not Christian".
You have - in an ignorant and blanketed fashion - condemned the whole of 1500 years of Christianity.
I really don't know much about them so I can't go into a detailed discussion on them. Not that it matters a fig.
Of course it matters. These individuals were the big names, the Bible preachers of the Early Church, individuals who translated the entire Bible by hand from manuscripts that no longer exist (for example, Jerome), individuals who have written more on Jesus, the Trinity, and Salvation from their prayerful time spent pouring over the Scriptures than you could care to read with the rest of the time available at your fingertips in your life.
What DOES matter is what does the bible say, and does what we believe agree with it?
Amen.
And what does the Bible teach? Things that contradict your beliefs as a Baptist such as regenerative baptism:
Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18-21
An authority composed of bishops:
Matthew 18:15-18
Auricular confession:
John 20:21-23
The loss of one's salvation:
1 Cor 10:12
That Jesus' flesh is food indeed:
John 6:55
That we are to adhere to Apostolic Tradition:
2 Thess 2:15
That the Church is visibly one:
John 17:21
and on many other points.
You can say that you are a "Bible Christian," but when the Bible test is applied, you clash with as much of the Bible as you claim Catholics do. When others point this out, you become uneasy, and rightly so. I would certainly be uneasy if my faith was unBiblical.
I could care less what a bunch of dead guys who didn't write inspired scripture thought, it doesn't pertain to me and my God at this point in time.
Then you don't have a Bible.
In 324 A.D., the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon . . . Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name" (History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3).
Did you hear that? 2 Peter isn't inspired. This was the consensus in Eusebius' day in the circles he was familiar with, which were wide and far.
Why is 2 Peter in your Bible if you "could care less what a bunch of dead guys who didn't write inspired scripture thought"?
Who put that in there for you? Peter?
St. Thomas the apostle didn't write any Scripture; do you care what he thought?
St. Timothy didn't write any Scripture, yet he was ordained by St. Paul and was commanded to teach others who could faithfully teach others what Paul had taught him (2 Tim 2:2). Paul didn't say, "Keep this letter I'm writing to you safe because it's inspired Scripture. Copy it as many times as you can and distribute it far and wide because that is how Jesus planned his Church out to work."
Far from it! Paul ordained Timothy as a bishop, giving Timothy the authority to shepherd the flock, and he instructed Timothy in many things that Timothy was to instruct others upon whom he was to lay his hands and ordain.
You join a baptist board you jump on and promote the Catholic church and try to tell Baptists they should leave the Baptist church and become Catholic. Is that really such a hard concept of etiquette to grasp?
It reminds me of Paul who went into the synagogue & preached Christ crucified. It made the Jews pretty upset to hear Paul argue from the Scriptures in a way that differed from their own interpretation. In fact, the Thessalonian Jews scorned Paul, whereas the Bereans had open hearts and minds and were praised as such.
Gina, be a Berean. Open your mind to the Scriptures and interpretations apart from your own fallible human interpretation.
Unless, of course, you think you have an infallible guide that can lead you through the Bible and provide you with certainty that is infallible with regard to interpretation.
Yes, it is not only rude to share false beliefs, it's just wrong.
But, that presupposes that the beliefs are false to begin with. You see, you have already laid a preemptive strike at learning and accepting the truth of God's Word by closing yourself off to dialogue.
In doing so, you nullify the Word of God by confining yourself to your own interpretation, which you must admit can certainly be fallible. If your personal interpretation is wrong on various points, and if you aren't open to edification, then you have thereby nullified the Word of God, not allowing it to say to you what it is supposed to say.
Jesus commands you to share your faith in Jesus, not your faith in the Catholic church.
Scripture tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ. Read Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14.
Jesus tells us that he will build his Church, which is in Scripture (Matthew 16:16-20), a part of the Gospel. If the Church isn't a part of the Gospel, then why is it in the Gospels? Why is it within the purview of St. Paul's preaching?
By prohibiting me from preaching the Body of Christ, you have prohibited me from preaching part of Jesus Christ himself: his own bride, which he leads through his shepherds in union with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom: the successor to the Rock, Kephas (See John 1:42).
You were not discussing and debating issues, you were proseletyzing or however it's spelled. There is a difference.
I should repent from the task of evangelization? Of preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and his Body?
You are not sharing the truth of the bible. You are sharing the truth of the twisted Catholic version of the doctrines of the bible and some other garbage.
That is for you to demonstrate. You see, Gina, you are just as fallible as I am, and you could very well be sharing the truth of the twisted Gina version of the doctrines of the bible and some other garbage.
You are prohibiting me from privately interpreting Scripture. You are prohibiting me from exercising my priestly function as a priest of Jesus Christ.
Your actions usurp the Baptist belief in the private interpretation of Scripture.
I did note that not one of them threw a hissy fit though. The only one that did was the one I tried to privately send an explanation to.
A question pertaining to the logic of a situation is far from a hissy fit, which is an emotative term in response to my substantial point that your actions are duplicitous.
First, you write, "I don't like it when people disagree with me either, but this is an open forum, and here I am!" and then you demonstrate just how closed the forum really is in word and action.
My exhortation is for you to be consistent in word and action. If this moral exhortation causes a stir in you, I would suggest searching your heart instead of attacking the messenger.
