Oh, and when you say "And neither is" you are conceding that Lent is not found in scripture. That is my point. I rest on that.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What are we expecting between Baptists and Roman Catholics?
- Thread starter Reformed
- Start date
Oh, and when you say "And neither is" you are conceding that Lent is not found in scripture. That is my point. I rest on that.
@Adonia , I want you to know that I do not hate Roman Catholics. I know I have been rather snarky in this and related threads. I happen to believe Roman Catholicism gets the Gospel wrong (among many other things). I have a two-fold purpose in responding to these threads. 1. To refute error. 2. To proclaim the truth. If I allowed my frustration to turn up the emotional temperature, I apologize for that. I am not an easy-going guy. I want nothing more than to see Roman Catholics leave their religious system and embrace Christ. But even more than that, I do not want my fellow Baptists to get cozy with any semblance of Roman Catholicism.
No, I was just humoring you.
Look in my opinion the point you miss because of your Reformed theology is this: If something is done by the faithful Christian in the "spirit of the Scriptures" then it is scriptural and the observance of Lent certainly abides by that dictum and I can never be convinced otherwise.
Jesus did the hard part and then He left all the other details for the Church on earth to work out. He didn't just leave a book, but a Church with real authority, real power.
Oh, I never got the feeling that you hated Catholics so don't worry on that point. I can understand your feelings about the Catholic Church, I have experienced that those who were once a part of it now take the most vociferous attitude against it.
But you are wrong about Catholic's and not being able to embrace Christ. I do, my wife does, and other people I know do because we believe the Catholic Church has the truth. I trust it more than any of these newfound Christian sects that didn't come along for hundreds upon hundreds of years after the fact, and the bottom line is all they really have is a different interpretation of the Scriptures. You believe the Reformed line and that is okay, as I believe mine. Sure my church has it's problems, but I love the liturgy and most of all the teaching of the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
We have had some good conversation and even though we are in disagreement about many things, we should be able to respect each other as believers in Jesus Christ, the Savior. God bless.
Last edited:
I never said that Christians do not have liberty. They most certainly do. However, when it comes to worship I am of the opinion that we are to worship in the manner prescribed by scripture. I see Lent as a Roman Catholic invention that is used to prepare the individual for Holy Week observances and Easter rite. As such, it should have no place among Protestants.
Ephesians 2:17-22 states, "17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."
The foundation of the apostles and prophets are found in one place -- the Bible. There is no recognized ecclesiastical authority as the church, at least not one with a Pope who sits in the chair of Peter. The Church is the full number of believers and it is manifest in local assemblies, i.e. the local church. Pastors and elders do have spiritual authority but their authority is subject to the Word of God. God has a plan for His church, He certainly did not leave its members to work it out of themselves.
I do believe Roman Catholics can embrace Christ. I am living proof. However, Roman Catholic theology and practices are not conducive to spiritual growth. Prayers for the dead, celibacy of the priesthood, transubstantiation, confession/absolution, the mass et. al; all these things do not find warrant in scripture. If you are looking for some form of ecumenical detente in which all agree to get along together while respecting each other's differences, I am sorry to disappoint you. Roman Catholicism and its practices are antithetical to biblical Christianity. They must be opposed when circumstances warrant. Please do not confuse this with how we should treat each other as individuals. The venue we are conversing in right now is set up for theological discussion. These type of discussions can get rather passionate at times. They can become so passionate that start to talk to each other in less than charitable terms. However, that is not how we should treat people on a regular basis. I still have family members and friends who are Roman Catholics. I love them, enjoy their company, and treat them with respect. Occasionally theology is brought up in conversation (by them more than me) and the discussion can get testy. At that point, I graciously shift the discussion to more a more peaceful topic, like politics.
Once again, this is only your opinion.
Again, these things come down to your particular biblical interpretation and resulting opinion.
You sure have lot's of personal opinions that's for sure! Just because you say these things does not make your words the truth and you the final arbitor on the Christian way.
[
I do not see where our conversation has gotten to that point. I believe you have been respectful towards me and I towards you. You are passionate about your new found faith tradition and that is completely understandable.
Ah ha! You have proved to be quite the comedian with that crack! LOL
This denies the historical record of the Christian Church here on earth!
The Eastern Church split from the Western Church in the 11th century, (this is an established historical fact) and if there was no recognized authority of the established Universal Christian Church, then who did our Eastern Orthodox brothers schism from? Your new friends in the Reformed faith tradition have blinded you to the reality of the Christian experience here on earth is all I can say.
The letters of St. Paul were all about the existence of a central authority and his letters to the outlying churches as recorded in the NT prove this. He (a part of the central authority) was telling them what to do, how to behave, and where they were going wrong. The local churches did not have full authority to do as they please regarding spiritual matters. No sir, they did not.
Of course it's my opinion. Every post on this board is an opinion. But you are on the Baptist Board, so having your beliefs opposed should not surprise you.
Adonai said:
See above.
Adonai said:
I do not stand just on my own opinion. I stand on the shoulders of generations of theologians who went before me. I did not just adopt their conclusions without first prayerfully studying them. Many Roman Catholics think Protestants practice cowboy theology. I assure you, that is not the case.
Adonai said:
I would not call my faith "new found". I departed from Roman Catholicism 38 years go. I would argue that my faith is grounded on truths that go back the the Garden.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
No it does not. Baptists do not recognize apostolic succession or that the Pope is the vicar or Christ. Baptists do disagree on the universal nature of the church. Some see the church as invisible but manifest in local assemblies. Some only recognize local assemblies. Before the end of the ecumenical council's the ecclesiastical landscape was less crowded than it is today, but Rome is not now, nor ever was, the one true church.
Adonai said:
There is a universal church, but it is on the basis of faith. God has always had one called-out people from the beginning. That universal church exists in local assemblies, not in Rome or Eastern/Greek Orthodox churches.
Adonai said:
The Epistles are didactic in nature. Peter and Paul's writings had apostolic authority. They are binding on all Christians everywhere. However, Rome is not the guardian of those truths.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
I see nothing in your reply proving I misrepresented the Catholic position.
Forty Reasons I Am a Catholic
"Whenever anybody gets really serious about exorcism, they go to a Catholic priest. Did you ever see a movie with a Protestant exorcist?" Or for that matter, read an article of a Protestant performing an exorcism?
The statement above validates my relating "the casting our of spirits" to the Catholic practice of exorcism.
I have no reason to believe Catholic priest are the elect of God. They falsely cast out demons in the name of Christ. (Sound familiar?)
You continue to wallow in your denial of the historical fact of the Universal Christian Church as it existed, and of course you must do so to convince yourself of the relevancy of your particular sect.
Do you believe that there were certain men who were called "The Early Church Fathers", or do you deny they existed too? Regardless of what is in your mind at this point, let us read some of what they wrote concerning the Universal Christian Church.
St. Irenaeus
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
Council of Sardica
"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
St. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
Ambrose of Milan
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388])
And last but not least, the highly respected Doctor of the Universal Christian Church, St. Augustine.
St. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412])
Those were the men of the early Church, respected and believed by everyone. They were there and experienced firsthand the newly evolving Universal Christian and their writings ought to likewise be respected and believed to get a full picture of the Christian Church here on earth.
@Adonia , thank you for introducing my field of study into the discussion -- the Patristic Age.
I have no problem referring to many of the notable theologians of the Patristic Age as Early Church Fathers (ECF). I hold the writings of Clement, Origen, Augustine, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius et. al in high regard. However, there are two things that cause me to pause when extrapolating the theology of the era. 1. These men were not Apostles, nor did they have apostolic authority. 2. The Patristic Age was rife with mixture and error. Their writings, like all theological writings, are to be filtered by the Word of God. One of the great tragedies in church history was the period of time from the end of the ecumenical councils to the Reformation. During that period of time, Rome bound the conscience of the masses by claiming sole authority over biblical interpretation and Christian practice. More sound theology was done in the first 50 years after the Reformation began than all the time before the Reformation, including all the way back to Christ. It is common for Roman Catholics to cite the Patristic Age as establishing the authority of their church. They must do this because of their butchering the interpretation of Matthew 16:18.
I have no problem referring to many of the notable theologians of the Patristic Age as Early Church Fathers (ECF). I hold the writings of Clement, Origen, Augustine, Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Athanasius et. al in high regard. However, there are two things that cause me to pause when extrapolating the theology of the era. 1. These men were not Apostles, nor did they have apostolic authority. 2. The Patristic Age was rife with mixture and error. Their writings, like all theological writings, are to be filtered by the Word of God. One of the great tragedies in church history was the period of time from the end of the ecumenical councils to the Reformation. During that period of time, Rome bound the conscience of the masses by claiming sole authority over biblical interpretation and Christian practice. More sound theology was done in the first 50 years after the Reformation began than all the time before the Reformation, including all the way back to Christ. It is common for Roman Catholics to cite the Patristic Age as establishing the authority of their church. They must do this because of their butchering the interpretation of Matthew 16:18.
37818
Well-Known Member
John 3:5 has absolutely nothing to do with water baptism. Jesus was anwering Nicodemus'es question, John 3:4 to Jesus' statment about being born over in John 3:3. (See Mark 10:15). Jesus makes it clear that there is a distinction between being born according to the flesh and being born by the Spirit, John 3:8.
My response would be, "Where's your Scripture for it?" I can give you Scripture against it: Colossians 2:16-23.
The deadly danger with will-worship is that one can suppose that it gives him some sort of free pass with God. Nothing but the cross does that.
And he would then say: "Fasting and praying is mentioned everywhere in the Scriptures, now as your Pastor this is my decision". And then you would do what, go out and start another Baptist church?
"Having come out of Roman Catholicism I understand its danger and the works righteousness that enslaves its adherents. "
What dangers? You sound like there is something Catholics can do to jeopardize your salvation and their own.
It sounds like Catholics are required to follow your line of GOOD WORKS.
If you actually believed what you claimed to believe you wouldn't be worried at all and any and all concern would be thrown at God.
I'd be the best Calvinist in a day.
Dear Lord please elect those Catholics, amen. The End. DONE. Look here's the gospel blahjity blah there you go, done, rest all on God.
"Please take this opportunity to set me straight"
Minor tweak.
then next line over one quoted......
>>>The Catechism, however, adds a caution: "God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments"<<<
Numbers 5
17and the priest shall take holy water in an earthenware vessel; and he shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water.
Salt is just a higher quality dust to be safe.
2 Kings 2
20He said, “Bring me a new jar, and put salt in it.” So they brought it to him. 21He went out to the spring of water and threw salt in it and said, “Thus says the LORD, ‘I have purified these waters; there shall not be from there death or unfruitfulness any longer.’”
"Catholic salvation: Baptism with holy water."
Any water works.
But let me tell you stuff about baptism that might be surprise:
Any minister works. You just need formula + form.
A Muslim, even an Atheist can baptize you.
V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
One of the problems between us is - what is the scriptural and/or ecclesiastic expectation of the believer post "regeneration".
Baptist differ greatly on this as do Catholics.
What does the life that is in reality dedicated to Christ look like?
I think perhaps we can both gather around the topic of - The Fruit of the Spirit.
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
I see that it is the "fruit" (singular) not fruits of the Spirit probably because the first fruit - agape love - gives birth to what follows.
These qualities may be temporarily mimicked but not counterfeited and certainly not sustained.
This is what I look for as evidence of those who are filled with the Holy Spirit.
With these souls we should be able to have fellowship (outside the church walls ironically)
around and in the person of Jesus Christ.
Baptist differ greatly on this as do Catholics.
What does the life that is in reality dedicated to Christ look like?
I think perhaps we can both gather around the topic of - The Fruit of the Spirit.
Galatians 5
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,
23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.
24 And those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.
I see that it is the "fruit" (singular) not fruits of the Spirit probably because the first fruit - agape love - gives birth to what follows.
These qualities may be temporarily mimicked but not counterfeited and certainly not sustained.
This is what I look for as evidence of those who are filled with the Holy Spirit.
With these souls we should be able to have fellowship (outside the church walls ironically)
around and in the person of Jesus Christ.
Excellent post!