-
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 do Baptists and Catholics have in common?
- Thread starter Peggy
- Start date
- Status
With Baptist disagree constantly over what constitutes sound doctrine and splitting into how many Baptist denominations because apparently the Holy Spirit has revealed a different truth to each one of them: OSAS or Freewill, Millineal Exclusion, pre-mill, post-mil, a-mil, covenant or dispensational. KJV only or Niv or whatever. Do we really believe that the Holy Spirit guides each of these congregations in little variations of the truth? How about personal interpretation like DHK. Do you even agree on the doctrine Original Sin. The Holy Spirit reveal to one Christian on thing and another something quite else. WOW!
Guess that why we have a jillion different Baptist denominations as well as Mithodist, Charismatic, Presbyterian (oh, they are splitting again).
I'd rather belong to a church that has followed the same teaching of Christ since the just was built on Peter.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
And of course Matt 22 where Christ states that the Deut 6:5 command to Love God - and the Lev 19:18 command to love your neighbor are the foundations of all scripture.
So it is no wonder that in Acts 17:11 - non-Christian non-believers are testing the teaching of the Apostle Paul BEFORE they agree to follow his Gospel "They studied the scripture daily to SEE IF those things (spoken to them by Paul) were so"
If by "infighting" you mean burning people at the stake - I fully agree.
But if by "infighting" you mean "pointing out where doctrine is failing the Mark 7 test of Christ or the Isaiah 8:19-20 test of scripture" then we differ.
Is it "loving" to point out where someone is merely deceived into following "the traditions of men" instead of the Word of God?
It is if you do it right.
Indeed - the Love of Christ is why each one of us is not being sent to the 2nd death - the Lake of Fire - IF we accept the Gospel by yielding to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.
In John 14 Jesus gives all the precious promise "IF I go away I will come again and receive you to Myself".
In that same chapter Jesus said "I AM the WAY the TRUTH and the LIFE".
In that same chapter Jesus said "IF you Love Me KEEP My Commandments".
As it turns out - Loving Christ means to Love the Truth -- Loving Truth means to "always want more" and it means to "want to rid ourselves of whatever error we mistakenly hold".
If we do in fact "Share the truth in Love" we all win.
But if we narrowly cling to this tradition or that tradition and declare that we want Christ - but not any inconvient truth that might show our various biases to be in error - we show that it is not really Christ that we love.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
I saw a Baptist Church the other day with the following marque out front:
In each corner of the board it said: Dispensational, Pre-millinial, King James Bible,[/B] evangelical. I wonder what a lot sinner seeing that would wonder if he visited just what he was walking into. Seemed like a advertisement to 'sheep steal' from other churches that lacked one those eschatological 'truths'
In each corner of the board it said: Dispensational, Pre-millinial, King James Bible,[/B] evangelical. I wonder what a lot sinner seeing that would wonder if he visited just what he was walking into. Seemed like a advertisement to 'sheep steal' from other churches that lacked one those eschatological 'truths'
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Suppose you belonged to a church that was not pre-mill but you then saw the sign above. Would you be inclined to change churches?
Answer: Only if you were already pre-mill and were suffering the problem of attending a church that did not match what you thought the Bible taught on the subject of Christ's 2nd coming.
So getting to the point of your observation - how in the world would that be a negative - to finally find a church that did match what you understood the Bible to teach??
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
If the ground rule for this discussion area is "I do not love people that do not agree with all my views on doctrines" -- then we have a horrible result.
But if the fact is that we are free to love one another as Christians - but also free to share differences in POV on doctrine - then we all win.
in Christ,
Bob
Yes, Catholics are addicted to this lie. Why don't you give us a couple of examples of these alleged "disagreements"?
lori4dogs said:
The church is not for lost sinners, so the description would be for other believers, not "lost sinners".
Bob, what Lori does not understand and does not want to understand is that different denominations and different churches with different beliefs on various non-essential doctrines is a very good thing. It is a healthy thing. It is not chaotic, nor is it unhealthy, as she claims.
Think of it as a kind of pressure release valve.
Let's put it this way: in our area, there are two other churches that we partner with regularly. They take classes at our church, participate on our evangelism team, and are each a wonderful voice for the Gospel.
However, they have some different beliefs than we do on some non-essential doctrines, namely, one is paedobaptism while we're credobaptism and the other is charismatic, while we believe the gifts have ceased.
If we were all one local assembly, we'd constantly be fighting over these differences and wouldn't accomplish anything. But, as we are three different churches, each offering a place for its beliefs, we're able to work together to bring honor to God and proclaim the Gospel.
For the record. My "interpretation" of the Bible is hardly personal. I am a missionary. I have traveled and visited hundreds of churches across America from the east coast to the west coast, and many in Canada as well.
Consider:
These churches would not allow me into their churches if I did not agree with their statement of faith.
I have never been in a church that did not agree with me.
You personal accusation is totally unwarranted, just because you had a bad experience in some kind of Baptist church that was different from the norm.
There are many different denominations within the Baptist circle, and other Protestant denominations as well. If you are honest with yourself there are many different kinds of Catholic churches as well, some of which are causing a rift with the RCC. But you probably won't admit to that. You at least know of Charismatic Catholics. You also know of the Old Latin Rite Catholic Churches, not the norm. If you have Charismatic Churches you have churches that have taken on new doctrine, doctrine that is outside the RCC catechism without realizing it. The RCC has become very ecumenical cooperating with denominations of all sorts. Ecumenism can only work if a denomination such as the RCC gives up some of their own doctrine. Again the great mantra of new evangelical Christians (and Catholics among them) is "unity, not doctrine." Doctrine is sacrificed on the altar of unity.
As a missionary I have seen goats and chickens sacrificed before an idol of Mary, while the Catholic does obeisance to the idol (Mary). Is this Christianity?
Here you are wrong. The teachings of Peter are clearly spelled out in the Bible. And the RCC does not believe in them.
...bump...
DHK, can you give me an example of a doctrine that the Catholic Church has been willing to give up since it is, as you say, 'very ecumenical'? If ecumenism is only achieved by giving up doctrines and you should be able to provide examples.
How are Charismatic Catholics at odds with any doctrine of the Catholic Church? I've never heard a Catholic theologian make that claim.
I don't know where these 'bloody sacrifices' to Mary are taking place that your talking about, but that would be condemned by the Catholic Church as heresy and an abomination. Certainly nothing like that happening in my diocese.
No matter what, you must agree that those involved in the ecumenical movement must give up doctrine. Here is how.
Suppose I am going to be ecumenical and work with Presbyterians. They baptize infants; we immerse adults. That is a big difference in doctrine. That means that wherever we go, we cannot preach on the doctrine of baptism. I must give up the doctrine of baptism. As a baptist that is an important doctrine to sacrifice. Now add a Charsimatic to my ecumenical group. They speak in tongues and I don't. Now I am not able to speak against the heresy of speaking in tongues. My hands are tied. My ecumenical group grows. A Church of Christ person joins. He believes that baptism is necessary to salvation. Now the gospel message is gone completely and turned into a gospel of works. It is a heretical gospel and I can't preach against it. Baptismal regeneration is heresy. But this is ecumenism, and you must not preach against anything that someone else believes in the spirit of cooperation. It is unity, not doctrine. Eventually, what in the Bible are you left with? So far not much. Even the gospel I cannot preach, and my group is very small in this ecumenical group.
The Catholic Catechism does mention spiritual gifts and even mentions tongues as being a valid gift. However, it mentions it in the context of "sometimes (the special gift) is extraordinary, such as..." According to the RCC Catechism tongues is an extraordinary gift that few people would have. The Charismatic movement teaches:
1. Some teach it is essential for salvation, and thus every believer should have it.
2. Some teach every believer should seek it to have the fullness of the Spirit. In other words you are not truly "spiritual" if you have not spoken in tongues. And the pressure is such that it becomes essential.
Catholics don't believe this.
Here is what the Catholic Church believes:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#2003
Most Charismatics speak in tongues, not supernaturally, but because of an emotional feeling that they have. Tongues have ceased. Miracles have ceased. This is another discussion for another thread. But these signs ceased at the end of the first century despite what the RCC Catechism states.
Of course it would be condemned by the RCC here, and also by our governments here. Bloody sacrifices are not allowed in our nation. That is why the Muslims don't perform their ritual sacrifices here, but they do in their own nations such as Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and in many African nations. But they are not permitted here.
But I have witnessed Catholics, in a place where sacrifices are permitted, sacrificing goats and chickens to an "idol" of Mary, the same types of idols that exist in every Catholic Church in North America.
Just because it happens elsewhere, and you have not seen it, does not mean it doesn't take place.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
1. I agree in most part with that statement -- ecumenism with the Catholic Church is almost all about Protestants giving up their own distinctives.
If you go back in time historically - a large number of Protestant churches used to apply the Rev 17 image of a church in apostasy to the Catholic church - today that is not nearly as common as it used to be.
2. However there is a significant group still within the Catholic church that believes that Vatican II was a "sellout" to Protestants in that it did an "about face" on the subject of "outside the Catholic Church - no salvation" - which until that time had been applied, even by Popes themselves, to Protestants.
Perhaps a more glaring example of Catholic collapse on doctrine is the case of Evolution vs Creation. If you go back a few hundred years - the Catholic church was much more in favor of the Bible stand on Creation - today it teaches evolution "as fact" in its universities.
The result of that "change" can be seen in Europe today - an almost complete "sellout" of Catholic churches -- repurposing those now empty buildings into things like book stores, bowling alleys, etc
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob, the only Catholics I'm aware of that insist that there is 'no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church' are not in communion with Rome. There are a couple of monastic communities commited to the teachings of Fr. Leonard Fenney, a Jesuit who believed in a strict interpretation of the doctrine (as some on this board insist the Roman Church does) and was excommunicated (along with the religious orders that followed that belief) as a result. There are only a couple of monastic communities that I know of that still follow this belief. If there is a significiant number of Catholics that believe, as you claim, in this teaching I'm not aware of it.
I agree with you that liberal Catholic universities are a problem. This is not just a Catholic problem though. My own Southern Baptist college taught evolution as fact in my biology class. Even the LCMS is having difficulty with their colleges and universities teaching evolution.
IMHO, the biggest threat to Christianity is liberal theology. How many Catholic and protestant (yes, Baptist are protestants!) seminaries have slipped? I lived in the Norheast for quite a while. Most of the protestant churches I visited were two-thirds empty as a result of liberalism. Catholic Churches with liberal priests were not well attended either.
I do believe this trend is being stemmed in the Catholic Church. The present pope was hot on the heels of liberals as a cardinal and continues the same as pope.
I agree with you that liberal Catholic universities are a problem. This is not just a Catholic problem though. My own Southern Baptist college taught evolution as fact in my biology class. Even the LCMS is having difficulty with their colleges and universities teaching evolution.
IMHO, the biggest threat to Christianity is liberal theology. How many Catholic and protestant (yes, Baptist are protestants!) seminaries have slipped? I lived in the Norheast for quite a while. Most of the protestant churches I visited were two-thirds empty as a result of liberalism. Catholic Churches with liberal priests were not well attended either.
I do believe this trend is being stemmed in the Catholic Church. The present pope was hot on the heels of liberals as a cardinal and continues the same as pope.
I also agree with your statement on the Catholic position on ecumenism. It is not about compromising Catholic doctrine, it is about bringing people back to the faith. The recent offer to Anglicans does not compromise Catholic doctrine. Anglicans must be willing to sign-on to the catechism of the Catholic Church.
DHK, you said of tongues: '1. Some teach it is essential for salvation, and thus every believer should have it.
2. Some teach every believer should seek it to have the fullness of the Spirit. In other words you are not truly "spiritual" if you have not spoken in tongues. And the pressure is such that it becomes essential.
Catholics don't believe this.'
You are right, Catholics don't believe this, charismatic Catholics included. Here is one Catholics characterization of a charismatic Catholics.
" A Catholic church in Ann Arbor, Michigan describes charismatic prayer:
"A charismatic style of prayer is common at Christ the King. People are free to raise their hands in prayer and during songs, many pray their own prayers audibly, some pray in tongues, etc.... They pray with expressive or charismatic prayer at monthly parish prayer meetings, at the beginning of parish meetings, and most especially during certain moments in the Holy Mass. These are some of the external markers of a charismatic parish. Internal markers include a radical surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all parts of life, a strong adherence to the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the pursuit of strong friendships centered on Christ."
Notice it mentions 'some pray in tongues'. Not everyone.
I can't agree with you that 'tongue have ceased'. The word says they will cease, it doesn't say when. As you say, that is another thread.
2. Some teach every believer should seek it to have the fullness of the Spirit. In other words you are not truly "spiritual" if you have not spoken in tongues. And the pressure is such that it becomes essential.
Catholics don't believe this.'
You are right, Catholics don't believe this, charismatic Catholics included. Here is one Catholics characterization of a charismatic Catholics.
" A Catholic church in Ann Arbor, Michigan describes charismatic prayer:
"A charismatic style of prayer is common at Christ the King. People are free to raise their hands in prayer and during songs, many pray their own prayers audibly, some pray in tongues, etc.... They pray with expressive or charismatic prayer at monthly parish prayer meetings, at the beginning of parish meetings, and most especially during certain moments in the Holy Mass. These are some of the external markers of a charismatic parish. Internal markers include a radical surrender to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in all parts of life, a strong adherence to the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and the pursuit of strong friendships centered on Christ."
Notice it mentions 'some pray in tongues'. Not everyone.
I can't agree with you that 'tongue have ceased'. The word says they will cease, it doesn't say when. As you say, that is another thread.
So you want others to compromise, give up their doctrine, "return to Rome," as it is, correct?
I think it is wonderful when people do 'return to Rome', but I'm not asking you to do that.
DHK, you are a missionary that is obviously committed to bringing the lost to a saving faith in Jesus Christ. I know you are convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct and I'm not asking you to compromise anything. The majority of the people who contribute on this Board are passionate in their commitment to bringing the lost to repentance and faith in Jesus and we are all doing it in the churches that we believe holds the apostolic faith or we would be elsewhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status