What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?

[lori4dogs]

This quote is from The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published by the Vatican on March 25, 19993. So DHK, you need to reevaluate your conclusion but you won't because you are a fundamentalist and fundamentalists know they are right about everything, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

You are absolutely right! Fundamentalists are characterized by their rigidity and intolerance of other theological thought and generally choose to ignore 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'.

 

[DHK]

"There is no salvation outside the RCC.
There is no baptism but the RCC baptism.
The RCC baptism is the door to the church (salvation).
RCC baptism is equivalent to the new birth.
Without RCC baptism one cannot be born again."

You have been proven to be wrong, you just won't admit it. That is sad.

If, as you say, "there is no baptism but the RCC baptism", why was I not required to be re-baptized when I became Catholic?
The Catholic Church accepted my Baptist baptism as proper. Care to re-consider?

Sure, the only other option in the RCC is a change of doctrine. The change of doctrine came about with the RCC becoming more ecumenical. As I have explained before when an organization becomes ecumenical they must either give up doctrine or change it to accommodate other religions. This is what the RCC has done.

In previous centuries this was not so. They killed over "proper baptism." Check your history books.

 

[Trotter]

I looked at this topic when it first started, but I refrained from posting because, well, there's very, very little in common between Baptists and Catholics. We both meet in churches, we both use pews, we both like to have potlucks. We don't use the same bible, we don't view baptism anywhere near the same (or the Lord's Supper). We don't see salvation or forgiveness anywhere in the same ballpark, and you can forget about who you are supposed to pray to.

This quote is from The Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published by the Vatican on March 25, 19993. So DHK, you need to reevaluate your conclusion but you won't because you are a fundamentalist and fundamentalists know they are right about everything, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Quoting from a Catholic source to argue baptism? Don't really see the point of it. Did John sprinkle/pour over Jesus? No. He dunked Him. End of discussion.

You are absolutely right! Fundamentalists are characterized by their rigidity and intolerance of other theological thought and generally choose to ignore 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'.

Well, right is right, and wrong is wrong. So, I guess you're right on this count.

As a fundy, there are some things I will never budge on. Ecumenism and watering down what the bible teaches would fall under that heading. Salvation is between God and the person and involves no one else, ever. Same with prayer; it is between the person and God, to no one else and involves no one else, nor is there a priest who stands between the two. Baptist is commanded, but it doesn't affect salvation, nor does it bring salvation. If a person dies and has never put their faith and trust in Christ there is no middle ground; they open their eyes in Hell.

Maybe I'm just a thick headed country boy, but I know what the bible says and teaches. I don't need someone to stand and tell me what I will believe in, nor do I need someone to keep me squared up with God.

 

[lori4dogs]

I looked at this topic when it first started, but I refrained from posting because, well, there's very, very little in common between Baptists and Catholics. We both meet in churches, we both use pews, we both like to have potlucks. We don't use the same bible, we don't view baptism anywhere near the same (or the Lord's Supper). We don't see salvation or forgiveness anywhere in the same ballpark, and you can forget about who you are supposed to pray to.


Quoting from a Catholic source to argue baptism? Don't really see the point of it. Did John sprinkle/pour over Jesus? No. He dunked Him. End of discussion.


Well, right is right, and wrong is wrong. So, I guess you're right on this count.

As a fundy, there are some things I will never budge on. Ecumenism and watering down what the bible teaches would fall under that heading. Salvation is between God and the person and involves no one else, ever. Same with prayer; it is between the person and God, to no one else and involves no one else, nor is there a priest who stands between the two. Baptist is commanded, but it doesn't affect salvation, nor does it bring salvation. If a person dies and has never put their faith and trust in Christ there is no middle ground; they open their eyes in Hell.

Maybe I'm just a thick headed country boy, but I know what the bible says and teaches. I don't need someone to stand and tell me what I will believe in, nor do I need someone to keep me squared up with God.

Well, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation on why we don't share the same Bible. Why don't you 'chime in' on the 'Something is Bothering Me' thread?

'If a person dies and has never put their faith and trust in Christ there is no middle ground; they open their eyes in Hell.' Well, Catholics would agree with you.

 

[DHK]

Well, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation on why we don't share the same Bible. Why don't you 'chime in' on the 'Something is Bothering Me' thread?

'If a person dies and has never put their faith and trust in Christ there is no middle ground; they open their eyes in Hell.' Well, Catholics would agree with you.

No they don't. They believe that baptism saves them. They believe that baptism = the new birth, an outright heresy. No Baptist believes that.
Any Baptist will tell you that if that is what you are trusting then you will end up straight in Hell. That is how far our theologies differ. Your faith and trust is not in Christ; but rather in your baptism.

 

[Trotter]

Well, I'd be interested in hearing your explanation on why we don't share the same Bible. Why don't you 'chime in' on the 'Something is Bothering Me' thread?

One word: Apocrypha. The Catholic Church includes it and teaches from it. Add to that that the words of the Pope equates or supersedes scripture (Mary as co-redemtrix, anyone?) and there ya go.

 

[lori4dogs]

'Add to that that the words of the Pope equates or supersedes scripture (Mary as co-redemtrix, anyone?) and there ya go.'

I used to think like this also. Then I began to study the actual teachings of the Church.

 

[Trotter]

Then I began to study the actual teachings of the Church.

I just follow the teachings of Christ, myself.

I'm no expert on Catholicism and have no plans to become one. I can just offer what I know about what I know, and everything I know about Catholicism has either come from someone who is/was in it, or from what I have read. I have no first hand knowledge of it. I went to a Catholic wedding once and was freaked out by all the cued responses and stuff. Up and down, up and down, repeat this, respond with that... made me dizzy.

No, I'll stay with me, the Lord, and the bible. He made it nice and simple without the need for anything outside of that. Oh, I need my church family so that we can worship together and help one another along, but it boils down to Him and me. It is an eternal relationship that He instigated, drawing me to Him. I had to make the choice to accept it, but He was the one who handled it all. When I chose to accept His offer of grace and forgiveness, it was solely between Him and me and no one else.

When I was baptized, it had nothing to do with my salvation as that was already a done deal. My baptism was so that I could be obedient to His command, not to save me. I was in the first group to be baptized in our (at the time) brand new baptistery, and it was a trick as I am a few inches taller than our pastor was... but he got me down and back up. I went down dry, came up wet, and showed the world that I was willing to let it be known that I belonged to Christ.

Now I am a deacon. I get to help serve the Lord's Supper at our church. The symbolism of the juice and the bread bring me to tears... but they are only juice and bread. It is done to remember what Christ did for us, not to "remake" His blood and flesh. We use this observance as a remembrance, and as a time of reflection and confession. Not to a priest, or our pastor, or even one another... but to God and God alone. "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb 4:16 ESV)" It says "let us", not "let someone else in your place" or "let a priest" or "let some dead person (saint)", but "let us draw near the throne of grace." We confess our sin to God and God alone, and He and Him alone forgives us of them.

 

[lori4dogs]

'No, I'll stay with me, the Lord, and the bible.'

Good! And you and I will disagree on the interpretation of the Bible. You have the same beliefs that I once held and was absolutely convinced that the Bible backed me up. I began to read other interpretations of the same scriptures. I began to realize that I had reason to doubt what I had always been taught.

I can give serious debate to each of your objections about what 'you think' the Catholic Church teaches but you make it clear your not really interested and you have already drawn your own conclusions by 'what you have heard'. Each of your objections actually should be it's own thread and if you were really interested you could look back over the archives and find excellent points made for the 'Catholic view' by non-Catholics on this Board.

I'm glad you serve the Lord as a Deacon and can tell you have a heart for Jesus.

 

[Trotter]

It's true that I have no intention of changing my standing on the subject. I have never made any inclinations otherwise as I would be a liar if I did.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

[lori4dogs]

You know I was thinking back years ago, when I first began to visit this Board. This is when Catholics were allowed into 'the fray'. It was really interesting to read (I didn't post then) the different threads relating to Catholic Christians and (usually) Baptist doctrines. What I remember most though was that were times when issues were passionately presented and the debates would get a little heated, but then someone who was a non-believer would begin posting. I would see both Catholics and non-Catholics stop whatever they were debating and witness to the person.

I think if people were to go back a few years and pull up some of those threads they might be surprised at just how much we do agree on.

 

[BobRyan]

You are absolutely right! Fundamentalists are characterized by their rigidity and intolerance of other theological thought and generally choose to ignore 'overwhelming evidence to the contrary'.

Well as long as they do not get to the point of calling for the "extermination of heretics and Jews" as we saw in Lateran IV.

As long as they do not get to the point of burning heretics at the stake.

As long as they do not submit them to the tortures of the inquisition trying to pry them from their faith...

As long as that is not happening - at least there is hope -- would you not agree?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The key statement in that paragraph is this:

Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.

Key words:
--properly baptized.
--believed in Christ (what exactly is meant by this phrase, as the Muslims believe in Christ as well, and so do the J.W.'s)

History tells us that the RCC held a crusade against and massacred the Albigenses even though they believed in Christ and were "properly baptized."

They persecuted the Waldenses even unto death, for the same reasons.

And especially the Anabaptists, they put to death. Why? Because Ana-Baptist means to re-baptize or baptize again. The ire of the Catholics was great because others would dare to re-baptize converted Catholics, stating that their infant baptism was not valid because an infant cannot believe or repent. Of course they are correct. Many anabaptists were thus put to death.
So what does the RCC mean by "proper Baptism".

Yes but that was BEFORE Vatican II.

Which means it was back in the day when "no salvation outside the Catholic Church" was meant to support that activity.

For today - you see "the difference" in the fact that the RCC does NOT share open communion with Baptists as they would with Eastern Orthodox. Which is to say - a Baptist may not participate in the Catholic Mass. Futhermore the Catholic church does not allow that the Baptist communion service is in fact an act taking place within or under the New Covenant.

For the RCC even AFTER Vatican II - the New Covenant is limited to Catholics - not Baptists.

This does not mean that they do not view Baptists as being saved - simply that they think that some non-BIBLE means of grace (something OTHER than the Bible teaching on the New Covenant) needs to be found for saving the Baptists.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Trotter]

This does not mean that they do not view Baptists as being saved - simply that they think that some non-BIBLE means of grace (something OTHER than the Bible teaching on the New Covenant) needs to be found for saving the Baptists.

Sorry, but I find that absolutely hilarious. I guess saved by grace through faith just don't cut it.

 

[lori4dogs]

Well as long as they do not get to the point of calling for the "extermination of heretics and Jews" as we saw in Lateran IV.

As long as they do not get to the point of burning heretics at the stake.

As long as they do not submit them to the tortures of the inquisition trying to pry them from their faith...

As long as that is not happening - at least there is hope -- would you not agree?

in Christ,

Bob

I have never tried to justify atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ. There is no doubt they occurred. Both by protestants and Catholics.

 

[DHK]

I have never tried to justify atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ. There is no doubt they occurred. Both by protestants and Catholics.

Of course not. You cannot justify them now. We live in a more "civilized" nation. And such atrocities are against the law. The RCC is not permitted by law to carry out such actions. However, some nations are allowed to carry out similar atrocities like "honor killings" while the government turns a blind eye. And if the RCC were the state church in such a nation, no doubt they would still be doing similar things. The nature of man doesn't change.

 

[Zenas]

I looked at this topic when it first started, but I refrained from posting because, well, there's very, very little in common between Baptists and Catholics.

Yes you're right but this does't mean they can't make use of the common ground they have. In the community where I live they work together extensively on various pro life causes. Catholics and Baptists also participate together with other groups on weekly lenten devotionals. Also, I have never heard a pastor in my church utter or even insinuate one negative thing about the Catholic Church.

Quoting from a Catholic source to argue baptism? Don't really see the point of it. Did John sprinkle/pour over Jesus? No. He dunked Him. End of discussion.

You obviously should have spent more time reading the thread. I was quoting the Catholic source not to prove they are right but to prove to DHK that Catholics regard Protestant baptism as valid. As for the baptism of Christ, I believe He was dunked but I can't say for sure because I wasn't there. Neither were you. Interesting thing, when the Bible speaks of Him coming up out of the water I never got the mental image of a man breaking the surface after being submerged. The image I always had was of a man wading out of the water and up the bank. Have you ever seen da Vinci's The Baptism of Christ? It shows both men standing in the water and John pouring water over Jesus' head. Improbable? Yes but not out of the question. Oh, I forgot, you're a fundamentalist so it is out of the question.

As a fundy, there are some things I will never budge on. Ecumenism and watering down what the bible teaches would fall under that heading.

I don't think you have a clue as to what ecumenism is. It is definitely NOT about watering down what the Bible teaches.

 

[Zenas]

Now I am a deacon. I get to help serve the Lord's Supper at our church. The symbolism of the juice and the bread bring me to tears... but they are only juice and bread. It is done to remember what Christ did for us, not to "remake" His blood and flesh. We use this observance as a remembrance, and as a time of reflection and confession. Not to a priest, or our pastor, or even one another... but to God and God alone. "Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (Heb 4:16 ESV)" It says "let us", not "let someone else in your place" or "let a priest" or "let some dead person (saint)", but "let us draw near the throne of grace." We confess our sin to God and God alone, and He and Him alone forgives us of them.

Based on your previous post here, I assume your church insists on baptism by immersion because that is the way they did it in the N.T. I believe they probably did also. So why don't you insist on using wine in the Lord's Supper? Why is it important to do it the Biblical way for baptism but you are free to ignore the Biblical way for the Lord's Supper?

 

[DHK]

I don't think you have a clue as to what ecumenism is. It is definitely NOT about watering down what the Bible teaches.

I believe the shoe is on the other foot.
You can't be a part of the ecumenical movement without giving up some doctrine.
The essence of the ecumenical movement is compromise; compromise for the sake of unity. I for one will not compromise any doctrine for the unity of all.

 

[Zenas]

I believe the shoe is on the other foot.
You can't be a part of the ecumenical movement without giving up some doctrine.
The essence of the ecumenical movement is compromise; compromise for the sake of unity. I for one will not compromise any doctrine for the unity of all.

You also are cluless, DHK. Ecumenism is not about compromise, although compromise is sometimes what is needed to settle conflicts in the church. See Acts 15:19-20. You seem to have some kind of puritanical view that if people don't believe as you do, worship as you do and teach as you do they are dirty. You probably even have closed communion, don't you?