What do members of the BB hold as separating them from Papists?

[Darrell C]

It's agedman's own statement in the OP

No kidding?

The OP States...

For instance, in one post (forgot the poster), it was mentioned that the trinity, deity of Christ, nature of sin ... were all aligned between Baptists and Papists.

You say...

No one asserted, as you did falsely, that Catholics and Baptists were "all aligned" on the doctrines.

Are you saying no-one mentioned that Baptists and Catholics have common ground on these doctrines?

Here are a few quotes:

I hold a belief in the Trinity in common with the Church of Rome.

The following things (which the list is much longer in reality) I agree with Roman Catholics on:
- Divinity of Jesus Christ
- Sinless life of Jesus Christ
- Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate
- Resurrection of Jesus Christ
- The Second Coming of Jesus Christ
- The miracles of Jesus Christ
- The virgin birth of Jesus Christ
- The doctrine of the Trinity
- The nature of sin
- That God the Father sent Jesus Christ into this world

I can keep going if necessary...

I have answered this already. I hold a belief in the Trinity in common with the Church of Rome.

So you want to maintain that AgedMan is lying?

And you want to answer this...

Aaron said: ↑
Indeed, the moment you begin to expound upon the Trinity, let alone the Virgin Birth, you would reveal notions no less erroneous and superstitious.

So you deny the Trinity and Virgin Birth of Christ?

Interesting. Are you sure you are a Baptist?

...at this time?

God bless.

 

[preachinjesus]

I was the poster (maybe there were others) who noted there are a number of key doctrines on which Baptists agree on. I also listed, as presented in the above post, a number of those key doctrines.

I stand by that list.

Since it is obvious that some posters have never truly read Roman Catholic theology and can't tell any of us the differences between the canons of the Council of Trent and the canons of Vatican II...I think those saying we share nothing in common should take a moment to honestly evaluate their true understanding of the differences between Baptists and Roman Catholics. For instance, if you can't answer the just made point about the differences of the Council of Trent and Vatican II without Googling it or checking Wikipedia that should tell us enough.


Now, there are sizable differences between Baptists and Roman Catholics. There are significant differences between the two positions. We (Baptists) are products of the Radical Reformation. We hold to a non-sacramental theology. We deny Apostolic Succession. We deny the divinized view of Mary. We deny their ecclesiology. We deny the need for an intercessor. We deny the need for a priesthood in the line of the Aaronic priesthood.

The differences could go on for pages and pages. There are differences and they are important. I am not a Catholic. I cannot, theologically become Catholic after having read the entire Bible. There are significant differences.

 

[agedman]

I was the poster (maybe there were others) who noted there are a number of key doctrines on which Baptists agree on. I also listed, as presented in the above post, a number of those key doctrines.

I stand by that list.

Since it is obvious that some posters have never truly read Roman Catholic theology and can't tell any of us the differences between the canons of the Council of Trent and the canons of Vatican II...I think those saying we share nothing in common should take a moment to honestly evaluate their true understanding of the differences between Baptists and Roman Catholics. For instance, if you can't answer the just made point about the differences of the Council of Trent and Vatican II without Googling it or checking Wikipedia that should tell us enough.


Now, there are sizable differences between Baptists and Roman Catholics. There are significant differences between the two positions. We (Baptists) are products of the Radical Reformation. We hold to a non-sacramental theology. We deny Apostolic Succession. We deny the divinized view of Mary. We deny their ecclesiology. We deny the need for an intercessor. We deny the need for a priesthood in the line of the Aaronic priesthood.

The differences could go on for pages and pages. There are differences and they are important. I am not a Catholic. I cannot, theologically become Catholic after having read the entire Bible. There are significant differences.

That is the purpose of this thread.

To explore those areas, and lay out exactly what separates (or on the other thread what agreement) Baptists and RC.

Do you not find it true that although the councils and canons state one thing, the RC actually practice and present something entirely different?

 

[Aaron]

Darrell, you gotta board this train at the station. It was agedman who mischaracterized the list as saying we were "all aligned." Because a catholic and a Baptist will assert the Virgin Birth, does not mean that they are perfectly aligned with all their notions surrounding it. So, go back, read the whole thing, apply fifth grade level reading comprehension, and chill.

 

[Aaron]

And you want to answer this...





...at this time?

God bless.

I deny neither the Trinity nor the Virgin Birth, but here are two very common Baptist takes on them: One God (meaning one person) acting in roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and . . .

. . . sin is passed by the males, hence the necessity of the Virgin Birth.

Both notions equally superstitious as the immaculation of Mary.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell, you gotta board this train at the station. It was agedman who mischaracterized the list as saying we were "all aligned." Because a catholic and a Baptist will assert the Virgin Birth, does not mean that they are perfectly aligned with all their notions surrounding it. So, go back, read the whole thing, apply fifth grade level reading comprehension, and chill.

It's actually a hay ride, Aaron, and I just jumped on. It wasn't moving very fast at the time, and now it is starting to stand still.



The OP simply states that someone said something, which you basically called him a liar about. What he said is verified in the post, some did align Catholic and Baptist teachings, and that holds true, he did not lie.

You owe him an apology.

That aside, how about my questions to you?

God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

I deny neither the Trinity nor the Virgin Birth, but here are two very common Baptist takes on them: One God (meaning one person) acting in roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and . . .

. . . sin is passed by the males, hence the necessity of the Virgin Birth.

Both notions equally superstitious as the immaculation of Mary.

There is a fine line between sound Trinitarian view and a Monotheistic understanding. God is not a "Person," in a temporal understanding...He is Spirit. The Spirit, in fact.

While I appreciate you denying the denial, I have to say that it is a rather weak defense, and made worse in your understanding about sin. Can you show me where sin is passed through the father in scripture, and how women bypass that sin being passed down by their own fathers?

The reason Christ stands apart from the rest of humanity is not because he did not inherit the usual concept of sin as a disease passed down from forefathers, but because He was never...

...separated from the Father.

That is what happened to Adam, and that is what is passed down. Men are born out of relationship with God, and the Atonement is the Reconciliation, the Remedy...of that state of lifelessness. Christ was at all times God manifest in the flesh, His glory veiled by His humanity, but again, He was not born separated from God like everyone born of Adam.

Sin is not a disease, it is a symptom of the underlying problem. Men will sin because they are not in relationship with God. The baby aborted in the womb does not go to Heaven because they personally sinned, but because they are not in relationship with God. We can understand babies who die as going to Heaven, because they fall under the same brace and mercy that the Old Testament Saints did.

God judges justly and righteously, and every man will be held accountable for their response to the revelation God has provided to them. This is the same measure of righteous judgment He will show that guy in deepest, darkest Africa everyone is always fearful for, to the most astute Theologians today and in history past.

So it might be a good idea to forego accusing people of embracing superstition.




God bless.

 

[Aaron]

It's actually a hay ride, Aaron, and I just jumped on. It wasn't moving very fast at the time, and now it is starting to stand still.



The OP simply states that someone said something, which you basically called him a liar about. What he said is verified in the post, some did align Catholic and Baptist teachings, and that holds true, he did not lie.

I didn't say he lied. I said his characterization was false. As is yours for the same reason.

You owe him an apology.

No I don't.

 

[Aaron]

There is a fine line between sound Trinitarian view and a Monotheistic understanding. God is not a "Person," in a temporal understanding...He is Spirit. The Spirit, in fact.

One God, three Persons. Not one God acting in three roles, but three distinct Persons in one God. Two distinct persons are one flesh in marriage. Three distinct Persons are one God.

Can you show me where sin is passed through the father in scripture, and how women bypass that sin being passed down by their own fathers?

That's the understanding of many Baptists. It is not my understanding. The Virgin Birth was not a necessity, it was a sign. Even if God provided a body for His Son in "the family way," He still would have been sinless and incorruptible by virtue of His Person.

And, I didn't say they think sin bypasses women. They think it's not passed by the woman.

But, sin is not something that is passed. Sin is what is not passed, and that is life.

The reason Christ stands apart from the rest of humanity is not because he did not inherit the usual concept of sin as a disease passed down from forefathers, but because He was never...

...separated from the Father.

It's because of His Divinity. It's because of Who He is. Adam was never a partaker of the divine nature, not even before he was corrupted.

So it might be a good idea to forego accusing people of embracing superstition.

If folks forego spouting superstitious notions, they have nothing to worry about.

 

[agedman]

Adam was never a partaker of the divine nature, not even before he was corrupted.

Not certain I agree with this statement without some further clarification. For instance, what did God breathe into Adam but part of His divinity as the breath of life?

On another matter, Aaron, do you consider that I have been "spouting superstitious notions?"

I certainly agree that the virgin birth was a sign, but (not to get too technical as to the physical aspects) it would not be likely that any person of that day who looked upon Mary would have considered her a virgin.

Besides what good is any sign if it has nothing to display as a message?

Certainly, I surely doubt anyone "uncovered" Mary to see the sign.

So, in your opinion, what is the message of the sign of the virgin birth, and how was that sign displayed not only in her life, but one that we can see in this time?

 

[agedman]

I didn't say he lied. I said his characterization was false. As is yours for the same reason.

No I don't.

I am not desiring to be confrontational, but would like to know what "characterization" written in the OP are you indicating is false?

 

[preachinjesus]

Do you not find it true that although the councils and canons state one thing, the RC actually practice and present something entirely different?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here, so if I miss the point you have my apologies. I do agree that the current RCC doesn't represent the original intentions of the first seven ecumenical councils. However, if you're talking about Vatican I and II, then the current RCC looks exactly like those two councils intended.

The present day practice of the RCC does reflect the medieval intentions of those councils. Thankfully there has been quite a bit of reflection and appraisal of the challenges facing the Catholic Church.

All that said, one of the primary points I make when discussing the differences between RCC and Baptists is that of the Apostolic Succession. So much of their core doctrine (dogma) arises from this concept. Baptists don't believe this and our ecclesiology reflects it. For the RCC it becomes the central position on how they do theology and church. Since they say that Peter founded the church in Rome, and that he was uniquely positioned by Christ to lead the Church after Pentecost, then all their authority goes back to Christ. This gives them, they say, the authority to forgive sins, to provide the sacramental rites of the Eucharistic service, and the other parts of their service. Baptists disagree that any of this is true. Not only was Peter not the first pastor of Rome, none of the other functions of the Church are legitimate.

This is usually a good discussion point to start a conversation on differences between Baptists and Roman Catholics.

 

[Darrell C]

Another would be the difference between most Baptists and the Catholic Church in regards to the Word of God. I think this distinction is one of the most important because it is involved in every issue that raises a distinction between us. At the heart of every doctrine or practice we might object to...is the Doctrinal understanding of the Word of God.

While it is true we can see a parallel in some Baptists, in that they "Dote" (for lack of a more appropriate term) on the teachings of certain men, there is still a clear distinction that we ascribe Scripture with Authority that precedes anything men declare. We do not think that leadership can determine Doctrine, but the Word of God only. We do not think leadership can institute traditions which stand in contradiction to the teachings of the Bible. We do not think the Word of God can be conformed to cultures, but that cultures must conform to the Word of God.

God bless.

 

[Aaron]

Not certain I agree with this statement without some further clarification. For instance, what did God breathe into Adam but part of His divinity as the breath of life?

He breathed into him the spirit of life. Not the Holy Spirit.

By virtue of our second birth, we are made partakers of the divine nature. This nature is eternal, incorruptible, and cannot, as John said, sin, because we are begotten of God.

Adam was not begotten of God. He was made, and he was not made incorruptible. He could be, therefore, and was, corrupted. Then he fell.

On another matter, Aaron, do you consider that I have been "spouting superstitious notions?"

I don't recall yet seeing one. I didn't read your tomes, though. And holding to dispensational premellinnialism as you do, I assume there are a number of superstitious ideas floating around in your head.

I certainly agree that the virgin birth was a sign, but (not to get too technical as to the physical aspects) it would not be likely that any person of that day who looked upon Mary would have considered her a virgin.

Besides what good is any sign if it has nothing to display as a message?

Certainly, I surely doubt anyone "uncovered" Mary to see the sign.

So, in your opinion, what is the message of the sign of the virgin birth, and how was that sign displayed not only in her life, but one that we can see in this time?

It wasn't a sign to the unbeliever. No sign will be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, but the sign of Jonah. The Virgin Birth is a marvelous and wonderful sign to the believer, and it was a sign that God would redeem Israel. However it seems that God delights to signify his special servants with miraculous births: Isaac, Samuel, John the Baptist, and His own Son.

 

[kyredneck]

No sign will be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, but the sign of Jonah.

Excellent. Note of the redundancy of the message from the Spirit to the Jews; YOU KILLED HIM, BUT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD.

Acts 2:
23 him, being delivered up by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay:
24 whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it.
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified.

Acts 3:
14 But ye denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted unto you,
15 and killed the Prince of life; whom God raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.

Acts 4:
10 be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in him doth this man stand here before you whole.

Acts 5:
30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew, hanging him on a tree.
31 Him did God exalt with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins.

Acts 7:
52 Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? and they killed them that showed before of the coming of the Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers;
56 and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Acts 7

Acts 10:
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom also they slew, hanging him on a tree.
40 Him God raised up the third day, and gave him to be made manifest,

Acts 13:
28 And though they found no cause of death in him, yet asked they of Pilate that he should be slain.
29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a tomb.
30 But God raised him from the dead:

 

[agedman]

He breathed into him the spirit of life. Not the Holy Spirit.

So was this some different "spirit of life" as compared to the rest of the plant and animal kingdom that have life? I don't see you making the distinction that the Scriptures particularly point out when God formed Adam.

I don't recall yet seeing one. I didn't read your tomes, though. And holding to dispensational premellinnialism as you do, I assume there are a number of superstitious ideas floating around in your head.

To bad you "didn't read (the) tomes." You might remember though that I am a Pre-millennialist, who does hope for a rapture, and am dispensational only in the use of the outlining of Scriptures into socio-economic, and other indicators of eras or dispensations. It is true that many modern folks consider Pre-mil and Dispensationalism as the same, but there are a few differences.

It wasn't a sign to the unbeliever. No sign will be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, but the sign of Jonah. The Virgin Birth is a marvelous and wonderful sign to the believer, and it was a sign that God would redeem Israel. However it seems that God delights to signify his special servants with miraculous births: Isaac, Samuel, John the Baptist, and His own Son.

Ah, you missed the nuance I was hoping you might see.

The sign was covered, it wasn't revealed, (imo) not even in the birthing of Jesus. That is why it was not revealed to the general public, nor could it be and keep the dignity of Mary. The sign was placed in the Scriptures so that those who believe(d) and had ears to hear would identify the significance of the birth; however, the general population of unbelievers would consider Jesus of suspicious conception and birth (recall the remarks made by the rulers about Him and where He came from).

You mentioned the sign given to the unbelievers of Jonah; yet to this day, the unbelievers contend against the sign given. Rather, as the apostles record, the lie of the rulers continues to this day. But, again, the believers know. And (as Apostle John indicates) can use that sign to distinguish the veracity of a person and spirit.
What was a public sign, then becomes a private indicator of validation to the truth, just as that of Mary.

"Miraculous births" are really wonderful in showing the sovereignty of God and the very precise plans He lays out. A good place to start a preaching series.

 

[Aaron]

Ah, you missed the nuance I was hoping you might see.

I did?

The sign was covered, it wasn't revealed, (imo) not even in the birthing of Jesus. That is why it was not revealed to the general public, nor could it be and keep the dignity of Mary. The sign was placed in the Scriptures so that those who believe(d) and had ears to hear would identify the significance of the birth; however, the general population of unbelievers would consider Jesus of suspicious conception and birth (recall the remarks made by the rulers about Him and where He came from).

You mentioned the sign given to the unbelievers of Jonah; yet to this day, the unbelievers contend against the sign given. Rather, as the apostles record, the lie of the rulers continues to this day. But, again, the believers know. And (as Apostle John indicates) can use that sign to distinguish the veracity of a person and spirit.
What was a public sign, then becomes a private indicator of validation to the truth, just as that of Mary.

"Miraculous births" are really wonderful in showing the sovereignty of God and the very precise plans He lays out. A good place to start a preaching series.

And what, pray tell, is in the verbosity above that is not in the statement that the virgin birth is not a sign to the unbeliever, i.e., is seen by faith?

 

[Aaron]

screwed up the edit

 

[Aaron]

You might remember though that I am a Pre-millennialist, who does hope for a rapture, and am dispensational only in the use of the outlining of Scriptures into socio-economic, and other indicators of eras or dispensations.

Do you believe that if one blesses the Jews, then he is blessed?

 

[kyredneck]

You mentioned the sign given to the unbelievers of Jonah

That's not what he said. Aaron repeated Christs' words:

No sign will be given to a wicked and adulterous generation, but the sign of Jonah.

It wasn't a sign to just any ol' unbeliever, it was to that particular generation of the Jews that persecuted and murdered Him. Christ quoted from the Song of Moses by referring to 'a wicked and adulterous generation'.