Whats the beef between RCC and Baptist anyway?

Frank says:

It indeed is a valid premise that the contents of any document be verifiable, just not exclusively by itself!
By even making this absurd claim you subject the claim to equally absurd counter-claims that any book that is "inspiring enough" or has an "acceptable amount" of prophetic statements (something totally within an interpreters opinion)could be the inspired word of God. Objectivity becomes a joke, and instead of the Church being built on Rock, we have a reed (a meaning of "Simon" and hence a further reason why Jesus changed the apostle's name) that sways any way the wind blows.

Tell it to the Mormons, or any one of the very zealous and well-intentioned cultists who then could build their case on their acts of human kindness.

 

Perhaps it is me, but did I notice a bit more irenic tone to your post this time? I shall endeavor to respond in kind. I do hope we can keep future correspondence "above the belt" so to speak.

Ray-You might be a tad bias here. If Luther would have gone back into the RCC you would never have penned the above words; he would only have been a zealous churchman.

I would hope that I would be able to distinguish true piety from fraudulent zeal. Sometimes they are a bit hard to distinguish between.

The fact is in his medieval spiritual darkness he could not find his way out of the maze. The Word of God brought about his spiritual awakening and quickening of the Spirit.

Please stop and think about what you are saying. If this truly was the case with the Church, why were thousands of others able to find peace and rest within Her? I must still maintain that the problem was with Luther's psyche and not the teachings or Sacraments of the Church.

The thief on the Cross was never baptized and Jesus promised him paradise; and yet he made it to Heaven.

I am VERY disappointed with this statement, seeing that you are a seminary trained person. Surely you must know that the thief on the Cross was still under the OLD COVENANT. The New Covenant had not yet begun. Therefore, he was already circumcized and in the Old Covenant. The only thing he needed was repentance, which he exhibited while dying next to Christ. Baptism did not come in until the New Covenant began, which would be after the resurrection of Christ.

Some Baptists and also you believe that Romans chapter six is speaking of water baptism, when in fact, the Apostle Paul is communicating the fact of a Spirit baptism when a person receives Christ as personal Savior. I'll cut you a $1,000. check in your name if you can show me one drop of water in all of Romans chapter six!

This is where we rely upon the testimony of the Early Fathers, those who were leaders in the Church in the first century and onward. The testimony they give shows that the baptism here here is indeed water, for they understood and practiced the Catholic/Orthodox understanding which the Church held in unison until the sixteenth century and the Reformation. As for the check, you know that I cannot prove from the Bible alone that there is water there. One must sometimes use other sources to prove doctrines, such as "what did the original believers understand this to mean?"

Acts 2:21 makes your theory that water baptism saves an error.

Not at all. Not if you understand the principles of "cutting covenant" with God and how one enters the covenantal family, as well as what it means to be in that family. Mankind is lost in Adam. Being part of him and partakers of his sin, we need "saved" from that condition. We need a new covenantal head over us. Baptism is the door by which we walk out of the room of condemnation and into the great banquet hall of God's gracious adoption as sons and daughters.

Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to
us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

I realize that this is what you have been taught, but the Bible shows us something entirely different:

Mt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Sounds to me like the Church has tremendous authority over men's lives.

And of course, there is the giving of authority by Christ to the apostles. Why do you insist upon overlooking those verses?

But more than that, your mindset is very much a product of Western democratic thinking in which men tend to think very "me" centered and tend to reject any and all authority over their lives. God does not have a democracy. He has a kingdom, and it is ruled like a kingdom, with hierarchy, with rules, and with structure.

And Jesus gave HIS AUTHORITY to the men whom He personally discipled and trained to bear it:

Ray-I agree with you 100% on this point.

I am considerably puzzled by this statement. We see in Acts 2 that the office of the apostle is passed on, having belonged to Judas, it is now given to Barnabas. If you agree that authority was given to the apostles as leaders of the Church, why would you deny the Church authority today? Does not the Church still need leaders? Do not the sheep still need authorative shepherds?

Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I mean Christ cleanses and forgives the sins and only then can the priest/minister declare their sins forgiven.

That's not what Jesus said. You know, the Lord was precise with His words. If he meant to say what you intimate here, He would have said, "When a man repents, then you may declare his sins forgiven to assure him."

But He didn't. He said that these men had the power to bind or loose sins. This is another case of working the Word of God so that it teaches something that does not contradict preconcieved notions. I know. Used to do it all the time myself.

The Apostle Paul and Peter speak of themselves as apostles and servants, not some kind of a robed, masterful, distributive person who hands out grace and the promise of eternal life because of super charged bread and wine. Grace only comes from Christ alone.

Christ is the cause of all grace. But He can and does use many instruments by which that grace is distributed to men. You are confusing the causitive and creative Agent of grace with the instrument His uses to dispense it.

As for the apostles, you again are mistaken. St. Paul knew his authority:

1Co 4:18 Now some are puffed up, as though I would not come to you.

19 But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power.

20 For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.

21 What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? ?

Sounds like St. Paul KNEW that he and not the Corinthians, had charge over the Church!! This is a disciplinary matter and notice how Paul deals with it. He is almost challenging the miscreants in Corinth to a showdown of power!!

Most Christians in various denominations understand that other brethren know Jesus and love Him. Where did you get your idea from as noted above?p

From reading their publications, of course.

No disrespect to you, but when I have gone to the RCC I felt like I was visiting with a dead God.

Well, that is one reason I did not join the RCC. I like my worship a bit more worshipful than the current Novus Ordo liturgy. Of course, each individual has his own personal relationship to Christ through faith and the Sacraments, and I am not privy to another man's piety. Don't judge all men in a Mass by the quality of the Mass itself.

I found no joy or happy celebration.

You REALLY should come to a Byzantine Paschal Liturgy. It is REMARKABLE!!!

As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or the wine that was emphasized in the first church.

Neither were they denigrated as the Protestant assemblies do, making the "supper" almost an afterthought to the preaching.

Again I agree with you. The Christians did celebrate the Holy Communion, possibly every time they met, but who was the object of their worship and veneration? Their center of focus was on Christ and not deceased saints, angels, or even the mother of our Lord.

Again, you paint a picture which is not in keeping with the spirit of the Catholic Faith. It seems that we are not allowed to mention at all or ever our brothers and sisters, the saints, or the Blessed Virgin. Not even one time or it is taking away from Christ.

Our Byzantine Liturgy runs for an hour (or slightly longer). During that time, numerous prayers are offered to the Lord for others, civil authorities, the sick, government officials, Church officers, etc. The Creeds are recited. A reading is given from the proper epistle for that day and a reading of the Gospel also.

There are two prayers of adoration to the Mother of God. Two. In an hour's service. Well, I guess for you that is two too many, right?

You know, the glory of the creator is not in himself, but in what he creates. I do stained glass windows as a hobby. No one glorifies me for that until they see what I have created. Then I recieve the glory as people make statements like this:

"How beautiful" "Wonderful work" "I love the colors you chose" and so forth.

And in the same way, the Blessed Mother is the apex of God's creative and redemptive work, for through Him and the Blood of the Cross, She was brought into being, pure and sinless, just as Eve was pure and sinless. The difference being, of course, that Eve did not need the Cross work of Christ to be created. After the Fall, the Blessed Virgin did.

To properly glorify Her, as God's magnificent creation, is to glorify Him. Once you get that concept, you will understand why we offer Her our praise.

Cordially in Christ through the Blessed Theotokos,


Brother Ed

 

The difference is I can ask 100+ people to pray for me and they will go to Jesus in prayer. Catholics go to Mary which in turn she goes to Jesus. Why not go straight to Jesus?

 

You ask 100 people to pray for you which in turn go to Jesus.

Why not go straight to Jesus?

 

You ask 100 people to pray for you which in turn go to Jesus.

Why not go straight to Jesus? </font>[/QUOTE]100
+ 1
---
101 for me

 

You still went to 100 others instead of Jesus directly 100 times. All you are doing is replacing Jesus' mother with others. If you may ask the others to pray to Jesus for you, why do you condemn the right of Catholics to ask Jesus' own mother to pray for us? He does have a history of honoring and obeying His mother you know...

Try the invisible barrier of death routine....
Stephen

 

Uh.. cause you're praying to a dead person and asking her to pray for you while asking a living, faithful and righteous man to join you in prayer is 'agreeing' and asking for God's touch, God's will. You're not praying THROUGH your friend but joining WITH your friend in prayer!

There's a MAJOR difference.

Diane

 

Mary is alive in heaven. Catholics ask Mary to pray for us and our intentions. We also pray directly to God ourselves. When you ask someone to pray for you, you do not then not pray for yourself.

God Bless

 

Why bother asking people to pray for us, then?

Besides, if you wanna be literal, we're not supposed to pray to Jesus. We're supposed to pray to the Father, invoking Jesus' name. But I almost never hear anyone saying that praying to Jesus is unbiblical.

 

All with Christ are alive with Him. From a spiritual view, there would be little difference between asking a living person to pray for you and a deceased person to pray for you. Also, Catholics don't (or, at least, aren't supposed to) pray to the deceased. Prayer is reserved for God. Calling upon the deceased to pray for someone on earth is not prayer. Of course, not everyone gets that concept, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, but that is a different topic.

 

Perhaps it is me, but did I notice a bit more irenic tone to your post this
time? I shall endeavor to respond in kind. I do hope we can keep future
correspondence "above the belt" so to speak.

Ray-God places no premium on being disagreeable just to unpleasant. I try to live up to the Word of God that I love. He tells me if I don't love people sincerely, ' . . . I am nothing.' [I Cor. 13:2g]


Please stop and think about what you are saying. If this truly was the case
with the Church, why were thousands of others able to find peace and rest
within Her? I must still maintain that the problem was with Luther's psyche
and not the teachings or Sacraments of the Church.

Ray-I realize that many people will be in Heaven because of your ancient church; hopefully enough of Christ was preached so that people could find the Lord. We feel that much of your belief system is extraneous and impertinent.



I am VERY disappointed with this statement, seeing that you are a
seminary trained person. Surely you must know that the thief on the Cross
was still under the OLD COVENANT. The New Covenant had not yet begun.
Therefore, he was already circumcized and in the Old Covenant. The only
thing he needed was repentance, which he exhibited while dying next to
Christ. Baptism did not come in until the New Covenant began, which would
be after the resurrection of Christ.

Ray-I agree that the N.T. covenant was not in force until after the Cross and on the Day of Pentecost, but Jesus nevertheless said, 'Today, you will be with me in Paradise.' Acts 2:21 and 16:31 have not one droplet of the water of baptism in them. Grace as you said correctly, comes from Christ alone. Baptism is or should be closely connected with finding Jesus as personal Savior. To be obedient to Christ every Christian needs to be baptized.



This is where we rely upon the testimony of the Early Fathers, those who
were leaders in the Church in the first century and onward. The testimony
they give shows that the baptism here here is indeed water, for they
understood and practiced the Catholic/Orthodox understanding which the
Church held in unison until the sixteenth century and the Reformation. As
for the check, you know that I cannot prove from the Bible alone that
there is water there. One must sometimes use other sources to prove
doctrines, such as "what did the original believers understand this to
mean?"

Ray-I value also the ideas of the Apostolic Fathers but I do not place them on the same authority level as the words coming from Christ which are found in the Bible. Also, the Bible speaks of Elders and Deacons in the N.T. church; I believe you only use/have deacons.


Not at all. Not if you understand the principles of "cutting covenant" with
God and how one enters the covenantal family, as well as what it means to
be in that family. Mankind is lost in Adam. Being part of him and partakers
of his sin, we need "saved" from that condition. We need a new covenantal
head over us. Baptism is the door by which we walk out of the room of
condemnation and into the great banquet hall of God's gracious adoption
as sons and daughters.

Ray--We have no such a doctrine as 'cutting covenant.' I cannot speak to this issue.

Authority is not to be found in a church building, denomination or a
one man prelate, but is found in the Word of God which has come to
us from the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

Ray-I agree with the authority of the church as to discipline of believers. But, since there is such a gap of belief in RCC and Protestantism, we would not agree with teaching people about Purgatory, Indulgences, and grace coming through the hands of the clergy. So our authority can only function in our churches; and your authority resides in your system.

And Jesus gave HIS AUTHORITY to the men whom He personally
discipled and trained to bear it:


Joh 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto
them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

I mean Christ cleanses and forgives the sins and only then can the
priest/minister declare their sins forgiven.

That's not what Jesus said. You know, the Lord was precise with His
words. If he meant to say what you intimate here, He would have said,
"When a man repents, then you may declare his sins forgiven to assure
him."
But He didn't. He said that these men had the power to bind or loose sins.
This is another case of working the Word of God so that it teaches
something that does not contradict preconcieved notions. I know. Used to
do it all the time myself.

Ray-Are you saying that a priest can go up to any sinner and say, "Your sins are forgiven you and the Lord will forgive this man his sins? If this is true that the 'freedom of the will of the individual man is tampered with when he may not really want to be forgiven/saved by Christ.

Ray-- The Apostle Paul and Peter speak of themselves as apostles and
servants, not some kind of a robed, masterful, distributive person
who hands out grace and the promise of eternal life because of
super charged bread and wine. Grace only comes from Christ alone.

Christ is the cause of all grace. But He can and does use many instruments
by which that grace is distributed to men. You are confusing the causitive
and creative Agent of grace with the instrument His uses to dispense it.

Ray-I cannot agree that one modicum of grace can come because of a human agent, minister or priest.

Ray-- Most Christians in various denominations understand that other brethren know Jesus and love Him. Where did you get your idea from as noted above?

From reading their publications, of course.

Ray-Although theologians disagree with each other over Protestant doctrine, none disenfranchise the others from being in the true faith of Christ. I have never read it, generally speaking.


You REALLY should come to a Byzantine Paschal Liturgy. It is
REMARKABLE!!!

Ray--I am pleased that you have found a church/denomination that meets your needs.

As much as we value the Communion Service it was not the wafer or
the wine that was emphasized in the first church.

Neither were they denigrated as the Protestant assemblies do, making the
"supper" almost an afterthought to the preaching.

Ray-I agree with you that some Protestant services of Holy Communion are not as meaningful as they should be for the congregants. I am comfortable in a more relaxed service, but my last church had a 'high church liturgy' and my Eucharist was formal and well thought out in my mind and heart. We had the broken bread and real wine.

Ray-- Again I agree with you. The Christians did celebrate the Holy
Communion, possibly every time they met, but who was the object
of their worship and veneration? Their center of focus was on Christ
and not deceased saints, angels, or even the mother of our Lord.

There are two prayers of adoration to the Mother of God. Two. In an
hour's service. Well, I guess for you that is two too many, right?

Ray-My denomination as probably most Protestant Churches would not allow an adoration of the mother of our Lord. I did however, preach on the great value of Mary's life and dedication to God. I was really pleased with it. The message was offered on Mother's Day. It was an emphasis on how Christian mothers should follow Mary's example of faith, even as she stood at the Cross of Christ.

You know, the glory of the creator is not in himself, but in what he creates.
I do stained glass windows as a hobby.

Ray-Our stained glass windows on the cathedral church building had to be protected with another glass shield covering over them. I am sure you make a lot of people happy with your gift to others and to the Lord.

 

Uh.. cause you're praying to a dead person and asking her to pray for you while asking a living, faithful and righteous man to join you in prayer is 'agreeing' and asking for God's touch, God's will. You're not praying THROUGH your friend but joining WITH your friend in prayer!

There's a MAJOR difference.

Diane </font>[/QUOTE]The angels and saints in heaven are very much alive -- maybe moreso than you or I, wouldn't you say? They are the most righteous, most perfected members of our family. That's the MAJOR difference! Why this stubborn refusal to ask them to pray for you / with you?

 

Mike S,

Why don't we pray to saints and why don't they respond to us?

God speaking through the Apostle Peter did not say, "Cast some of your cares on Me and the rest on the glorified saints above." What Jesus did say through the Apostle Peter was, 'Casting all your care Him, for He careth for you.' The Greek tense for 'casting' is an aorist active participle which suggests that we keep on casting {notice ALL} our cares on Christ because He really does care for us. Why should we cast all of our concerns on Him? It is because He has told us and demanded of us that we only have one Mediator between God and humankind. [I Timothy 2:5} and it reads, 'For there is {one} God, and {one} Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.' Notice also, that I John 2:1 speaks of our one Advocate and Mediator.

There is no passage in Scripture that tells us that the saints above, not even Padre Pio, that they are errand boys or girls in answering our prayers to Almighty God. Jesus is all wise and ever present so He can deal with the situation without human prompting coming from the doctrines of fallen, human men and women.

 

Stephen:
The premise I stated is valid. The Bible MAKES NO UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS about authority or divine content. The Bible demands proof. I Thes. 5:21. It is the EVIDENCE that forms faith. John 20:30,31. The miraculous power confirmed and authenticated the message and the one making the divine declaration. Again, Mark 16:20,II Cor, 12;12, John 20:30,31, Acts 20:9-11 and a host of other passages testify to the DIVINE ORIGIN AND CONTENT OF THE SCRIPTURES.

Furthermore, it is the case that George Washington was our first president. The same premise that sustains the argument he was president does so for the Bible. It is called EVIDENCE. The Bible and George Washington both use evidence to prove their claims. YOU JUST DO NOT LIKE THE EVIDENCE.

Furthermore, You CANNOT prove any authority for any body, magesterium, or council by the STANDARD OF GOD'S DIVINE WORD. Therefore, the claims that men and organizations are authoratative or inspired are false as they lack the divine irrefutable evidence to sustain them as divine in origin or context.

Now, If my premise is wrong, as you assert, you just have to do one thing PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE, NOT OPINION.

 

Frank,

The premise is not valid. You can throw all the scripture you want up, and it still cannot prove the premise that the Bible (and the Bible only!) proves in and of itself that it is the inspired word of God.

I suppose if you were actually debating with a Mormon or a Muslim which of our held writings was Devine in its inspiration, you would shout even more scripture. And he would answer in kind by shouting his proof from the Koran and neither of you would have an objective leg to stand on. The one with the more proof-texts win is perhaps how you'd expect to win that game. But just as I've been stating all along, your premise is reduced to nothing more than a relative perspective.

Frank, you've avoided answering any of the simple questions I've posted now in at least 5 separate posts in three different threads. Answer the outstanding questions and we can move to just how it is, and where Biblically speaking I can prove the Church's authority. But I've referred to these questions from the protestant perspective as being unanswerable and you have more than proven that premise.

God Bless

Stephen

 

Hi Homebound,

You asked, "The difference is I can ask 100+ people to pray for me and they will go to Jesus in prayer. Catholics go to Mary which in turn she goes to Jesus. Why not go straight to Jesus?"

You're asking for a good reason to pray to Mary instead of to Jesus, and I'll give you one. It is more humble to go to Jesus through Mary, and humility is the one virtue God finds irresistible in us.

Or, how about this one.. God gave Jesus to us through Mary, so we imitate God by praying through Mary to return to the Father by way of Jesus.

Finally, we glorify God when we pray to Mary because, in doing so, we honor his creation. God receives glory when we honor his works as a painter is honored when one spends time remarking at how beautiful his painting is or how an automobile maker is honored when one uses his creation for what it was created for, getting us from point A to point Z. God gives us Mary as a powerful intercessor and spiritual mother in Heaven in order to manifest his glory by sharing it with his creation. That's the secret behind the purpose for the Trinity's act of Creation and our glorification in being redeemed.

 

Just replace "saints" in your question with "friends" and tell me your answer.

They're my family! They don't mind helping out! They want to pray for me (and you)! Do your friends mind praying for you when you ask them to?

Stubborn, stubborn, stubborn!

 

Hi Carson, Maybe it is a term problem. You don't really "ask" Mary to go to Jesus, you pray to Mary that she will go to Jesus on your behalf. Mary is the object of the prayer. When we "ask" someone to pray for us, Jesus/God is still the object of the prayer, which is to come. If I ask you to pray for me I say Carson, I am really struggling with (insert issue here) please remember me in your prayers. I don't say to you

"Hail Carson, the Lord is with you, please help me in my need"

Unless there is a physical need that you can help me with, you cannot help me but Jesus can. Now here is the thing that I have brought up before and it has not been answered with any logic. I would not ask you to pray for me many times in a row. I wouldn't keep saying, Carson, please pray for me. Carson, please pray for me. If I did that you would slug me by the time I got to the 4th or 5th time

No, you are not asking Mary to pray for you, you are praying to Mary, she is your object. Now I realize you pray to Jesus as well, but the prayers addressed to Mary are truely prayers TO Mary.

Hope that made sense and wasn't degrading to Mary, as that was not the intention of this post.

In Christian Love,
Brian

 

Brian, you bring up a very good point. It's one thing for Catholics to claim they're merely asking Mary to intercede for them to God. If that was all they are doing, I wouldn't see that big of a deal, since we ask our neighbors to intercede for us all the time. It can be said that Mary and the saints are still part of our family, are "more alive" than we are, and are less distracted than us when praying FOR others.

However, in practice, it appears that Mary is treated almost as a goddess based on the content of the prayers that are said TO her and the titles ascribed to her. The Rosary itself consists of about 5 prayers to Mary to every one prayer to God Himself which is severely skewed in my humble opinion.

 

I agree with my Baptist friends above.

Every night, my good friend Jennie and I pray for each other's needs. Jennie has terrible anxiety and I've dealt with it some during menopause. We lift each other up in our prayers just asking God to be with our dear friend and to supply their needs. We JOIN in prayer for each other because we love each other. I am not praying TO Jennie but asking God to bless Jennie and that he give her a calm heart and mind. Jennie is not praying TO me for herself but is asking God, in love for me, that He take care of her friend.

Our church has prayer times where groups can come together and pray. On Sunday mornings we have groups praying during both morning services. They sit in a group and pray for the full time. They pray for the music, for visitors, the hearts of those involved, etc. The ladies have a once a month prayer night where we come together and pray for whatever we feel led to pray for that night. We join together and approach God enforce for the needs of our community, our church, each other.... It's a very touching time and we feel God's presence.

Hope that explains how I pray for others and with others. Thanks for taking the time to read.

Diane