Ask A Baptist Pastor

[reformissionary]

And yet we are very obviously left with physical batons, such as baptism, and an actual organization, importantly featuring the apostles, for example, in the biblical account.

I’m not deny those things at all. It’s not that nothing is physical. I’m saying the physical passing of the baton from one Pope to the next to the next.

See Acts of the Apostles for lots of indisputable evidence of this. We are told to listen to the Church, that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, that the Church will be persecuted, that members were added to the Church, that there were disputes within the Church.

I agree with all that. The problem you have is that “church” means “assembly” and it’s impossible to assemble all Christians everywhere. “Tell it to the Church” makes no sense in your way of thinking unless by it you only mean tell it to the bishops or cardinals or whatever. Then your problem is that it isn’t the church, it’s the leadership. That’s not what Scripture tells us at all. .

It seems to me that you are trying to minimize the obvious organizational connotations of a Church that is one by substituting the purely imaginary unity of one gospel divorced-from-any-organization (i.e., not found in the Bible). But we are never told that our unity can be based on the Gospel books (which is the sense of ‘gospel’ you require if your ‘gospel unity’ is to be more than imaginary).

I don’t have a problem with churches having organizational aspects. Mine does. Scripture says have elders and deacons and such. But if there’s a dispute it would ultimately come before our local church, not some massive worldwide powerful organization.

Our unity is based on the gospel in a broad sense, and I think that is what is confusing you. You seem to be using gospel in two equivocal senses: the substantial content of the faith safe-guarded to the Apostles (which includes a more or less explicit organizational ecclesiology) vs. the books that we call the gospels, alone - but not alone, since illuminated, although in a disorganized and contradictory way(!), by the Holy Spirit.

I know the difference. I’m not confusing the two.

Now obviously the unity of the Word is paramount, but then the means of preserving that unity is also paramount and this means obviously cannot consist of just the written word - the written word is ink on paper and doesn’t do anything on its own, that’s why it cannot possibly be an authority in the proper sense of the word. And that is the basic point of common sense that you are refusing to acknowledge, time and again.

Of course the written word can’t do anything on it’s own. It would have to be read, taught, preached, etc. Paul said to Timothy, Preach the Word. Reprove. Rebuke. Exhort. He refers back to what is written. In a real way, he has nothing else meaningful to say but the Word. And how beautiful are the feet that preach the good news (“Gospel”). Jesus overcame the temptations of the Devil by pointing to what was written.

It is authority because when we use it properly and understand it truly, we speak the words of God. That’s why the writer of Hebrews said the word of God is living and active. It is God-breathed. It has power because God attends it by His Spirit.

 

[reformissionary]

Who told you that the Bible was Inspired?

Well, lots of people. And scholars. And books. But they all point to the Bible itself. God’s words always prove themselves by accomplishing what He sends them to do. Paul says to Timothy they are God-breathed.

 

[reformissionary]

The Catholic Church tells me the Bible is inspired and without error…, not the Bible.

The Protestant churches say so as well. But they could be wrong. I’ll take God’s word for it.

 

[PaigeLovesJesus]

You do sound like a good Christian man. I think you would make a very good Catholic! The Tiber is beckoning! Our Lord is beckoning. Have you been to Mass? Have you come to adoration? You can ask Our Lord if He is present there in His physical actuality.

Good for you, Ave (and others), for being so sweet and so welcoming, much like Our Lord!

 

[Byzman]

You are missing the point of what it means to “Tell it to the Church.” It shows that the Church that is spoken of is not an invisble body of believers, but a visible body of believers with a visible head of the Church.

 

[Betterave]

Steve,
I just wanted to add that this has been a crazy busy thread. If there have been any lapses of love in the dialogue of us Catholics (especially myself), I apologize. (I hate being a clanging gong, but I know it happens sometimes.) Good night and God bless.

 

[clmowry]

Steve, I know you are busy, but you are missing the point here and it really is the central point that must be addressed. It factors into EVERY part of the discussion.

It is NOT a matter of whether one can prove both Oneness pentacostal and Trinitarian Doctrines fromt he Bible. Obviously both sides, both claiming divine guidance, believe they are right and are able to site passages from the Bible to prove their point. Where their is conflict, each side accuses teh other of "misunderstranding and misinterpreting.

We can have, and indeed are having, the same argument over ANY doctrine that is not shared by ALL the Christian faiths. What about the doctrines that you do not share with all your Protestant bretheren including infant baptism, immersion, Real presence, Faith alone, OSAS, and others. Forget arguing with Catholics. How do you determine which of the many doctrinal views is correct amomng yourselves whe you have only the Bible and the Holy Spirit???

The question is how do we determine which really IS right when both sides are well meaning and convicted in their beliefs being divinely revealed and bible based.

Remember that passage in Mt 18 about, “Tell it to The Church”, and then abiding by the decision of The Church?

Peace
James

Are there any beliefs that ALL non-Catholic “Chirstians” share?

What is “Mere Christianity” in 2010?

Is there anything at all that one must belive to be “Christian?”

I’m willing to bet we can find sects with diametrically opposed positions on just about any subject we cared to investigate.

Chuck

 

[Byzman]

Well, lots of people. And scholars. And books. But they all point to the Bible itself. God’s words always prove themselves by accomplishing what He sends them to do. Paul says to Timothy they are God-breathed.

Uh-oh! Houston we have a problem! Now we have people telling you that these books are inspired. But you being a Protestant…I’m sure you wouldn’t believe in Sacred Tradition? Would you? This sounds like Sacred Tradition to me…some sorta belief being passed down saying “hey these books are inspired…look the Bible says so!”

 

[reformissionary]

So do you still want to contrast your position of ‘gospel unity’ with our ‘organizational’ view of unity? That doesn’t seem like an option, unless you have some non-organizational means of guaranteeing gospel unity, e.g., of recognizing the authority/legitimacy of the rulings of some particular “local body of believers” - right???

The Catholic church can’t guarantee unity either. I listen to a lot of Catholic Answers Live and EWTN. Plenty of stories of disunity among Catholics. Should you keep supporting Notre Dame?

Look, it’s the fault of the “Catholic Church” that the Protestant Reformation happened. Luther tried to stay and bring correction. They didn’t let it happen, and so the error of the church led to NOT the splitting of the church, but the renewal of the Church by a return to the Word. For all the complaining about the number of denominations, the Catholic church has them too. They are just inner divisions because of the fear of leaving what they are told is the One True Church. I’ve heard this stuff time and again.

Just this week was told that That Catholic church is contemporary where this one is traditional, so people drive outside their parish to another church because this one talks about sin and that one I didn’t hear about sin for 5 years. Catholics, wake up!

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by reformissionary
No I don’t. Look, and I say this to everyone, this is really important. Many Catholics misunderstand this. I get why, but let me help explain it.

In this you are both right.
The Catechism clearly states that anyone receiving trinitarian baptism is a part of The Church, albeit those outside of the 'Visible Catholic Church" are in an imperfect communion with the Church.
Yet Christ did provide for an Authoritative Church, which came to be called the Catholic or Universal Church", and not a hodgepodge of conflicting non-authoritative “invisible” Churches.

The following is from the Catechism:
**Wounds to unity **

817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.
**818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” **

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

**Toward unity **

820 “Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time.” Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: “That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me.” **The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit. **​

 

[Byzman]

The Catholic church can’t guarantee unity either. I listen to a lot of Catholic Answers Live and EWTN. Plenty of stories of disunity among Catholics. Should you keep supporting Notre Dame?

Look, it’s the fault of the “Catholic Church” that the Protestant Reformation happened. Luther tried to stay and bring correction. They didn’t let it happen, and so the error of the church led to NOT the splitting of the church, but the renewal of the Church by a return to the Word. For all the complaining about the number of denominations, the Catholic church has them too. They are just inner divisions because of the fear of leaving what they are told is the One True Church. I’ve heard this stuff time and again.

Just this week was told that That Catholic church is contemporary where this one is traditional, so people drive outside their parish to another church because this one talks about sin and that one I didn’t hear about sin for 5 years. Catholics, wake up!

Those who persist in sin and disagree with the doctrine of the Church are not in communion with the Church…until one goes to confession and is restored, or what St. Paul and the Church calls it Reconciled.

 

[JRKH]

And on the same note I could say that the Catholic view is pride at its finest then, since they have the corner on the market of being the true church. But then there are those other pesky groups who also also claim Apostolic Succession.

And those groups would be whom??
The Eastern Orthodox? Certainly accepted by Rome in Charitably as the Other Lung of the Church as John Paul II described it.
I believe also that the Anglican community also claims apostolic succession.
You might be interested to know that Rome is in discussion with both of these groups with an eye toward working out our differences and restoring full communion.
In fact there are have already been great strides in bringing home those of the Anglican branch.

Pride, yes, but it is a humble pride born of service.

Peace
James

 

[Byzman]

And those groups would be whom??
The Eastern Orthodox? Certainly accepted by Rome in Charitably as the Other Lung of the Church as John Paul II described it.
I believe also that the Anglican community also claims apostolic succession.
You might be interested to know that Rome is in discussion with both of these groups with an eye toward working out our differences and restoring full communion.
In fact there are have already been great strides in bringing home those of the Anglican branch.

Pride, yes, but it is a humble pride born of service.

Peace
James

Except Anglicans have no valid orders! they lost their apostolic succession.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by reformissionary
Why don’t you pray to him and wear his medal and put a candle in front of his haloed icon and maybe you’ll experience a Marian apparition! Oh wait, he’s the pet saint, right?

In this I must agree with Guanaphore. While I don’t know for sure, I assume that the sint refered to here is St Fancis of Assisi. One of the Greatest saints and examples of Christian Love and Charity who left a life of Ease and Wealth to live in abject poverty, prayer, and to call many in the Church back to Holiness. Even those high up in the heirarchy.
It is His Love for ALL of God’s creation that has earned him the title of patron of animals or pets or whatever the specific title is.
And He wrote this among many other things.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon:
where there is doubt, faith ;
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
where there is sadness, joy
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.

I don’t think that ANY Christian group could produce anything better.

Peace
James

 

[ConvertHereYay]

In this I must agree with Guanaphore. While I don’t know for sure, I assume that the sint refered to here is St Fancis of Assisi. One of the Greatest saints and examples of Christian Love and Charity who left a life of Ease and Wealth to live in abject poverty, prayer, and to call many in the Church back to Holiness. Even those high up in the heirarchy.
It is His Love for ALL of God’s creation that has earned him the title of patron of animals or pets or whatever the specific title is.
And He wrote this among many other things.

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon:
where there is doubt, faith ;
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
where there is sadness, joy
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.

I don’t think that ANY Christian group could produce anything better.

Peace
James

I agree.

Steve Baptist Pastor: I could just as easily make some derogatory comment about Bible thumping Protestants bent on six 24 hour day creationism etc/Rapture etc.​

You yourself admit your denomination is not the One True Church of Jesus Christ.Thus, you have little justification encouraging Catholics to turn into any of the many brands of Protestantism.

Unlike the Catholics here, you arguments lack substantive evidence from the early Church.

 

[JRKH]

Catholic friends, think outside your normal categories. You don’t have to agree, but at least try to understand what I’m saying. We use different words with different meanings and it takes some effort on both ends. I’ll agree to try if you will.

The language you use quoted here and as others have said shows to me (tell me if I’m wrong) that you think of the church organizationally. The CHURCH, the Pope, you can point to the CEO and say his name. I don’t believe that’s what God intended for the church around the world…at all. I believe he intended our unity to be on the gospel, not on the organization.

So…again…for you the boundaries of who’s in and who’s out is the organization and what they say. I believe God says it’s the Gospel and who believes. Lineage is not by “circumcision” (to use the OT example) but by faith. Leadership is not by physical baton, it’s by Gospel/faith baton.

That’s probably a little bit simplistic, but I’m really trying hard to break a barrier between us here. May need to tweak things a bit as we discuss.

I think that there is another very basic problem here and that is - you seem to labor under the delusion that the Catholic Church is not centered on the Gospel. Am I correct in that? If not, please know that we are a Christ Centered Church and that Includes the “Good News” or “Gospel” that you refer to.

I understand what you are saying about organization, and I agree that we could argue about what is the best structure of the Church would be, but to say that there should be no authority other than the written text, no heirarchy, no “Vicar of Christ” is totally wrong.

Look at how quickly conflict arose. It required authority to resolve the matter in Acts 15.
Additional heresies had to be addressed such as Gnosticism, Arianism and so forth. It was only through the prayerful efforts of the Organized Church that the Truth of the Gospel was maintained.
Christ Himself told us to “Tell it to The Church”. Why do you and other Protestants continue to be blind to this?

I actually ran a thread on this some time back. I asked the Question of Protestants, " How do you “Tell it To The Church”. I’d be happy to provide the link if you’d like to skim it. The upshot of the discussion was this.
Protestants use the same basic method to resovle doctrinal issues as Catholics with one vital exception.
If they have someone (or group) who will not “listen to the Church” and is asked to leave, that person can go down the street to the next block, set up another church (with like minded members from the old church) and teach the error - And their former church is basically powerless to either stop them or to declare them anethama or heretics.
This is because, in rejecting the authoritative Church, the Protestant reformers effectively renounced their ability to protect the Gospel from distortion.
Protestants cannot truly fulfill the instruction in Mt 18:15-18 and the result is thousands of different sects, denominations, doctrines etc all claiming The Bible and The Holy Spirit. But what is missing is the humility to get together, talk out the differences and to submit to whatever decision is agreed upon, whether you personally agree with it or not.

This is the crucial difference.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

His answer is going to be the same…“those who are in line with the Gospel is correct.”

Maybe - but I’d rather we let him answer for himself.

Peace
james

 

[LionHeart777]

Once Saved Always Saved as Catholics have TOLD ME I believed is not what I believe. If you want to know if I believe it or what I believe, that would be more meaningful than assuming we all believe it in the way you have been told we do.

brother reformissionary,

I know that sometimes Calvin’s Doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints is used interchangeably w/ OSAS but that they need not mean the same thing. I’m pretty familiar w/ the “Free Grace” position as proposed by Ryrie and Hodges, and the “Lordship Salvation” position proposed by Macarthur and others. I know there is a spectrum in between too. It’s been a while since I read up on that debate though.

To me it doesn’t really matter because both positions (and those along the spectrum), hold to the belief that once a person is regenerated that there is no chance of them forfeiting their salvation. If I’m not mistaken, they will just disagree on who is/was genuinely regenerated.

Can you cite one reference of a early Christian writer who held to the view that once a person had been regenerated, that they couldn’t be lost due to sin?

I know of none, but could cite others to the contrary. As far as I am aware of, the 1st time this belief pops up in Christian history is with Calvin. So one of my points was that if this belief based upon one’s interpretation(s) of Sacred Scripture were correct, than logically we should see that teaching in the writings of those in the early Church. From all I have read, this belief is not only absent from the early Christian writers, they seem to believe that one could forfeit their own salvation having once been regenerate. If that is the case (which I believe the historical record shows), than maybe all the “other” passages in Scripture used by Christians to teach that one can lose their salvation should be given another look.

 

[JRKH]

I’m not deny those things at all. It’s not that nothing is physical. I’m saying the physical passing of the baton from one Pope to the next to the next.

I agree with all that. The problem you have is that “church” means “assembly” and it’s impossible to assemble all Christians everywhere. “Tell it to the Church” makes no sense in your way of thinking unless by it you only mean tell it to the bishops or cardinals or whatever. Then your problem is that it isn’t the church, it’s the leadership. That’s not what Scripture tells us at all. .

I don’t have a problem with churches having organizational aspects. Mine does. Scripture says have elders and deacons and such. But if there’s a dispute it would ultimately come before our local church, not some massive worldwide powerful organization.

I know the difference. I’m not confusing the two.

Of course the written word can’t do anything on it’s own. It would have to be read, taught, preached, etc. Paul said to Timothy, Preach the Word. Reprove. Rebuke. Exhort. He refers back to what is written. In a real way, he has nothing else meaningful to say but the Word. And how beautiful are the feet that preach the good news (“Gospel”). Jesus overcame the temptations of the Devil by pointing to what was written.

It is authority because when we use it properly and understand it truly, we speak the words of God. That’s why the writer of Hebrews said the word of God is living and active. It is God-breathed. It has power because God attends it by His Spirit.

This is good writing here. So you DO recognize the need for organization and authority.

As regard to the bolded section, Do yo think that the Apostles gathered the ENTIRE community of believers in Acts 15? Antioch sent representatives, three or four I think. Do yo think the entire community of "Judaizers’ were there? How about Corinth, Rome, Galatia, etc? Were they present?? Of course not. The Church leadership was present, the Elders of The Church. It was they who made the decision that stands even to this day in all truly Christian Churches.

Now fast forward to today. Matters needing addressed almost always come from the bottom up.
Just as in your church, the laity begin to ask questions about this matter or that. New discoveries raise new questions etc.
The Laity begin asking their pastors.
The pastors begin talking among themselves and with the bishops.
The Bishops talk and write to each other and eventually Rome becomes involved.
The Priests and Bishops and Rome study together on the issue perhaps makeing preliminary statements and so forth but always praying and studying until a consensus is reached based upon Scripture, Previous teachings and writings that might be applicable and Tradition.

The only difference between the Catholic method and the Protestant method is that the Catholic Church reaches all the way up to the “Universal” and it is Historically consistant.

You say above that, "*if there’s a dispute it would ultimately come before our local church, not some massive worldwide powerful organization. * But what if the same dispute came up before your church in Chicago and a Southern Baptist Church in Ohio or Tennessee and the two churches made opposing decisions? Unlikely perhaps but not out of the realm of possiblility either.
The, "worldwide powerful organization, provides us with a way to resolve these differences so that the Unity of the Body of Christ be maintained and the Truth of the Gospel not be blurred or twisted or confused.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

The Catholic church can’t guarantee unity either. I listen to a lot of Catholic Answers Live and EWTN. Plenty of stories of disunity among Catholics. Should you keep supporting Notre Dame?

Be careful to distinguish between what some “so called catholics” say and what is actually taught by the Magisterium. Stick to what is documented teachings of the Church as contained in the Catechism and you won’t be confused.
As to other discussions - Thes thing only prove the “freedom” that is to be had within The Church.

Look, it’s the fault of the “Catholic Church” that the Protestant Reformation happened. Luther tried to stay and bring correction. They didn’t let it happen, and so the error of the church led to NOT the splitting of the church, but the renewal of the Church by a return to the Word. For all the complaining about the number of denominations, the Catholic church has them too. They are just inner divisions because of the fear of leaving what they are told is the One True Church. I’ve heard this stuff time and again.

While no one here would minimize the errors of persons in the Church that contributed to the Split, there is plenty of blame to go around. This is without even getting into the political aspects that added to the issues. It is my firm belief that, had national politics not gotten involved in the dispute, the Reformation would have been resolved long ago.
Too much to get into here and now…

Just this week was told that That Catholic church is contemporary where this one is traditional, so people drive outside their parish to another church because this one talks about sin and that one I didn’t hear about sin for 5 years. Catholics, wake up!

Here again you mistake various “spiritualities” freely expressed within The Church for “Disunity”.
Within the Catholic church we have everything from Ultratraditionalists to Charismatic - Tongues speakers. We have Deeply Spiritual and Mystical groups and highly socially active groups. We have hermits and cloistered monks and nuns.
Each of these groups from the highly introspective to the highly emotional from mystic to Charismatic function within the Huge umbrella of The Church.

By this I don’t mean that we don’t argue. Heavens no - We fight like any other large family and some get angry and leave. But please don’t confuse broadly accepted styles of worship, prayer, meditation etc. for “disunity”.

Peace
James