Ask A Baptist Pastor

  • Thread starter Thread starter reformissionary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
geminiangel6670 said:
I am curious as to how Baptists say they are sola scriptura, and criticize Catholics for following “Tradition” (not truly understanding what Sacred Tradition is btw), but yet the things that they do are also traditions. I mean really, where in the bible does it say that you have to go to church 3 times a week, and Sunday School, and wear your suit and tie, etc. If that’s how your church wants to do it, great, but don’t say it isn’t your tradition or custom or rule. It just seems hypocritical to me.:hmmm:
Click to expand...
We don’t go to church 3x a week. We don’t have Sunday School. I don’t wear a suit and tie, or a tie, almost ever. I have no problems with tradition, or as some have called it the “Great Tradition” of the church as beautiful and meaningful and helpful. It’s when it becomes an authority in itself that it is harmful.

This is called a straw man argument. You set up my view falsely and knocked it down. Many have done this to me on this forum and NOT ONE has come clean and made a correction.
 
estesbob said:
You forgot the first rule of Sola Scriptura:

“All scripture is to be taken literally UNLESS doing so affirms a Doctrine of the Catholic Church”
Click to expand...
What does “literally” mean to you?
 
reformissionary said:
2 Peter 1 says, “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”

That’s hardly about someone interpreting Scripture. It’s about where the prophecy comes from, from God. It has NOTHING to do with OUR interpretation now. Prophets don’t just decide on their own what to prophesy. They speak what they hear from God. That’s why v 21 says…
Click to expand...
Right - which is why the Holy Spirit (that is, the voice of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) is the only proper interpreter of Scripture.

I am reminded of a story, so please bear with me.

I don’t know if you’ve heard of Stephen Leacock - he was a famous author here in Canada for many years. Anyway, one time, he was passing through a small northern community, and he noticed that at the local community college, they were holding a series of classes on his works. Just for fun, he signed up for the class, under a false name. The director of admissions knew who he was, but she was sworn to secrecy, and the teacher of the class had no idea who his new student was.

Anyhow, the class proceeded as these kind of classes often do, with the teacher expounding his opinions on the meaning of Leacock’s works, and coming up with all kinds of very profound stuff, most of which came entirely from his own imagination. For the final exam, the students were asked to write about the meaning of Leacock’s works, and naturally, Stephen Leacock wrote very honestly about what he had intended to convey in the works that were being studied.

You have already guessed by now that what he wrote did not conform in any way to what the teacher had been teaching the class.

Indeed, Stephen Leacock failed the class. Even when he revealed his true identity to the teacher, the teacher still refused to change his mind about what he thought the meaning of Leacock’s works was.

I sometimes get the same impression from many Protestants - that, even if the Holy Spirit were to reveal Himself to them personally, and explain to them about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would still continue to deny it.
 
reformissionary said:
What does “literally” mean to you?
Click to expand...
The plain sense of the text. There are four senses of Scripture: the literal (the plain sense), the allegorical (what it tells us about Heaven and the life of faith), the moral (the lesson on how we ought to behave), and the anagogical (the exercise of seeing yourself in the passage, eg: which character in the parable are you).
 
Welcome to the forums.

Since you are very frank about what you have “seen” from Catholics in your investigations of our faith. I feel that I can be fairly frank too.

You claim that you are a member of the Church of Calvin and that believe in the TULIP heresy. Could you explain to us your belief in predestination, specifically could you explain to us how in your conceptualization of an all loving God, he creates creatures with the specific purpose of eternal damnation. Not only that, he commands the “elect” to go and tell these creatures about how great it is to be loved by Him, but that they have absolutely no chance of redemption because at the end of the day, he loves some people more than others?

Viva Cristo Rey!!

Catholic Deacon
 
jmcrae said:
Right - which is why the Holy Spirit (that is, the voice of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church) is the only proper interpreter of Scripture.

<…>

I sometimes get the same impression from many Protestants - that, even if the Holy Spirit were to reveal Himself to them personally, and explain to them about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, they would still continue to deny it.
Click to expand...
Goodness sakes. The POINT is not about the Holy Spirit interpreting Scripture to us. The POINT is where did the prophecy that became Scripture come from? He inspired it. Which is NOT what we can say for Popes, though Catholics say it.
 
jmcrae said:
The plain sense of the text. There are four senses of Scripture: the literal (the plain sense), the allegorical (what it tells us about Heaven and the life of faith), the moral (the lesson on how we ought to behave), and the anagogical (the exercise of seeing yourself in the passage, eg: which character in the parable are you).
Click to expand...
Which sense is John 15:1ff?
 
reformissionary said:
Goodness sakes. The POINT is not about the Holy Spirit interpreting Scripture to us. The POINT is where did the prophecy that became Scripture come from? He inspired it.
Click to expand...
Right - which is why He is the only one qualified to interpret it. 🙂
Which is NOT what we can say for Popes, though Catholics say it.
Click to expand...
The Pope is not interpreting the Scriptures under his own power. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error as if it were truth.
 
reformissionary said:
SO dangerous to create false dichotomy arguments. It’s not Steve or the Church. It’s Church or Church. It’s Church based on Scripture or Church based on itself. It’s easy to get the wrong answers when you ask the wrong questions.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but it still boils down to Steve’s opinion vs. 2000 years of Apostolic Tradition handed down. So it’s the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church vs. johnny come lately church, based on Steve’s opinion and personal interpretation (with a heavy dose of Calvinist heresy).
 
reformissionary said:
Which sense is John 15:1ff?
Click to expand...
1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

All four senses apply here, as they do everywhere in the Bible.

Jesus is using figures of speech here that were easily understood by the disciples. The plain sense of the passage relates to the meaning of that figure of speech.

There is no corresponding figure of speech in any of the ancient languages of the Bible in which one would say “Eat my body,” or “This is my flesh” - therefore, these mean what the plain sense would indicate them to mean. We can’t just invent figures of speech out of thin air, and then say that, oh, obviously Jesus was using this figure of speech which we have just now invented.

To give a modern example, we have the expression “It’s raining cats and dogs.” If someone said this to you, you would understand him to mean that it is raining very hard, and you wouldn’t run to the window to see whether there were actual dogs and cats falling from the sky.

However, if he were to say “It’s raining flesh and blood” you would run to the window, expecting to see the aftermath of a horrible airplane accident, because you would assume he was speaking literally - and the reason you would make that assumption is because we have no figure of speech that contains the words “flesh and blood” to mean anything other than actual flesh and blood.
 
Please tell us how many years you attended seminary, and where.

Thank you,
Linda
 
jmcrae said:
Right - which is why He is the only one qualified to interpret it. 🙂

The Pope is not interpreting the Scriptures under his own power. The Pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from ever teaching error as if it were truth.
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
It is obvious rm is not here for discussion, but to make accusations against the Catholic Church which he obviously misunderstands a great deal. In all seriousness, I would really hope that you spend some time to learn what the Chruch really teaches and take a serious look at history. Individuals such as yourself are a major cause of misinformation and ill will toward the Church.

Also, there is nothing productive going to come out of this and I suggest people refrain from engaging further.
 
twopekinguys said:
I’m afraid you are right.

Sometimes more is said by silence than with an actual answer.
Click to expand...
I’ve given more personal information on this forum than probably any of you. I’m a Protestant. I disagree with Catholics on some things. I’ve been reading a lot and interacting with local Catholics (as I’ve mentioned before) and trying to understand Catholicism because so many in our area are Catholic (31% of local population, as I’ve mentioned before).

I mentioned before that I know most people aren’t convinced on forums, that some who linger around behind the scenes may be, but that the discussion can be helpful for all involved.

I’ve never even pretended or implied that I’m looking into the 2,000 yr old Catholic church to see if it’s the truth. Asking the question says more about how much of what I’m writing isn’t being read by those asking the questions than anything.

**Check yourselves. Weigh my involvement here and my approach to the conversation against the pat answers many are giving me. Against the local fallacies, straw man arguments, false dilemma arguments. Stop for bit, reread some, and ask if I could actually be here just honestly trying to interact on issues of truth with the faith I’ve been studying on my own.
 
Murphs10 said:
It is obvious rm is not here for discussion, but to make accusations against the Catholic Church which he obviously misunderstands a great deal. In all seriousness, I would really hope that you spend some time to learn what the Chruch really teaches and take a serious look at history. Individuals such as yourself are a major cause of misinformation and ill will toward the Church.

Also, there is nothing productive going to come out of this and I suggest people refrain from engaging further.
Click to expand...
Can you please quote me where I have shown a misunderstanding? Please quote the misinformation I’m giving. Thanks. To accuse me of that without showing it is very unchristian, don’t you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top