Ask A Baptist Pastor

[RBK]

But bread and wine actually, literally becoming body and blood? No.

Again, according to you, not 2,000 years of consistent Church teaching.

 

[jmcrae]

1. Catholics tend to build the most important aspects of the Christian life out of “speculative theology.” For example Marian teaching is not based on clear inspiration from God as found in Scripture. God could have been very clear on the Catholic version of Mary. He didn’t. Yet Catholics keep running with their speculations and making them dogmatic. I’ve found many Catholic women who have a personal relationship with Mary much more significant than with Jesus.

This seems “speculative” to you, because you think that the Bible is the source of the Christian religion. It isn’t - rather, it is a product of the Christian religion.

The Apostles were praying Novenas with Mary in the Cenacle (for example, the Novena of the Holy Spirit, which they prayed from the day that Christ ascended into Heaven until the day that the Holy Spirit came, at Pentecost) decades before even the first word of the New Testament had been written down.

The words of the Hail Mary are entirely scriptural - it was the Angel Gabriel who gave us the first line, Elizabeth who gave us the second line, and St. Paul who taught us that we must pray for one another, thus giving us the last two lines.

Everything we know about Mary today was taught by the Apostles in oral fashion (by means of hymns, poetry, artwork, and litanies) at the same time that they were proclaiming the Gospel. Why didn’t they write these things down? Because with paper and ink as expensive as they were, you don’t write things down that everybody already knows.

In “Evidence demanding a Verdict” Josh McDowell points out that the Catacombs where St. Peter preached are covered in “Hail Mary” prayers that date back to his times - which is how they date those particular Catacombs back to his times.

 

[MarkInOregon]

1. Catholics tend to defend their faith by saying they** don’t do things they do**. Just saying that isn’t what you are doing doesn’t make it so. Doing is as doing does, not as the doer says. For example, “We don’t worship Mary!” Ok. Let’s talk about what worship is, what the incommunicable attributes of God are, etc. Let’s ask if what is ascribed to Mary is something to be ascribed to God alone or not.

O.k. I’d like to just let this go but…I still have a lot of work to do.

I would like to point out that just telling us what we are doing doesn’t make it so either.

So why don’t we start with this–we won’t tell you what you believe or what you do and please don’t be so condescending as to tell us what we do and that we aren’t smart enough to know what we are doing.

I think that will make the discussion much more fruitful. If you think you know better than we do – what we do and aren’t open to hearing what we actually do–then I don’t see what the point of the discussion is.

If we discuss what worship is and we come to an agreement and we tell you that’s not what we do with Mary–and you refuse to acknowlege that – and tell us that it is what we do whether we know it or not–then I posit nothing can come from the discussion and there is no reason to engage in it.

From reading the above from your OP I have some concerns about your desire to engage in meaningful discussion and thought we should seek some clarification.

Peace,
Mark

 

[WatchingMedia]

Against my better judgment I’m opening a catch-all thread for conversations that keep sparking up at the John 6 thread I started. I’m getting lots of questions & challenges there that deserve to be considered. This is the thread for those.

Here is more about me to try to get all that out of the way. All of this has been easily accessible if you go to my profile, despite the claims that I haven’t been open about what I believe. It’s all right there. If you want a starting point for you, why don’t you give this much info about yourself too? The more you keep private the less charitable people tend to be on these forums. So here we go…

After a lot of recent, intentional interaction with local Catholics through attending their own studies & Mass (which I give significant time to as they are 31% of our local population) I am greatly concerned with much. A few examples…

1. “Real Presence” teaching of the Eucharist has lead to Eucharolatry. The symbol of Jesus has become an idol and therefore a false Jesus. The real presence of Jesus is with us in the Holy Spirit at the Lord’s Supper and in every place believers go.
2. Also, Catholics tend to abuse the idea of “mystery” by making it a placeholder for inconsistency and error rather than actual mystery. How God can be three persons and one God at the same time is a true mystery. It isn’t illogical. It’s just beyond our comprehension. The “accidents” of the Eucharist is another example. It’s the “real presence” of Jesus yet it still looks and tastes like bread and wine.
3. Catholics tend to build the most important aspects of the Christian life out of “speculative theology.” For example Marian teaching is not based on clear inspiration from God as found in Scripture. God could have been very clear on the Catholic version of Mary. He didn’t. Yet Catholics keep running with their speculations and making them dogmatic. I’ve found many Catholic women who have a personal relationship with Mary much more significant than with Jesus.
4. Catholics tend to defend their faith by saying they** don’t do things they do**. Just saying that isn’t what you are doing doesn’t make it so. Doing is as doing does, not as the doer says. For example, “We don’t worship Mary!” Ok. Let’s talk about what worship is, what the incommunicable attributes of God are, etc. Let’s ask if what is ascribed to Mary is something to be ascribed to God alone or not.

That’s a start. Please don’t respond to this post by trying to refute every point. I get it. You don’t agree with my points at all. I assume that coming in. I’m just trying to tell you my starting point so as we talk you get a bit of what I believe and see and think.

My time on this forum is limited. I plan to spend a certain amount of time here each week and that’s what I can give. If this thread goes anything like the John 6 one, I won’t be able to respond to everything. Can we at least agree to try to aim small and make our questions and answers and arguments brief so this won’t consume our lives? If you try to post a huge thing, I’ll just ignore it. Let’s do one thing at a time.

I think it will be helpful for all of us to interact on topics of importance where we disagree. I doubt I’ll be convinced to change. I doubt you’ll be convinced to change. Public forums and personal pride of us all make it very difficult. But I know a lot will be trolling and some will be convinced. And I know working through issues will strengthen us in our beliefs if we truly will work through them with consistency.

So, let’s have some fun in the process and feel free to ask the baptist pastor. I’m open to the challenge.

If you do not want your points refuted, why did you print your points on this site.
Your logic does not make sense to me.
Sounds like a hit and run, and a waste of time. You want to do the all the talking and expect the rest of us to listen. - lets discuss but don’t refute my points ? ? ?
The stuff you brought up has been answered many times. Why don’t you just go back and read old postings?
No offense intended but it will save everyone time.

 

[fhansen]

Pastor, you’re not the first to turn away over some of Christ’s harder teachings-others who did so are mentioned in John 6:60 and following verses. And a reading of ECFs confirm that they, like today’s Church, held the Eucharist in deep reverence, considering it to be the actual Body and Blood.

 

[jmcrae]

Ha. Well done. Without meaning to break the funny, the point is someone can literally steal the body of Jesus from a Catholic church. You can’t do that to my Savior, to the biblical Savior.

Couldn’t this argument also be used to deny the Incarnation itself?

Is your Jesus the kind of Jesus who can get lost in the Temple, and cause His parents to become frantic?

Or how could Herod threaten your Jesus’ life, when He was born in Bethlehem? Do you believe in a Jesus who needs to be taken away into hiding by a mere man (Joseph) to protect Him from murderers? You might think I’m crazy - but that’s the Jesus I believe in.

Can your Jesus be crucified? Can He weep? Can He bleed?

Mine can. And, yes, He makes Himself vulnerable to thieves, and to those who would misuse His body for evil purposes, by continuing to remain with us, and giving Himself to us in the Eucharist.

No. When one says “I have Jesus in my heart” (I don’t use that terminology, and neither does the Bible) the meaning is not that Jesus is inside the muscle that pumps the blood through my body. When the Biblical writers talk about heart, they don’t mean that muscle either. Love the Lord with all your heart doesn’t mean with that muscle. It’s about relationship, faith, trust, etc.

Yes, but these things are all with us here on earth, as well. Your mind isn’t something distinct from your body. Your faith isn’t something distinct from your physical self. We are not souls wrapped in meat, nor are we bodies temporarily possessed by souls. We are a union of flesh and spirit, which together comprise our humanity.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Well–I have no need to ask a Baptist Pastor…anything…really. Because I disagree with YOUR interpretation. First off–some points…

I was raised Catholic…left when my parents divorced…meet my husband and got married at the Church of Christ. We also went a lot to Assembly of God and then conservative Baptist. So–been around the block in different religious arena’s. Back at the Catholic Church and agree whole heartedly with the teachings. I read parts of my bible now, for example, Acts…and it is completely different, or seems that way. I’ve pulled out my Protestant bible to compare…nope…same words.

So–when you read John 6–you think it’s symbolic…I do not. The apostles did not, the Church did not. Calvin thought it was symbolic. But I’d rather go with what I see and what the apostles taught. After all they were the ones with Jesus. Many of his followers left him that day because they could not handle it.

Let me ask you this…

In reading John 6:40, “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”

How can I see Him other than his Body present in the Eucharist? Or do you think that this was a gift only allowed for his disciples?

I suspect we will never agree on this…but you kind of opened a door when you said “EVERYONE needs to understand…what I believe.” I think I’m going to rely on the bible, the apostles, and the church started 2,000 years ago. If I need to rely on someone’s preaching in the present day…well I’m sticking with my priest, who is such a man of God, more than anyone I’ve ever met!

May God Bless you and hopefully someday you will see the truth.

Oh–and the book “the Lamb’s Supper” by Scott Hahn is a wonderful book. You should read it.

 

[reformissionary]

Again, according to you, not 2,000 years of consistent Church teaching.

According to Scripture.

Do you say there has never been disagreement in the church over any teaching? Or over teaching on the Lord’s Supper?

 

[JustaServant]

Justaservant, you said I am mislead because I look for miracles. I merely indicated those miracles to prove the Real Presence and the Authenticity of the Church. Sometimes it takes a miracle to make one believe.

Christ be with you

That wasn’t referring to you. That was an old post from an anti-Catholic on another forum.

 

[jmcrae]

According to Scripture.

Where in Scripture does it plainly state that the bread and wine are to be understood as mere symbols?

Everything I find says, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” - I can’t find the word “symbolizes” anywhere in the text.

Do you say there has never been disagreement in the church over any teaching? Or over teaching on the Lord’s Supper?

The consistent teaching of the Church regarding the Eucharist has been that it is the Real Presence of Christ, from the time of the Apostles until now. There has been no change in this doctrine at any time. Have there been non-Catholics who disagreed - yes. They have tended to follow the Gnostic heresy that all matter is evil - they teach that the Devil created the material world, and God created the spiritual world. These beliefs also persist until now, but there isn’t any evidence for them in the Bible.

 

[jam070406]

Steve,

(according to your theology) You could ask everyone in this thread if they “accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior”
They would say Yes.

***Done. ***

No need to listen further to Steve, no need to do anything, we’re on our way to Heaven, it’s assured.

So, my question is… why would anyone even bother going to your church? What’s the point? If we believe in Jesus everything else becomes irrelevant. We could sleep in Sunday instead of traveling to Steve’s Baptist church.
So why go and listen to you wax intellectual for an hour about your opinion of the Bible?

 

[twopekinguys]

I’m still waiting for the OP to address these questions from post #2.

Dear Steve,

I am curious: why are you here? Are you here to seek converts or are you here because the Holy Spirit is tugging at your heart and you are wondering if the Catholic faith is indeed the true faith founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago?

Or possibly is it as one poster put it, you are here to show Catholics how wrong they are?

Surely it is one of these.

 

[RBK]

According to Scripture.

Do you say there has never been disagreement in the church over any teaching? Or over teaching on the Lord’s Supper?

According to your interpretation of Scripture. There has certainly been disagreement among individuals, but the Church has never contradicted itself. For example, there was disagreement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the Church settled it. Just as there was disagreement in Acts 15 regarding Gentile converts, the Church settled it.

No Catholic here will be convinced of your interpretation until you can show us that it was the the teaching of the early Church as a whole - the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:4). Unless you can do that, you are spinning your wheels.

 

[reformissionary]

Couldn’t this argument also be used to deny the Incarnation itself?

Is your Jesus the kind of Jesus who can get lost in the Temple, and cause His parents to become frantic?

Or how could Herod threaten your Jesus’ life, when He was born in Bethlehem? Do you believe in a Jesus who needs to be taken away into hiding by a mere man (Joseph) to protect Him from murderers? You might think I’m crazy - but that’s the Jesus I believe in.

Can your Jesus be crucified? Can He weep? Can He bleed?

Mine can. And, yes, He makes Himself vulnerable to thieves, and to those who would misuse His body for evil purposes, by continuing to remain with us, and giving Himself to us in the Eucharist.

He does continue to be with us (Matthew 28) through His Spirit, not through His body/blood. John 15…

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.

Yes, but these things are all with us here on earth, as well. Your mind isn’t something distinct from your body. Your faith isn’t something distinct from your physical self. We are not souls wrapped in meat, nor are we bodies temporarily possessed by souls. We are a union of flesh and spirit, which together comprise our humanity.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

 

[jam070406]

According to your interpretation of Scripture. There has certainly been disagreement among individuals, but the Church has never contradicted itself. For example, there was disagreement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the Church settled it. Just as there was disagreement in Acts 15 regarding Gentile converts, the Church settled it.

No Catholic here will be convinced of your interpretation until you can show us that it was the the teaching of the early Church as a whole - the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:4). Unless you can do that, you are spinning your wheels.

RBK,
Why would I believe Steve over the guy who started the thread saying Jesus is not God? What authority makes Steve’s interpretation have more weight then that guy? They both picked up a Bible and both offered an interpretation.

 

[jmcrae]

He does continue to be with us (Matthew 28) through His Spirit, not through His body/blood. John 15.

It’s not “either/or”. The Spirit motivates the body.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

I am pointing out that even though having Jesus in our heart doesn’t (necessarily) mean that He is inhabiting the organ that pumps our blood, doesn’t make His presence with us any less tangible or real.

“Spiritual” is not a synonym for “symbolic” or “pretend.”

 

[reformissionary]

According to your interpretation of Scripture. There has certainly been disagreement among individuals, but the Church has never contradicted itself. For example, there was disagreement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, the Church settled it. Just as there was disagreement in Acts 15 regarding Gentile converts, the Church settled it.

No Catholic here will be convinced of your interpretation until you can show us that it was the the teaching of the early Church as a whole - the faith that was once and for all entrusted to the saints (Jude 1:4). Unless you can do that, you are spinning your wheels.

Catholic friends, you think by saying “your interpretation of Scripture” you are refuting something. Quick examination of that. 2 Timothy 3:16-17…

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

If I MUST show it by the early church as a whole to convince you, you are denying the very Scriptures you claim to hold to. I should be able to convince you by Scripture. And if you will ONLY be convinced by looking at the early church, your heart is hardened and have actually condemned yourself. Look to the Word. Don’t look merely for a “personal interpretation.” Look for the meaning of the text. Therein is found life. Therein is found truth.

 

[JustaServant]

Dear Steve,

I am curious: why are you here? Are you here to seek converts or are you here because the Holy Spirit is tugging at your heart and you are wondering if the Catholic faith is indeed the true faith founded by Jesus Christ 2000 years ago?

Methinks your question has been answered.

 

[reformissionary]

RBK,
Why would I believe Steve over the guy who started the thread saying Jesus is not God? What authority makes Steve’s interpretation have more weight then that guy? They both picked up a Bible and both offered an interpretation.

Because contradictions in interpretations means at least one (or both) must be wrong. Your argument isn’t with have AN interpretation, but with having NONE. Your problem isn’t with everyone’s personal interpretations, but with the right one verses all the rest. You sound like a relativist.

 

[RBK]

RBK,
Why would I believe Steve over the guy who started the thread saying Jesus is not God? What authority makes Steve’s interpretation have more weight then that guy? They both picked up a Bible and both offered an interpretation.

He has given us no reason to accept his interpretation over any of the other thousands of denominations who all claim to have found the truth through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If someone can prove to me that the faith handed on to the saints was 5 Point Calvinism with all the Solas, then I would gladly convert. But no one can do a thorough study of the early Church writings and come to that conclusion. The early Church, which gave us the Bible, was Catholic, with a capital C. History is a stubborn thing.