Ask A Baptist Pastor

[reformissionary]

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

Um, no. Through the HOLY Spirit.

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.”

I have no idea why you are even continuing this line of discussion. What point are you trying to make? State it plainly. So are you saying Jesus’ body and blood are with us when I’m playing Frisbee?

 

[jmcrae]

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

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.

Please notice that it does not say “Only Scripture is useful …”

All Scripture is useful, yes - but the context of this passage is St. Paul’s ordination of St. Timothy to be a Bishop of the Catholic Church, passing on to him the authority given to the Apostles to preach, teach, evangelize, and administer the Sacraments, and instructing him in the wise use of his authority.

 

[brianwalden]

Dear Pastor McCoy, you said not to respond to each point, but I don’t really know how else to proceed. So here are my questions for you (your statements in italic, my questions/comments in bold):

1. “Real Presence” teaching of the Eucharist has lead to Eucharolatry. The symbol of Jesus has become an idol and therefore a false Jesus. By what authority has this been determined? Catholics and Orthodox will disagree with you on this point (and will do so by citing scripture). How have you determined that the view you hold is correct? The real presence of Jesus is with us in the Holy Spirit at the Lord’s Supper and in every place believers go. Catholics believe as you do that the Holy Spirit is with us at the Lord’s Supper and in every place believers go. The term real presence is used to describe a different way that Catholics believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Does your denomination use the term “real presence” to describe the way that the Holy Spirit is with us? I don’t think the term has been historically used in this way; even denominations like Lutherans who believe in the Real Presence (but believe it occurs by consubstantiation rather than transubstantiation) believe that this presence is different from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

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. I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You seem describe the Trinity as a paradox (seems contradictory but actually isn’t), which I agree with. Then you seem to describe what Catholics believe takes place during the consecration. But I can’t see how you’re contrasting it with the example you gave of the proper use of mystery. Maybe you’re confused that the change in the substance of the bread and wine is the mystery Catholics describe - in fact it’s only the tip of the iceberg. The true mystery that Catholics claim takes place in the Eucharist is how the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary present so that we can participate in offering Jesus to the Father. We are then fed by this sacrifice, which we believe is the Lamb of God Himself, just as the Jews would have been fed by a sacrifice.

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. Catholics believe God’s revelation is handed down through Tradition. By what authority do you limit His revelation only to Scripture? God could have been very clear on the Catholic version of Mary. He didn’t. Catholics think their beliefs are clearly in Tradition and supported by Scripture. What measure do you use to determine that God wasn’t clear? Yet Catholics keep running with their speculations and making them dogmatic. Are your beliefs Dogma? If not, how do you know that Catholics are wrong in their Marian beliefs instead of this merely being an issue which Christians can legitimately disagree on? I’ve found many Catholic women who have a personal relationship with Mary much more significant than with Jesus. Was this your interpretation or did they actually say this themselves?

4. Catholics tend to defend their faith by saying they don’t do things they do. We’re one of the only Churches I know that publishes a Catechism describing what all Catholics should believe - that’s certainly not defining our faith by what it isn’t. You might be accustomed to Catholics always saying things they don’t do because they’re being accused of doing those things by non-Catholics (or un-catechized Catholics). 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!” What is it that Catholics do that is worshiping Mary? The Catechism, the Mass, the Liturgy of the Hours, the prayers of the Rosary, etc. are all available free online - please cite the Mary worship in them. Just saying we kneel before statues doesn’t cut it anymore than seeing someone kneeling at a grave site proves they’re worshiping their dead relative. *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. * Please go ahead and tell us what worship is and what the incommunicable attributes of God are. I’m interesting in learning more about what you believe.

 

[jam070406]

Don’t look merely for a “personal interpretation.” Look for the meaning of the text. Therein is found life. Therein is found truth.

Um Steve…people have been telling you that they believe the words of Jesus when He said, “this IS my body” etc. etc. is proof of the Real Presence and the actual meaning of the text.
Yet you’ve been jumping through hoops to promote your own personal opinion that Jesus meant something different. So your opinion differs from everyone you’ve been arguing with that has read the text themselves. And you contradict the Early Church, some of whom knew the Apostles personally.

 

[jmcrae]

Um, no. Through the HOLY Spirit.

I have no idea why you are even continuing this line of discussion. What point are you trying to make? State it plainly. So are you saying Jesus’ body and blood are with us when I’m playing Frisbee?

I am responding to where you were saying that Jesus is far away in Heaven, and has nothing to do with the things of this earth.

Jesus is present in a real way in your heart (which you can define as your mind, or your faith, or your feelings - whatever makes the most sense to you) when you are playing Frisbee, when you are eating, when you are doing whatever you do in life.

Jesus is also present in an even more tangible way (because not only can He touch us, but we can also touch Him) in the Eucharist.

 

[RBK]

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

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.

Absolutely not, for the Bible came out of the Church. And 2 Tim. 3:16-17, says that Scripture is useful, not solely sufficient. Scripture also says that no prophecy is a matter of personal interpretation.

 

[jam070406]

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.

And who are you to say 2000 years of unwavering belief in the Real Presence, as interpretated from scripture, is wrong?
You’re right that someone has to be wrong. Steve or the Church, filled with Saints, Martyrs, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit since Penetecost? Why would I go with …Steve’s interpretation?

 

[jmcrae]

Um, no. Through the HOLY Spirit.

Just as your soul is the life of your body, so also, the Holy Spirit is the life of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. When a voice is heard to be speaking, and when we repeat it we preface it by saying “The Church says …” this is Christ, speaking to us.

 

[JustaServant]

RM, I also was once a Baptist pastor, for fourteen years. Do you think you can understand everything in just a few ‘soundbites’ on an internet forum?
Take some time and read, not the posts, but Church history, the ECFs, the Cathecism, ect.
Learn to ask questions, not just assuming you have all the answers.
Or as Louis L’amour put it:
Question everything, and when you find what seems to be an answer, question that too.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Have you watched this clip?

youtube.com/watch?v=iqwk6QDVZ-k&feature=player_embedded#

 

[jmcrae]

Have you watched this clip?

youtube.com/watch?v=iqwk6QDVZ-k&feature=player_embedded#

I like that - he’s a great preacher!

 

[skeyes]

Steve, I can’t imagine why you are on a Catholic forum to begin with. I doubt that you have really settled in your mind why you are here. You think you are hear to correct a few of us “poor Catholics” and to bring us to understand how we must be wrong, because surely we should agree with you. But I pray that the truth is that you are here because you have a void and don’t really know how to fill it. Instead of coming right out to tell us you are longing for the truth, you attack us, but I am quite sure that you are hungry. It has to be this or you would just be trying to convert us to the Baptist faith according to Steve.
Now that doesn’t sound right, does it? You wouldn’t really be wasting your time trying to convert other Christians when there are scores of other people to show Jesus to. You could begin with the huge muslim population in your own city. You see that would be making Jesus present in world. Coming here for us to spin our wheels trying to convince you that the Church is right is disingenous and only leads to distrust. Spend your time on the folks that aren’t settled or please just ask for help instead of attacking our Church and its practices.

In Christ,
Stan

 

[RB2]

Man! – This thread is viral.

One thought: Reformissionary you said you only wanted to discuss John 6.

However, you cannot distill John 6 seperate from what God & Jesus intended if you dont look to what the apostles taught the early church. The Early Church Fathers- some of these writers were tutored by and knew one or more of the apostles and went on to become Bishops.

Many protestants will read a book by say John Calvin or Billy Graham, but then throw up there nose at say Ignatius of Antioch and his letters-- born appx. 35AD , died 108AD, who knew and was tutored by John the Apostle and then eventually became the 3rd Bishop of Antioch. His writings/letters and others are ‘the early church’.

I’m smart enough to not join a dog pile.
Adios

 

[geminiangel6670]

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.

 

[JustaServant]

Well RM, since none of us can convince, I guess it’s time again for me to let my elderly three-legged cat Smokey answer. Like I said before, he’s a whiz at Catholic theology:

Well youngin’, the early Church fathers were unanimous in their view that the bread and wine literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. Many of these Fathers lived during apostolic times (Ignatius, Polycarp). All the Fathers claimed to be handing on what they received from the apostles. The historical witness is more than compelling, and this poses a real problem for Protestant theology, 20 centuries removed.
Unfortunately for you, you cannot find one single witness in the early Church to support your interpretation. And more so, the entire patristic witness of the first ten centuries of the Church disagrees with you. I have found that, instead of honestly investigating what the early Church believed, many Protestants rather persevere in their erroneous opinions because of pride, ignorance or prejudice against the Catholic Church.

Smokey’s attention is diverted to a housefly. He jumps down from the keyboard to go on the ‘hunt’
Oh how the mighty have fallen…

 

[estesbob]

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.

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”

 

[jmcrae]

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”

 

[reformissionary]

Absolutely not, for the Bible came out of the Church. And 2 Tim. 3:16-17, says that Scripture is useful, not solely sufficient. Scripture also says that no prophecy is a matter of personal interpretation.

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…

For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

[reformissionary]

And who are you to say 2000 years of unwavering belief in the Real Presence, as interpretated from scripture, is wrong?
You’re right that someone has to be wrong. Steve or the Church, filled with Saints, Martyrs, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit since Penetecost? Why would I go with …Steve’s interpretation?

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.

 

[estesbob]

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…

You and I disagree on how to interpret John :6 How do we resolve that?