Ask A Baptist Pastor

[JustaServant]

I’m incapable of answering your questions, so I am not even going to try.

Fixed it for you.
You should have titled the thread “Watch a Baptist Pastor Not Answer Questions”.

 

[guanophore]

So Mary can control time? Really? You’re going to go with that?

No. Mary, like all those who have departed this life, are outside of time. Time belongs to the material world, not to eternity. The second person of the Trinity entered time. He is apart from it.

  I guess when I read the book of Revelation I missed the part of the group of Saints and Mary standing in the corner redirecting prayer rather than focusing their worship on the One who sits on the throne.

Prayer to God does not need to be redirected. They join our prayers with theirs. You might want to try reading Rev. from a Catholic perspective. If you do that, you can see where we get these ideas. Don’t worry, you don’t have to convert just because you look at the text with a different point of view one time.

Is that part in those other 7 books the Protestants don’t get?

Prayer to and for those who have passed on is contained in the books that were rejected by the Reformers.

I’ve read the Pseudo-Apocrypha and Apocrypha and New Testament Apocrypha books as well. I see them as useful, but not divinely inspired. I’d much rather read Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress for what it’s worth.

You can certainly limit your spiritual growth in any way you see fit.

Some apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament. Origen, Clement and others cited some apocryphal books as "scripture," "divine scripture," "inspired," and the like.

The canon of scripture used by the Catholic Church is the one used by Jesus and the Apostles.

On the other hand, teachers connected with Palestine and familiar with the Hebrew canon excluded from the canon all of the Old Testament not found there. This view is reflected in the canon of Melito of Sardis, and in the prefaces and letters of Jerome. But that doesn’t make them bad books, just not Scripture.

Why would you side with a group of people that rejected Christ?

Does Jesus ever say desire is enough? Few (if any) really WANT to go to hell, so just wanting to avoid that at some level, or the idea that if I would’ve been exposed but wasn’t is enough to get me a Baptism of Desire and therefore salvation? That’s not what Christ preached. I’ll stick to His teaching.

Dont you think the thief on the cross next to Him expressed desire?

 

[guanophore]

Please explain to me how your church is more visible than mine.

The Catholic church has a visible structure identical to that implemented by the Apostles, as they were instructed to do by Christ. When you were asked the question of how we should settle our differences, you stated that we needed to rightly interpret scripture and let it rule.

However, this is not how Jesus set things up. He said “take it to the Church”. He authorized a teaching and pastoral authority to feed and care for the sheep.

 

[guanophore]

Can someone be disrespectful toward you without you being there? Yep. If this hasn’t happened to you, I want to move into your bubble.

Yes, they can. However, the context of the scripture is about profaning the Body and Blood during the Lord’s Supper because they receive in an unworthy manner. How can one be “unworthy” to receive the something that is not really present? How can one get sick and die when the supposed source of the problem is not there?

 

[guanophore]

Name one, please. And show how.

This is our one faith passed on down from Jesus to his Apostles and for nearly 2000 years through his One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church whom Jesus himself founded and built upon St. Peter the rock and first pope (Matthew 16:18-19). These are the teachings and testimonies of the Apostles and 1st, 2nd, 3rd century Christians. Here is one of thousands of quotes of the early Church Fathers: St. Ignatius bishop of Antioch in the year 110 in his letter to the Smyrnaneans wrote,
“Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. For love they have no care, nor for the widow, nor for the orphan, nor for the distressed, nor for those in prison or freed from prison, nor for the hungry and the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes”

When you read the Early Fathers, it is clear that their faith was Catholic. They embraced the Teaching of the Apostles about the Real Presence.

 

[StevieD]

I’m headed out for a date with my lovely wife and then watching the Blackhawks take game 4. Have fun. Try to spend an equal amount of time answering my posts as you do congratulating each other on your superiority.

You have called this thread ‘Ask a Baptist Pastor’, you are supposed to answer **our **posts, wasn’t that the point? Happily, you don’t need anyone to congratulate you on your superiority, you are already totally convinced of it. Your congregation must just love having the only ‘Baptist Pope’ in captivity.

 

[guanophore]

Never, unless they meant it funny and it legitimately was, and then I get all cracked up over it.

I do not think your derogatory remarks about our faith are made in jest at all.

Where have I disrespected Holy Ones?

Those who have gone on before us in the faith are made Holy, and can never sin again. They are kept eternally by Him. They are our role models and mentors. (Heb. 12:1)

Look, I was at a local RCC and, no joke, someone there called him the "pet saint." Isn't he the animal guy?

St. Frances had a way with creatures, as well as persons. You would probably find the stories about his experiences not believable, since you have such little faith in how God can exceed human limitations.

 

[guanophore]

You shouldn’t. You should have faith in Christ, not the Church.

It takes quite a dose of audacity to come to a Catholic forum, and tell Catholics what thye should believe.

Jesus identifies Himself completely with His Holy Bride, the Church. To receive Him as Head means that we become members of His One Body, the Church. It is not possible to have “either/or”.

Instructing us not to have faith in the Church sets up a false dichotomy, and reveals a deficient conception of the Church.

Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope. This is one of my biggest concerns with Catholicism is that Jesus gets sidelined for Mary, the Institution of the Church, Pope,

The reason that the Pope is a vicar is because Christ is the Head. The two are not mutually exclusive.

As the Apostles states “follow me, as I follow Christ”. We have been blessed in the last century with Holy popes who we can follow into Christ.

stories of bleeding wafers and visions of Mary and tears from statues. Fix your eyes on Christ!

This is another one of those derogatory comments. “wafers” don’t bleed. Jesus is the One who gave His blood for us. He allows these kinds of signs to confirm His revelation to us.

Looking at Mary only magnifies the Lord. Her soul enlargens our view of Him.

 

[guanophore]

Christ’s church started at Pentecost. Agreed. But you and I can and do both make claim to that church for 1500 years until the Reformation. I’m not saying that the Holy Spirit didn’t guide Christ’s church to see what is Scripture and what is not. Of course He did. But by 360 the Apostles were long dead and the church and leaders could easily make mistakes.

They could easily make mistakes in the time of the Apostles as well. This is why the gift of infallibility is necessary. The way God has guided the Church has not changed. When Acts states “it seemed right to the HS and to us”, it shows that the HS works together with, in, and through those appointed by Christ to preserve His Teaching in the Church.

If you claim this stopped happening at any point, then you can’t have any confidence in the Scriptures either.

For crying out loud Paul had to rebuke Peter and tell Timothy to man up IN Scripture. The church can easily sway from the Spirit's promptings and guidance. The Scriptures were inspired. The church is not.

No, though individuals can stray, and are always in need of reform, the Church cannot, because her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the HS. it is the divine elements of the Church that keep her preserved without error.

As far as inspiration, I call your attention to the fact that God only breathed the breath of life twice, once when He created humans, and once when He created His Holy Bride, the Church. The Church is also God-Breathed.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This represents a deficient understanding of church. Yes, the Church is the assembly, but those assembled together with the persons appointed by Christ. Those who are not in union with the persons authorized are not valid. .The bishops have been given the care of the flock. They do not exist apart from that flock.

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.

The Apostles taught that there is no distinction between the two. The local bodies are part of the universal, and must not depart from it. We also see this in the book of Rev.

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 curious to me that you write this, because the rest of the time, you ascribe qualities to Scripture that it doesn ot posess.

It is authority because when we use it properly and understand it truly, we speak the words of God.

You believe that you have authority because of how you wield the Scriptures. However, authority is passed from One who has it. When one picks up the scripture and decides that he speaks “the Words of God”, such a one is only decieiving himself.

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.

The HS, who is a person, works through the Scriptures to accomplish these things. People, when they pick it up, believe they are acting in accordance with the HS.

However the HS does not guide one inidividual into the opposite direction from what He has already revealed to the Church.

 

[jmcrae]

And to be deep in Scripture is to cease being Catholic. BOOM!

Hardly. I used to be Protestant, but I didn’t read the Bible very much. Friends of mine got me into a Bible study, and the more I read the Bible, the more I realized that, either the Catholic faith is the faith of the Bible, or else Christianity is an entirely made-up religion.

St. Paul 's handkerchiefs healing people? St. Peter passing his shadow over people, and healing them? Only place I ever heard of stuff like that happening was in the Catholic Church, with all the relics, and Papal blessings, and stuff like that.

I asked my minister about it, and he said, “the age of miracles has ended.” Problem with that: I happened to know a guy who had died in a car accident. (His son was in the Boys’ Choir with some boys in the Sunday School group that I was teaching.) His body was blessed by the priest at St. Joseph’s, and he was raised back to life again. So, I knew that the age of miracles wasn’t over - there had to be another explanation.

The only one I could come up with was, that the Bible is Catholic, and that Sts. Peter and Paul were Catholic Bishops.

The more you read the plain text of the Bible without any "yes, but actually we know …"s getting in your way, the more Catholic you become.

 

[jmcrae]

Please refrain from whining when you stick your head up and get shot.

 

[guanophore]

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?

There is no need for the Church to “guarantee unity”. Unity exists when the inidividuals adhere to the Truth. Those that fail to do so, such as those at Notre Dame who behaved despicably, have departed from the Truth.

I cited the letter of Ignatius about those who departed from the Truth that Jesus is present in the Eucharist. Unity for them is lost when they choose against Truth.

   Look, it's the fault of the "Catholic Church" that the Protestant Reformation happened.

No, reform. The Church is infallible, and cannot sin.

It was the corrupt hearts of individuals who claimed to be Catholic, yet departed from the Catholic faith who fomented the rebellion in which you continue to partake.

 Luther tried to stay and bring correction.

No, he did not.

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.

Well, we see it differently. Men are always in need of Reform. The doctrine committed to the Church by the Apostles is not. Luther chose to depart from the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

 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.

There is one true Church. Those who depart from her under “protest” or schism, or apostasy depart from the unity.

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!

The manner in which people celebrate does not mean there is disunity in the doctrine. There are 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, all of whom have differences in language, culture, dress,a nd modes of celebration. They are all unified in doctrine.

 

[edjco]

I don’t know where we “officially declared” that. But it’s true that not all SB are Christians. Not all Catholics are Christians. Christians have regenerate hearts. We can’t see that but by fruit and sometimes we mistake other things for fruit. Only God can see the heart.

They officially declared it here:

sbc.net/aboutus/closerlook.asp

FYI, the definition of a Christian is one who follows Christ; an adherent of Christianity. Look it up.

Where do Baptists say anything about their “personal interpretation of the Bible?” I’d like to see it. Since you say it, I assume you have a place where you’ve seen that. Thanks.

Well, either you rely on your own personal interpretation of the Bible, or you follow Scripture and look to the pillar and bullwark of truth: the Church. Since you are not Catholic, I assume you do not allow the Magisterium to interpret Scripture for you, so the only option is that you rely on your own personal interpretation of Scripture. There is one other possibility that comes to mind: Your personal interpretation of the Bible is indeed guided by “men”. That my friend, is another non-Biblical tradition. You could call it a “tradition of men”. If I have all of that wrong, please tell me how you interpret Scripture.

Where does the Baptist church condemn contraception? When did that change and who changed it?

ALL Protestant denominations rejected contraception from the time of the Reformation up until the 1930’s when the Anglican Church held the Lambeth Conference. They declared contraception permissible and soon all other Protestant faiths followed. The only Christian Church which did not flip flop on this was the Catholic Church. Maybe that’s why Scripture refers to the Catholic Church as the “pillar and foundation of truth”?

If you would like to discuss why contraception is wrong, we can get into Onan, but that’s for another time.

We don’t consider that we will infallibly do anything. Never have claimed to. Holy Spirit is guiding us all along, but, you know, even Christians can be dull of hearing.

So I guess you would admit that your church is NOT the “pillar and foundation of the truth”.

Where have we declared that officially?
I believe abortion is always wrong. My church believes that. All the SB churches I know believe that. Some, probably not.

Um, you officially declared it here:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=13

And you officially reaffirmed it here:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=14

Apparently, your church does NOT believe that abortion is always wrong. In fact, they are urging Southern Baptists here to help change the law to allow abortion in certain cases. I understand you do not agree with this position, and I’m glad that you don’t. So how do you square that with your church’s official position? Just so you know, there is a church which DOES believe that abortion is wrong in each and every case. That Church wrote this:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

Looks like you belong in that Church instead…

Where is that resolution made?

Where are the Scriptural reasons to DO a wedding?

That resolution is here:

sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=441

Look at the last paragraph.

As to the Scriptural reasons to DO a wedding, that comes from Scripture… Look up passages on fornication, marriage, adultery, etc. for more info.

The SB Convention NEVER, EVER has or can declare anything authoritative toward a local congregation. So none of these ultimately matter. It either means a committee or board has said something or that a majority of messengers at a yearly convention vote for something. None of those are binding.

So, I guess your church is, in fact, NOT the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Now we do know a few things from Scripture that are marks of that true Church. We do know that this Apostolic Church settled matters of faith by way of a Council. And, trust me, the declarations of those Councils were DEFINITELY binding.

We also know that within that Church are those who have been given the power to bind and loose on Earth that which will be bound and loosed in Heaven, and that those individuals had the power to forgive sin.

We also know from Scripture that Jesus tells some of those in that Church “He who hears you, hears me. And he who rejects you rejects me.”

And, we know from Scripture that this Church has the Holy Spirit guiding it unto all truth, until the end of the age, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against this Church.

We also know that this Church held a Council to name Judas’ successor. We know that this council was led by a man named Peter, and that they chose Matthias. Also, we know that this Apostle and the others, and in fact this leader of the Apostles, were replaced (succeeded) by others. We also know that continues to this day.

So, apparently, there is a Church which fits the above criteria and which is at least 2,000 years old and even had a name as early as pre-107 A.D. According to what I found the Baptist faith began in 1609 in Amsterdam by John Smyth, so it probably ain’t y’all.

Now, I’ve given you enough of a hard time today. Go enjoy your date night with your lovely bride and we’ll pick this up later.

 

[edjco]

Oh, by the way, I just got my very first book published, and it is a Catholic Apologetics book. You can find the book here:

createspace.com/3437708

It may help you better understand where we are coming from and what we believe. I would be glad to send you a copy if you PM me.

Not the rest of y’all, just Reform.

 

[SF3CHURCH]

I don’t know where we “officially declared” that. But it’s true that not all SB are Christians. Not all Catholics are Christians. Christians have regenerate hearts. We can’t see that but by fruit and sometimes we mistake other things for fruit. Only God can see the heart.

I’m not sure I fully understand this. How am I supposed to know whether or not I am a Christian? For that matter, how am I supposed to believe that you are a Christian? Do I have to take your word on it?

 

[brb3]

I’m headed out for a date with my lovely wife and then watching the Blackhawks take game 4. Have fun. Try to spend an equal amount of time answering my posts as you do congratulating each other on your superiority.

Lets all give RM a break. Everyone is piling on so fast and furious… this thead will hit the 1000 mark and get shut down before he gets a chance to give us the Southern Baptist position.

 

[mark_a]

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

Why does the world have such a negative impression of the South?

 

[brb3]

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

Why do you doubt the words of Christ on this ? Why would Christ teach the concept … if it not be fact ?

Do you have more understanding on the composition of the Eucharist than Christ ? If Christ could convert water into wine at the marriage event, which you surely accept as literal wine, … why is it too much for you to believe Christ can perform this miracle on continuous basis for his flock ?

 

[Tomb54]

And to be deep in Scripture is to cease being Catholic. BOOM!

So when was the NT compiled and by what Church (name please) that was guided by the Holy Spirit to do this?

Does this statement mean that all Christains before the NT was decided on were all Catholic then since NT Scripture was kind of up in the air with 50 some gospels and numerous other writings all claiming to be inspired?

Does a Baptist pastor in the year 2010 know more about the NT and what it is trying to say than the ECFs who were taught by the people that wrote those books?