In all fairness to those Baptist brethren I formerly attended church with, I just want to point out a few things I’ve seen in this thread that I feel might misrepresent Baptist thought, at least where I grew up…
Communion in Baptist Churches is simply a meaningless ceremony.
Perhaps it is meaningless in comparison to the fullness of the Catholic Eucharist but not to the Baptist who takes it very seriously even though they consider it only to be a symbol. In all the Baptist churches I’ve ever been a part of, you were not permitted to receive the “Lord’s Supper” unless you were a member, and then you were cautioned with the words of Paul to examine yourself in order to not bring judgment upon yourself for receiving unworthily. They are quite serious about it despite their belief in it being a symbol and diluting their beliefs into a “meaningless ceremony” is no better than their twisting transubstantiation into idolatry.
As to the second question…open your phone book and count the number Baptist churches in your area.
In reference to the question of unity among Baptists, that answer is like saying “look in the phone book and count the number of Catholic churches in your area”. In the area where I grew up there were probably 50 Baptist churches inside a 20 mile circle and at least half of these were Southern Baptist, all in full communion, if you will, with the Southern Baptist Convention and commonly worked together to offer youth services, exchanged preachers for a Sunday, worked in each others events etc. The deciding differences were nothing more than what church was closer to your home and what service you enjoyed better.
I know in my case I simply ignored the passage. That is what a lot of Baptist preachers do. If you can show them that the Catholic interpretation dates back to the first century after Christ, then you might break through.
Well, I can’t say that any preachers I know just up and ignored the passage, just the part about the Eucharist… The focus tended to be more on pushing a Calvinistic point of view using the words of Jesus in saying “All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” and “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
TOB is only used by extreme fundamentalist Baptists. Most mainline Baptists reject it.
I’m not so sure here either. While the Southern Baptists may not directly endorse the Trail of Blood book itself, it is a product of their idea that there has always been a “remnant” of a Baptist doctrine teaching church all throughout history.
No they would say I was never saved in the first place.
Sad, just plain sad. I know all too many Baptists who have gotten caught up in the idea that they may not have said the prayer sincerely enough the last time or they were in one of those periods where God seems farther away and they have to go get saved again, but it wasn’t that they lost anything, they just weren’t saved in the first place. It makes no sense. For the Calvinist, the hope paul ultimately referred to in Hebrews 6 was in that we were chosen as an “object of Mercy” rather than an “object of wrath” (ref Romans 9). They do not preach it that way, however, that is how it is practiced.
As I’m sure JustaServant would say as well, if you want to know what a baptist is thinking you should go to the source.
SBC Statement of Faith
How to Evangelize Catholics… Courtesy of the SBC
John Piper on the Eucharist or the “Lord’s Supper”
That last one is pretty good for any Catholic who wants to know why Baptists reject Catholic doctrine; believe me even though they may claim they are not protestant, they do an awful lot of protesting. Piper’s explanation from the above link on John 6:63:
-‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" So Jesus says to them the key interpreting word in verse 63 to help them avoid the very mistake that the synagogue was making: “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” I take this to mean: Don’t get hung up on my references to my flesh being eaten and my blood being drunk. I am speaking figuratively. I am referring to a spiritual action, not a physical one. So verse 63 protects the disciples from the very misunderstanding that I am warning against this morning. -
Duders got his Baptist glasses on… :hypno:
Peace
it makes me sick to my stomach.