Baptist Seeking Answers

[mattwilliams]

Greetings, fellow believers. I am a Baptist, married to a Catholic, who is seriously considering converting to Catholicism. I feel all Christians are one under the Lord and are all saved by His grace. With my wife, I am a regular attendee of a Catholic parish. RCIA does not begin for several months, though, and I am trying to begin reconciling some serious scripture interpretation differences between my current branch of Christianity and Catholicism.

Let me preface this all by saying that Baptists are what you would consider “sola scriptura,” and “soli Deo gloria,” that is to say we live by the scripture alone (no extra-Biblical documents, save the Dead Sea Scrolls), and believe that only God may grant forgiveness of sins.

I have scripture to back every one of my doubts of Catholic doctrine from the Evangelical “sola scriptura” standpoint, even though I may not include them in this initial post for brevity.

My itemized list of doubts are:

1. Mary’s immaculate conception. I understand this to mean that she was born without original sin, but not with the intention of preventing its passing to Jesus by birth… there really is no intention. It just is. Reason for doubt: No scriptural backing for this.
2. Praying to Saints. Although it’s old testament, Deuteronomy states that praying to the dead is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Shifting to the New Testament, many Catholics have used the vision of the transfiguration as proof that praying to Saints is allowed. Counterpoint: Jesus himself said the transfiguration was just a vision, and also that none had ascended to heaven before he had. Implication: Moses and Elijah were not in heaven, and in fact the vision was simply a vision.
3. Transubstantiational Eucharist. I have had the passage of the last supper re-read to me, saying that Jesus said “this IS my body/blood, given for you…” and therefore since Jesus said IS and not IS LIKE, the Eucharist is therefore literal. Counterpoint: Jesus also told Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church, but it is clear that Peter was not literally a rock, and in fact Jesus was metaphorically referring to the body of believers as the church… especially since Peter was your first Pope!

This is a good start, I believe. There are more questions, but, as they say, “baby steps.”

 

[bzkoss236]

Hello Matt,

First, welcome!

To get to your questions, for scriptural references, ScriptureCatholic.com is a great thing to have bookmarked.

For my specific (but quick) descriptions.

1. It more than just is that way, there is a reason. Just one of the reasons is that we see Paul relate Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, which was made of the purest materials to carry the tablets containing the 10 Commandments (the word of God), so too, would be fitting to have Mary free from the impurities of sin to carry Christ (the Word of God). But remember, the only thing that makes Mary special is that she chose to bare Jesus. In preparation of this, God, through the power of Christ’s sacrifice (even though it had not yet taken place on earth, the effects are timeless), she was protected from sin so she would fitting to carry Jesus.
2. Deuteronomy says that contacting through mediums or things like seances are evil, by means of seeking information. When we pray to the Saints, all we are doing is asking them to pray for us, and not contacting them to have a one-on-one conversation. Just as you would ask a friend to pray for you. Being part of the Body of Christ, we are not cut off from those who have passed from this world. They are still alive in Christ. The word ‘pray’ means ‘to ask’. It is only modern definitions that add the context of worship to it, of which it doesn’t necessarily entail unless you pray to God. Praying to God is a form of worship, but praying in general is not. I could pray to you, meaning I could ask of you. Think of old English sayings like “pray tell”. If we are not to ask the Saints to pray for us, then we are not allowed to ask our friends or family to pray for us either, which is obviously against scripture.
3. If you look in the Gospels, you will see Jesus telling people “unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you”. People were confused by him saying this as it sounds preposterous, and they left, but Jesus did not stop them. If Jesus had been speaking figuratively, would he not have said it was so?

This is just a quick disorganized post as I have to go eat, but I suggest you look at that website I mentioned above.

And again, welcome!

 

[pablope]

Greetings, fellow believers. I am a Baptist, married to a Catholic, who is seriously considering converting to Catholicism. I feel all Christians are one under the Lord and are all saved by His grace. With my wife, I am a regular attendee of a Catholic parish. RCIA does not begin for several months, though, and I am trying to begin reconciling some serious scripture interpretation differences between my current branch of Christianity and Catholicism.

Welcome…I will provide references for you. Also, get a hold of a copy or search online for a copy of the Catechism of the CC.

Let me preface this all by saying that Baptists are what you would consider “sola scriptura,” and “soli Deo gloria,” that is to say we live by the scripture alone (no extra-Biblical documents, save the Dead Sea Scrolls), and believe that only God may grant forgiveness of sins.

 

[mountee]

I understand your need for reconciling what you have believed for so long but would you allow me to say something from my heart that in no way is meant to criticize what you are trying to do? Your wife is probably filled with a great joy that you are willing to consider our faith, perhaps what you are doing is an answer to years of prayers. I know what would happen to me if my husband ever took the steps you are taking. Please consider going at this another way. Not to discount what you believe, but why not pursue a complete and in depth reading of the catechism of the Catholic Church and a the history of the Church and Christianity. If you can do this, with some interpretation from your wife, some of these issues will resolve themselves. Sometimes it is necessary to clear our minds for a while in order to change the paradigm we currently exist in. What a blessing this must be to your wife, I will pray for you. Let us know how it is going.

 

[Abu]

1. Mary’s immaculate conception. I understand this to mean that she was born without original sin, but not with the intention of preventing its passing to Jesus by birth… there really is no intention. It just is. Reason for doubt: No scriptural backing for this.

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

1. Praying to Saints.

The angels and saints place the prayers of the holy on earth at God’s feet (Tobias 12:12; Rev 5:8, 8:3).

1. Transubstantiation.

The comparison to changing Peter’s name to Rock is irrelevant. It is quite clear that Jesus established His Church on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," establishes the reality.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

 

[mattwilliams]

Hello Matt,

First, welcome!

To get to your questions, for scriptural references, ScriptureCatholic.com is a great thing to have bookmarked.

For my specific (but quick) descriptions.

1. It more than just is that way, there is a reason. Just one of the reasons is that we see Paul relate Mary to the Ark of the Covenant, which was made of the purest materials to carry the tablets containing the 10 Commandments (the word of God), so too, would be fitting to have Mary free from the impurities of sin to carry Christ (the Word of God). But remember, the only thing that makes Mary special is that she chose to bare Jesus. In preparation of this, God, through the power of Christ’s sacrifice (even though it had not yet taken place on earth, the effects are timeless), she was protected from sin so she would fitting to carry Jesus.
2. Deuteronomy says that contacting through mediums or things like seances are evil, by means of seeking information. When we pray to the Saints, all we are doing is asking them to pray for us, and not contacting them to have a one-on-one conversation. Just as you would ask a friend to pray for you. Being part of the Body of Christ, we are not cut off from those who have passed from this world. They are still alive in Christ. The word ‘pray’ means ‘to ask’. It is only modern definitions that add the context of worship to it, of which it doesn’t necessarily entail unless you pray to God. Praying to God is a form of worship, but praying in general is not. I could pray to you, meaning I could ask of you. Think of old English sayings like “pray tell”. If we are not to ask the Saints to pray for us, then we are not allowed to ask our friends or family to pray for us either, which is obviously against scripture.
3. If you look in the Gospels, you will see Jesus telling people “unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life within you”. People were confused by him saying this as it sounds preposterous, and they left, but Jesus did not stop them. If Jesus had been speaking figuratively, would he not have said it was so?

This is just a quick disorganized post as I have to go eat, but I suggest you look at that website I mentioned above.

And again, welcome!

Wow, very good answers, and thank you for the detailed reply. I, like you, am currently disposed (although I snuck some time out to read your reply), but when I am more free I will re-read your post. I can presumptively say that your answer on Mary is logical and, I assume, is in concert with Catholic doctrine/dogma (which is a new concept to me as a Baptist). Also, you are certainly correct on the context of Deut with respect to the verse being in reference to seances. My main question, with regard to the Catholic Saints, is where do Catholics believe the souls of Saints reside? Heaven? Several scholarly interpretations of the Bible have concluded that there are 3 possible “intermediate” locations for souls to reside prior to the Rapture. If praying to the Saints is allowed, clearly they are in a position to hear these prayers, and this is acceptable to God. Is there scriptural backing of this?

My main concern is still the Eucharist. If all of Jesus’ quotes were compiled into a poster, and you threw a dart at the poster, it would be very difficult, probabilistically, to hit a quote that was not metaphor. Why interpret those quotes of His with respect to the Eucharist so literally, when He in general spoke so metaphorically? What is it that compels Catholics to believe that above all His other words, that those few involving communion are literal, while almost all others are not?

 

[Aggies08]

Link to the catechism vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[mattwilliams]

The blessed Virgin was conceived immaculately free from Original Sin by the application of the merits of Christ’s’ Redemption preventively (instead of healing for the rest of mankind). Lk 1:28: “Hail full of grace.” This indicates a perfection of grace. This perfection is thus intensive and extensive – over the whole of her life from conception. How could the Son of God, Jesus, be conceived or born with Original Sin?

The angels and saints place the prayers of the holy on earth at God’s feet (Tobias 12:12; Rev 5:8, 8:3).

The comparison to changing Peter’s name to Rock is irrelevant. It is quite clear that Jesus established His Church on St Peter as His Supreme Vicar.

The clarity and directness of Christ – “This IS My Body” at the Last Supper after carefully teaching in Jn 6:51: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh," establishes the reality.

Jn 6:55: For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. And many walked no more with Him. (Jn 6:66). Did he say “you misunderstood Me”? No, He let them go – take note.

Then, to make absolutely certain there was no mistaking what He was saying, Jesus said to the Twelve, “What about you, do you want to go away too?” To which Simon Peter replied, “Lord, who shall we go to? You have the message of eternal life, and we believe” (John 6:59-68).

Thank you very much for your reply. I have a limited time to rebut, but I will present you with this:

You claimed that my quote of Jesus as saying that Peter IS the rock of his church is irrelevant, but continued to say that the quote of Jesus saying that the Eucharist IS his blood/body is relevant. But, it’s the same word. Why is it irrelevant in one case, but not in the other?

 

[pablope]

Wow,

My main question, with regard to the Catholic Saints, is where do Catholics believe the souls of Saints reside? Heaven?

 

[pnewton]

I can answer what I can, though realize at the end of the day, it is a matter of what authority one chooses to believe. If the Catholic Church has no authority to define the terms above, then it is not worth joining. If it does, then it is not worth questioning.

But here is my answer.

1. The Immaculate Conception. This is a doctrine taught by the Catholic Church, but the roots extend to scripture. The word that Gabriel called Mary appears no where else in scripture, kecharitomene. It is a past perfect participle which has no good translation, but it means an action that has taken place in the past which continues to the present. Something like, “who has been fully graced.” Now, that is not proof, but it is evidence.

Now, the verse most commonly used to refute this is the Romans 3:23, but that verse is never given in context. “All” have sinned does not mean every person, but rather all types of people, both Jew and Gentile. Paul was not writing the four spiritual laws, but a defense of righteousness through faith, as opposed to the Mosaic Law. Anytime, we see a pronoun, we should ask ourselves what the antecedent is. In this case, “All of what?” He only spoke of peoples, not people. This passage could easily be translated dynamically, “For both have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Read all of Romans up to this and see if you don’t agree.

 

[jmj777]

bzkoss236: Wonderful explanation!

 

[pnewton]

As far as the saints are concerned, we do not believe that they are dead. As Jesus asked, “Is God the God of the living or of the dead?” The prohibition against necromancy in the OT addressed the necromancy of the time, which was a pagan form of divination. In the Mosaic Law, all forms of divination as practice by pagans was condemned. But what is interesting, they still had the Urim and the Thummim. We still have in Acts the apostles casting lots. We have Gideon laying out a fleece. Prayer to the saints, or the cult of the saints can easily cross over to superstition and fall into condemnation, but the proper practice is nothing more than asking a pastor to pray for you, maybe by giving a note to the Church secretary. It is only through the omnipotence of God that anyone in heaven can know our request for prayer.

In the end, though, all intercession to the saints is a teaching of the Church, but not something one is required to do.

 

[Abu]

mattwilliams Today, 11:03 am #8
You claimed that my quote of Jesus as saying that Peter IS the rock of his church is irrelevant, but continued to say that the quote of Jesus saying that the Eucharist IS his blood/body is relevant. But, it’s the same word. Why is it irrelevant in one case, but not in the other?

Precisely because the name change was everything to do with establishing His Church for salvation.

Jesus confirmed changing Peter’s name for His purpose:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)

First to Peter only:
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

With Christ’s teaching on His Body to eat and His Blood to drink, He made sure that this was not misunderstood by:

1. Reemphasizing His teaching and refusing to change it even when many left Him
2. By questioning, ensuring that His Apostles, with Peter the basis of His Church, understood and assented to His teaching – so clear as to His meaning – that the doubters left Him.

 

[JM3]

Why interpret those quotes of His with respect to the Eucharist so literally, when He in general spoke so metaphorically? What is it that compels Catholics to believe that above all His other words, that those few involving communion are literal, while almost all others are not?

Matthew 13:10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.

 

[pablope]

Greetings,

Counterpoint: Jesus also told Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church, but it is clear that Peter was not literally a rock, and in fact Jesus was metaphorically referring to the body of believers as the church… especially since Peter was your first Pope!

This is a good start, I believe. There are more questions, but, as they say, “baby steps.”

No, Peter is not rock…but his name was changed to Peter…or Cephas in Aramaic…meaning rock. See John 1: 42.

It was on Peter that Jesus would build His Church. He tasked Peter to feed his sheep, to tend His sheep…and Jesus also prayed for Peter to strenghten his fellow apostles…something Jesus did not do with the other apostles.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you very much for your reply. I have a limited time to rebut, but I will present you with this:

You claimed that my quote of Jesus as saying that Peter IS the rock of his church is irrelevant, but continued to say that the quote of Jesus saying that the Eucharist IS his blood/body is relevant. But, it’s the same word. Why is it irrelevant in one case, but not in the other?

Context. Jesus used many metaphors. We all know that. However, John 6 is different. First, it is more than a passing parable, but a narrative that includes multiple conversations. During this, we have disciples striving for understanding, then walking away and rejecting the teaching. Jesus did not correct them. More interesting to me is the choice of words. Jesus did not say that we had to eat his body, he said we had to chew his flesh. When asked for clarification, he did not explain a metaphor, but reiterated the same teaching more graphically.

Consider also history. The early Church was not accused of having a stone leader in Peter, but they were accused of cannibalism. Those present and who took the Church into the first generation knew the difference between a metaphor and John 6.

 

[cnon12]

Hello!

With regards to transubstantiation and the Eucharist, may I recommend a site that might help you out.

the4thcup.com

Very good site, really breaks down from a biblical and historical point of view, what the Eucharist really is and why we celebrate it. It connects the dots from the Old Testament to the New Testament, andI guarantee you, you’ll really be able to appreciate the phrase “Lamb of God” afterwards.

As a summary, it goes over the origins of the Jewish Passover, and Manna in the Desert (Bread from Heaven), to the actual Jewish Passover meal and the structure of the meal, to the Last Supper and finally Jesus’s crucifixion and death on the cross

 

[classica87]

1. Check Luke. When the angel says, “Hail, full of grace!” the Greek used here not only means Mary is presently grace-filled, but she was in the past. More simply put, that it was a part of her character, as unchangeable as hair color or genetics. Someone with a more theological, seminary background can affirm this; there are posts here as well as Tracts on Catholic Answers. I apologize; Greek is not my forte.

2.Others have posted about Revelation. I ask you, if we cannot pray to saints, was Jesus, the Son of God, a heretic when He spoke to Moses and Elijah on the mountain?

1. How do we not know Peter is the Rock? He has been renamed, just as Abram became Abraham, so has Simon become Peter. There is apparently some argument over the Greek used for rock, because it can apparently mean small stone. The argument is pointless. Jesus spoke Aramaic; Peter is called in other books Cephas, which is the Aramaic term, I believe. It means, simply put, big rock. Like, really big. Peter has just been named rock by the Son of Man; why would he not be the rock? Jesus has made it clear he is speaking about Peter. If you can believe in the literalness of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper, why can you not in Matthew?

I apologize if any of this is wrong. I am no theologian or seminarian; I am just repeating the arguments given here on CAF that have helped me.

 

[Hat4]

Let me preface this all by saying that Baptists are what you would consider “sola scriptura,” and “soli Deo gloria,” that is to say we live by the scripture alone (no extra-Biblical documents, save the Dead Sea Scrolls), and believe that only God may grant forgiveness of sins.

One thing that will help since this will involve a lot of scripture quotes is knowing that you don’t actually go by scripture alone. You interpret scripture under the Baptist tradition. If you didn’t then you would agree with the JWs, the SDAs, the Mormons and even Catholics. They all have the same belief that their interpretation is true because they are basing their interpretation on their traditions. Look to see what the first Christians believed to see if your interpretation matches what they were taught by the Apostles or learned from people who were taught by the Apostles. This is something I had to think about but it sunk in eventually. You may also want to look for the origins of the rapture, it’s not very old of an idea. Welcome to CAF, I hope you are treated well and find what you are looking for.

 

[bitznbitez]

Greetings, fellow believers. I am a Baptist, married to a Catholic, who is seriously considering converting to Catholicism.

Welcome. I spent several years among baptists and I understand where you are coming from. I was received this Easter into the Church

1. Transubstantiational Eucharist. I have had the passage of the last supper re-read to me, saying that Jesus said “this IS my body/blood, given for you…” and therefore since Jesus said IS and not IS LIKE, the Eucharist is therefore literal.

The reason we insist this is metaphor is it makes no sense to us otherwise. Understanding this as metaphor, as a symbol, is easy. Understanding this in the Catholic manner is hard.

If you confess the Nicene creed at mass with your wife you say the following words, in the current translation “consubstantial with the father”. This word can be understood as “of the same substance” with the father. This is the key. Christ looked like a man, sweated like a man, bled like a man, if you touched him he felt like a man. He was fully God and fully man, his substance ( focus on that word ) was the same as God, he was God.

Now consider communion. The physical attributes of the bread and wine remain, they tasted like bread and wine, smell like bread and wine, etc. But the substance, the reality is said to be changed. How does the divine and the material interact in the eucharist ? I will explain that to you after you first explain to me how the divine and the material interacted to create the Christ …

Point being whether you agree with it or not hopefully you can at least catch a glimmer of what is being said. “substance” “consubstance” “transubstance”.

For me what pushed me over the hump was John 6. This chapter starts with the feeding of the 5000, continues that night with the walking on the water, and the next day on the other side continues with the discussion from the previous day. Christ says things like “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.” etc.

Was it literal or was it figurative ?

The last part answers that. It was those who found his literal teaching to hard to accept that fell away.

To your Peter point. The order of the names of the disciples varies from gospel to gospel with two exceptions. Judas is always listed last. Why ? Naturally because he betrayed the Christ. Peter is always listed first. Why ? Because even at the time of the writing of the Gospels it was understood he had a place of leadership.

Hope I helped a little.