Baptist Seeking Answers

[bitznbitez]

Let me add one thing, something that really impacted me when I was fully Sola Scriptura.

A while back I put some of it together here : beyond-m42.net/deutero/articles/

The strongest example is how much Paul in Romans 1 relies on Wisdom of Solomon. The second example, Wisdom chapter 2, is the strongest most direct prophecy of Christ I ever read and I try to show how it connects to the New Testament accounts. “The Deutero Project”.

It was reading Wisdom 2, in the RSV, that made me realize this. I later found out the KJV originally had cross references connecting Wisdom 2 and the Gospels etc. I built the whole list.

It was seismic for me because ultimately I faced the reality that, but for tradition, we don’t know what books are in the Bible. And if, as it seemed to me, Paul and Matthew etc used texts we didn’t use, how could “Sola Scriptura” work if I wasn’t using the same scripture they did.

 

[bzkoss236]

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?

One thing to consider is that Jesus is said to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek, offering a sacrifice of bread and wine. Jesus went further to say that the Bread and Wine are his Body and Blood. Remember too that in the OT, when a sacrificial was offered, it was often partaken of, such as a sacrificial lamb, which Jesus is related to. So too would we, following Jesus’ words, to partake of his sacrifice of himself for us.

Hope this helps some.

 

[Philthy]

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?

There is so much to cover regarding the intellectual “why” of the Catholic position on Eucharist that it would entail an entire thread of its own. It starts in Genesis (Abraham/Isaac; Melchizedek) and, of course works it’s way through the first Passover and the memorial that came afterwards. I’m guessing, though, based on your NT focus that you are not a Scripture scholar (nor am I) and that perhaps a focus on the NT dimensions of the Eucharist would serve you well.
We cannot, of course ignore the Passover since John the Baptizer )) in heralding Jesus proclaimed, “Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”. It is impossible to understand that reference of Christ as being the “lamb of God” without a basic knowledge of the Passover sacrifice. Very briefly, the Passover lamb was the key to not incurring the Lord’s wrath via the Angel of Death. In order to be “saved” from that one had to: Get an appropriate lamb, slaughter it, spread it’s blood on the doorposts and…eat it. (Ex 12:7-10)
Fast forward to the NT. In what way - or ways - is Christ the “lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world”? It is quite evident to me that He was that lamb in all ways - but, at the same time, different. How so?
I don’t think that we would have too much disagreement on the following points: that Christ was the appropriate offering, that He was slaughtered, that his* blood was spread* on a “door post” (ie, the Cross). The point of contention is the question of whether He is eaten. Lets start with the Nativity scene - consider the following:

Jesus, who is the bread of life, was born in a manger (same root as “mangia” which, in Italian means to eat ) in the town of Bethlehem. And what does Bethlehem mean? House of Bread. So the bread of life was born in the house of bread and placed into a feeding trough. It seems pretty straight forward…eat!

Lets now jump to John 6 where Jesus rocked the boat. The Apostles were all at this exchange. Jesus said, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.” The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”, and ultimately left being dissatisfied with the answer that Christ gave. Why? They were not willing to trust him beyond what they understood - beyond their carnal knowledge. His Apostles were no less confused intellectually, but they had not placed their intellect above their trust in the Lord (cf Prov 3:5-6). They held on by faith. And so when asked by our Lord, “Do you also want to leave?” , Simon Peter answered him - expressing the fact that they trusted Him above everything, including their earthly understanding, said: , “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” Their faith in him transcended their inability to understand all that he told them. And there is an important lesson in this for all of us…
Christ did eventually explain to them what he was talking about in John 6, but it was much later - much like answers to prayer, which often come much later than we wish to receive them. "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins. " They had never forgotten the John 6 incident and here at the Last Supper they finally got a big piece of the explanation they wanted to . How could they “eat his flesh”? By eating the bread which is His body. And how could they drink his blood? By drinking the wine that is His blood. They started to get it, but there’s plenty more to come…

 

[Philthy]

In the Luke 24 we find that on the road to Emmaus " And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. (Hint Hint - same events as Last Supper) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they went back to tell the others - that is, the Apostles adn other disciples, And they told …how he was known of them in breaking of bread. Very interesting - their “eyes were opened, they knew him” and yet he vanished from their sight. How exactly did they “know” him, Matt? Do you think the Apostles started connecting the dots of John 6, the Last Supper and the road to Emmaus? I do. We continue just a little later in Acts to hear about the Church and what it is up to. Acts 2:42 the faithful "…devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. " This breaking of bread is placed on par with “prayer” and the “teaching of the Apostles” - they were “devoted” to it. Are you “devoted” to the breaking of the bread? Is it on par with Bible study and prayer and fellowship? Still not done!..
In Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians we learn that Christ revealed to Paul the events of the Last Supper and Paul has some interesting things to say…“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord…For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Its hard to imagine such stern words - from a mere symbolic assembly, ehh?
There is also one last confirmation of this difficult teaching which comes from one of St John’s (ie the one who penned John 6) disciples. Ignatius of Antioch - a canonized Saint and Martyr (eaten by lions) of the faith - on his way to certain death tells his Smyrnean flock:“consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love, no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” This disciple of John - a martyr for the faith - is perfectly clear in his belief: the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus - the very same flesh that was nailed to the Cross and is now resurrected.
When one considers all the evidence - and this is not even close to all of it - in Scripture, in the ECFs, in the miracles, and other sources it is not so hard to see that the Eucharist is not merely a remembrance and not merely a Spiritual presence indistinguishable from those gathered in prayer. It is, and always has been uniquely different and this difference goes under different names including the Real Presence. The term transubstantiation is a philosophical term that attempts to describe what takes place at the Lord’s Supper: the substance of bread and wine changes (ie trans) into the body and blood of our resurrected Lord. I hope this helps.

 

[mattwilliams]

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.

Your second paragraph is very provocative, but extremely relevant, I must admit. Your first paragraph could be interpreted differently, but the context is difficult to deny. Thanks for this response. This topic requires a lot of prayer, and what you have written brings me closer to the Lord from the perspective of my Catholic brothers and sisters. Thanks for taking your personal time to indulge my questions. The Lord bless you and protect you.

 

[bzkoss236]

Thanks for taking your personal time to indulge my questions. The Lord bless you and protect you.

Any time! That’s what we are here for! And may God bless you on your journey for truth!

 

[Church_Militant]

The following links may help you. I was almost a Baptist preacher at one point, so I know where you are coming from. My Testimony By the way, where is there any scripture that lays claim to that final and ultimate authority for the Bible?
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)

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.

Immaculate Conception and Assumption

1. 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.

• The Intercession of the Saints (Fathers*)
• Praying to the Saints
• Saint Worship?
• The Intercession & Communion of Saints

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 Eucharist IS Scriptural

 

[Church_Militant]

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.”

• Peter and the Papacy
• Peter the Rock
• Did Peter found the Church in Rome?
• Peter leading the Church in Rome?
• Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)
• The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
• The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
• Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
• Papal Infallibility
• Peter’s Primacy (Fathers*)
• Peter’s Roman Residency (Fathers*)
• Peter’s Successors (Fathers*)
• Was Peter in Rome?

Enjoy!

 

[mattwilliams]

In the Luke 24 we find that on the road to Emmaus " And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed [it], and brake, and gave to them. (Hint Hint - same events as Last Supper) And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they went back to tell the others - that is, the Apostles adn other disciples, And they told …how he was known of them in breaking of bread. Very interesting - their “eyes were opened, they knew him” and yet he vanished from their sight. How exactly did they “know” him, Matt? Do you think the Apostles started connecting the dots of John 6, the Last Supper and the road to Emmaus? I do. We continue just a little later in Acts to hear about the Church and what it is up to. Acts 2:42 the faithful "…devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. " This breaking of bread is placed on par with “prayer” and the “teaching of the Apostles” - they were “devoted” to it. Are you “devoted” to the breaking of the bread? Is it on par with Bible study and prayer and fellowship? Still not done!..
In Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinthians we learn that Christ revealed to Paul the events of the Last Supper and Paul has some interesting things to say…“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord…For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” Its hard to imagine such stern words - from a mere symbolic assembly, ehh?
There is also one last confirmation of this difficult teaching which comes from one of St John’s (ie the one who penned John 6) disciples. Ignatius of Antioch - a canonized Saint and Martyr (eaten by lions) of the faith - on his way to certain death tells his Smyrnean flock:“consider those who are of a different opinion with respect to the grace of Christ which has come unto us, how opposed they are to the will of God. They have no regard for love, no care for the widow, or the orphan, or the oppressed; of the bond, or of the free; of the hungry, or of the thirsty. They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” This disciple of John - a martyr for the faith - is perfectly clear in his belief: the Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus - the very same flesh that was nailed to the Cross and is now resurrected.
When one considers all the evidence - and this is not even close to all of it - in Scripture, in the ECFs, in the miracles, and other sources it is not so hard to see that the Eucharist is not merely a remembrance and not merely a Spiritual presence indistinguishable from those gathered in prayer. It is, and always has been uniquely different and this difference goes under different names including the Real Presence. The term transubstantiation is a philosophical term that attempts to describe what takes place at the Lord’s Supper: the substance of bread and wine changes (ie trans) into the body and blood of our resurrected Lord. I hope this helps.

Thank you for your kind words, brother/sister in Christ. It is truly right and just to praise the Lord, which is verbiage I have adopted from the lovely Catholic faith. My own Baptist faith makes me feel very close to the Lord, indeed… and we believe all of the scripture that you have quoted. Certainly, we believe it to be true, as you do. And thank you for specifically addressing my questions with quotes from scripture. As we would say in my home church, one of Evangelism, you are truly blessed with the gift of interpretation, and I pray that you continue to use your gift of scriptural interpretation to reach unbelievers.

What Catholics call the Real Presence is a beautiful concept to me, with regard to the Eucharist… I just have trouble reconciling a translation of it to the literal interpretation by the Catholic church. But, what you have said about it being “not merely a remembrance, but a Spiritual” act is very relevant to my question. Admittedly, we Baptists recognize communion as a metaphorical remembrance of Christ, and we put our main stock in Jesus’ command to spread the Gospel, which is a righteous and just cause. But, through abstinence in communion (as I have attended my wife’s parish and not partaken in communion out of respect for Catholic law), I have come to yearn for it in perhaps a different way… a “more than symbolic” way.

Admittedly, I will need to review all of your scripture in context (as a “sola scriptura” Christian), but thank you for your time. God is risen, and has saved you and I alike, albeit from different “faiths.” But, thank you for your time and effort, and it certainly helps me on my journey.

 

[pnewton]

. Thanks for taking your personal time to indulge my questions. The Lord bless you and protect you.

You are welcome. FYI. I was a baptist for my first 35 years of life, hardcore. I got my degree in religious studies at a baptist university and went to an SBC seminary for two years. I was licensed, then ordained as a baptist minister and that was my job for several years. I know where you are coming from and wish you success in your search.

One thing I did was flip back and forth from Catholic apologetics to Evangelical apologetics, weighing each and sifting what I found to be lacking. I often joke that I became Catholic thanks to John MacArthur, specifically, his defense of sola scriptura.

 

[mattwilliams]

• Peter and the Papacy
• Peter the Rock
• Did Peter found the Church in Rome?
• Peter leading the Church in Rome?
• Apostolic Succession (Fathers*)
• The Authority of the Pope Part 1 (Fathers*)
• The Authority of the Pope Part 2 (Fathers*)
• Origins of Peter as Pope (Fathers*)
• Papal Infallibility
• Peter’s Primacy (Fathers*)
• Peter’s Roman Residency (Fathers*)
• Peter’s Successors (Fathers*)
• Was Peter in Rome?

Enjoy!

Wow! Where to start? With the first link, I suppose… thank you for this and your time. I will certainly read all that you have provided.

 

[mattwilliams]

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.

Yes! Peter, who was Simon… the translation of the name is irrelevant, because even Peter means “rock.” But the “tending of sheep” is clearly metaphor, is it not? We are not sheep… we are people! We are those made in God’s image, not sheep. But, Jesus was the Great Shepherd… the Shepherd of Men… indeed, he said he would teach his disciples to be “fishers of men.”

Was this literal? Logic and interpretation says not. But why the focus on IS in the Last Supper? The interpretation of IS in Greek is nothing special, and holds no hidden meaning (as certain other Greek/Latin words tend to do).

 

[pablope]

Context. Jesus used many metaphors.

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.

Yes…this is true. In addition, the early Christians were also hated by the non-Christians for belief in saintly relics…which we inherited from our Jewish roots.

calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/relics-saints-and-the-assumption-of-mary/

*Brown challenged my view that the place of saints and relics in the church was a mere holdover from paganism, and that the practice was somehow peripheral to true Christianity. Instead, Brown painted a picture of ancient Christianity and paganism in which relics were indispensable to the former, and repulsive to the latter. Far from a holdover from paganism, the place of relics in the Church appeared as something intensely Jewish, Hebraic, and Old Testament. Pagans, like Julian-the-Apostate, found the practice revolting and legislated against it. (Paganism, with its notions of ritual purity, had strictly delimited the realm of divine worship and neatly separated it from the realm of corpses and the dead.)

Peter Brown:

On this point, the rise of Christianity in the pagan world was met by deep religious anger. We can chart the rise to prominence of the Christian church most faithfully by listening to pagan reactions to the cult of martyrs. For the progress of this cult spelled out for the pagans a slow and horrid crumbling of ancient barriers.1 *

 

[mattwilliams]

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

Thanks very much for the link. If I have further questions after reading what is provided there, I will be sure to ask them here.

 

[mattwilliams]

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.

 

[mattwilliams]

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.

Ah… I say your statement “However, John 6 is different” requires different interpretation, then. It is easy to find instances of the disciples striving for understanding (almost constantly). It being “more than a passing parable” is only supportable by the fact that it is, literarily, not a parable. It could be, however, metaphorical, with little evidence to the contrary. It would be difficult to say what Jesus did with those who directly rejected His teaching… actually, we have no statistics on this at all. We have no idea what percentage of people reached by the Gospel during the time-frame of Jesus rejected it.

More succinctly, what I am looking for is Catholic doctrine to be scripturally-backed. To say that something is the “way that it is” because several men gathered in a room and decided that it was so is not necessarily acceptable to me… because WHO ARE WE to interpret the nature and intention of God? Several have come in His name… and many have been frauds. To hang your hat on God’s will based on the words of men seems like an unnecessary risk to me.

EDITORIAL: I re-read what I wrote, and realized the tone is different than what I want it to be. What I write is with due deference, and in not a confrontational way. I am using point-counterpoint debate techniques, which don’t translate well in internet text. Everything that I write is in curiosity of the mystery of faith as interpreted by others, and mean no disrespect to any fellow Christian’s doctrines.

 

[ahs]

pablope;10601739:

Certainly, those in heaven are ALIVE! My question remains… have souls yet ascended to heaven? Scripture, even Jesus himself, implies that the answer to this question is “no.” (Ref: John 3:13 “And no one ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven.” When we are all in heaven, we are ALL RISEN from the grave as Christ has, since the Rapture has occurred, per John’s Revelation. All believers, living and dead, have risen and ascended as Christ did.

So, my answer to your question is that those who are in heaven are ALIVE. My question to you would be this: who is currently in heaven (and, based in what scripture)?

John’s Revelation seems to say that souls have indeed gone up into Heaven.

“When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” 11 They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants[e] and of their brothers and sisters,[f] who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed.” (Rv 6:9-11)

I don’t think there is a conflict here. In the one case, Christ is speaking prior to the accomplishment of His salvific passion and resurrection and ascension. In the later, John is speaking of the vision he saw, a couple decades or more after Christ’s ascension.

Paul also tells us about that great cloud of witnesses around us who were martyred for their faith in Hebrews:

"And what more should I say? For time would fail me to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, of David and Samuel and the prophets— 33 who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, obtained promises, shut the mouths of lions, 34 quenched raging fire, escaped the edge of the sword, won strength out of weakness, became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight. 35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. 36 Others suffered mocking and flogging, and even chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two,[l] they were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, persecuted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

39 Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, 40 since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.

12 Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely,[m] and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us… " (Hb 11:32 - 12:1)

 

[mattwilliams]

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.

No criticism taken, but know this… as a Baptist, my life was filled with the joy of the Lord! I literally “made a joyful noise” every Sunday as a member of the church band. I am considering my current path not because of a lack of joy, but because I was married in a Catholic ceremony (where I did not take communion, out of respect for Catholic law), and where we promised to raise our children Catholic. I believe Catholics are saved every much as Baptists are, and I actually enjoy feelings of redemption and fulfillment when attending my wife’s parish, despite the fact that people don’t shout “Amen!” and “Alleluia” and dance in the isles!

So, for me, the issue isn’t a lack of faith or salvation, because I have always felt the Lord’s cleansing salvation… it’s giving our future children the Catholic upbringing that we both promised (even as a non-Catholic I made this promise with my wife)… and I want to give our children some continuity, so they don’t have to ask mommy why daddy doesn’t take communion with them, etc.

But, it’s only minimally selfish, in this respect. I regularly attend a Catholic parish, and will do so for the foreseeable future, and am starting to feel more welcome there, and am considering becoming a permanent member.

I still attend Baptist services from time to time, and we would certainly welcome you there (and would not be offended if you did not take communion, as we understand Catholic ritual and law). But, we would love to see you try and not shout an “Alleluia!” after 45 minutes of preaching by the pastor!

 

[ahs]

. My question to you would be this: who is currently in heaven (and, based in what scripture)?

In addition to my above post (that I just edited to add Paul), we know that Moses and Elijah are in Heaven also, according to Matthew, Mark and Luke’s Gospels:

“2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3 and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one** on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. 5 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings,[c] one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 6 He did not know what to say, for they were terrified. 7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, “This is my Son, the Beloved;[d] listen to him!” 8 Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus**.”(Mk 9:2-8)

Luke’s version is slightly more descriptive in Moses and Elijah appearing in “glory”.

“28 Now about eight days after these sayings Jesus[f] took with him Peter and John and James, and went up on the mountain to pray. 29 And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white. 30 Suddenly they saw two men, Moses and Elijah, talking to him. 31 They appeared in glory and were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 Now Peter and his companions were weighed down with sleep; but since they had stayed awake,[g] they saw his glory and the two men who stood with him.” (Lk 9:28-32)

 

[mattwilliams]

mattwilliams;10602423:

John’s Revelation seems to say that souls have indeed gone up into Heaven.

"When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; 10 they cried out with a loud voice, “Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?” 11 They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow servants[e] and of their brothers and sisters,[f] who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed

." (Rv 6:9-11)

I don’t think there is a conflict here. In the one case, Christ is speaking prior to the accomplishment of His salvific passion and resurrection and ascension. In the later, John is speaking of the vision he saw, a couple decades or more after Christ’s ascension.

I LOVE Revelation. And, indeed, it would appear that the Scripture you have quoted deals directly with martyrs (“those who had been slaughtered for the word of God”), and many martyrs have been canonized by the Catholic church.

An argument could be made that the vision given to John on Patmos was just that… a vision. But, a previous blogger (on this site) had posed the question to me “what is a vision?” They had a good answer… I did not. Is a vision a LITERAL look into the spiritual realm? I certainly do not know. While I do know that John’s revelation was certainly a vision (he says that it is so), what this means to the average person is truly a mystery. It could be a literal look into the spiritual world. I’m not one to say otherwise.

But, I will say that John’s revelation merely IMPLIES that there are souls illicit after death, prior to rapture. There have been other implications (transfiguration specifically), where Jesus Himself said that nobody was yet in heaven… but still Moses and Elijah had “appeared.” Jesus called this occurrence a “vision.”

There are other implications with what I am saying… like the burning bush. Was a bush really burning and not being consumed? Or was it something that Moses was merely seeing, visually manifested by God, of course… but still, intended by God to get Moses’ attention? The answer is that there is no way to know! It could be a divine miracle, or God could have just given Moses an optical illusion in order to get his attention. This is the Baptist position on communion. Because of constant metaphor and allegory by Jesus, there is no explicit reason to interpret Jesus’ words during the last supper as literal (which was not the reason for your post, but it it something I am working through right now).