Baptists vs. Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Epistemes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Baptist are missing nothing we are crucfity with Christ, never us live, yet not us but Christ lives thriught us

so now can we be missing anything when we have given up our live so that Christ can live in and thriught us. Can you understand that?
I understand what you are saying, allischalmers. The Catholic Church embraces all persons who are validly baptized, and most especially those who live according to the baptismal promises, in which they have died and are buried with Christ, and that it is not “I” who lives, but Christ who lives within as separated brethren.

Just because one has given up one’s life (to the best of ones understanding) so that Christ can live in and through, still does not equate to that person having the fullness of Truth. Even devotion does not prevent ignorance and error.
 
Simply put, infused righteousness means that God gives you a measure of righteousness that you either keep or lose, depending on your actions.

Imputed righteousness means that God knows that we are not righteous and considers us righteous, not because of our own works, but because of our standing in Christ.
Sounds an awful lot like actual grace and sanctifying grace to me.
 
Come on everyone-- 1 Peter 3:15!!! With charity!!! Poor old Pastor Jim is getting it from all sides here and he’s patiently stating what he believes, should he be derided for that? Does anyone seriously doubt his sincerity and love of the LORD? I for one don’t. I admire his conviction and the charity he has shown in his posts. Because you have been treated badly by Protestant forums is no reason to be rude to all Protestants!

Sorry-- just had to say that! 😊

I also want to see what the good Pastor has to say about Church Militant’s post!

Pax vobiscum!

Mark+
I was admiring his ability to remain cool, calm and charitable until he made this uncalled for and very personal zinger at me:
(b) has representatives like you?

I forgive him and am patiently waiting for him to give me adult rationale for his faith in the face of scripture that contradicts his position. I know he has a lot on his plate though with so many others asking him for explanations also. So I will wait…

James
 
Its Martin Luther hatred. Any Protestant is viewed thru that ancient lens. Would seem that an atheist gets more respect from them.

Until Catholics learn to turn the other cheek and forgive the sins of the past … they will never convince many Protestants that they have the only true faith.

Perhaps the next Reformation will happen within the Catholic Church, lets pray it happens soon !
**And where have you been the past 30 years? John Paul II offered more apologies for the sins of those who were responsible for the wrongs committed against nonCatholic denominations and
individuals than any pope in the history of the Church.

By the very fact that you continue to insist that Catholic Christians need to turn the other cheek and forgive the sins committed in the past reveals (to me, anyway) that you have no intention of accepting any official apology from anybody Catholic, much less the pope, and that you desire to keep Christ’s Church divided.

The so-called protestant ‘reformation’ was a dismal failure. It did hasten the Catholic Church to continue reforming itself (a process that had been going on a hundred years before Luther but he didn’t ‘get it’) but its effect was to fracture, both fraternally and theologically (and on purpose, in many instances) the unity of the Church. The result is approximately 33,000 denominations all claiming that ‘they’ have the exclusive Truth of Jesus Christ and salvation.

Vatican II was the latest ‘reformation’ within the Catholic Church. The refusal to implement the changes adequately by both clergy and many in the laity alike resulted in another dismal failure, and we are just beginning to pull out of it and gaining the center again. **
 
A question to protestants:

What does it take to be a pastor at your church? Could anyone do it or do you have to go to schooling of some sort. Also, how do you decide what rules and guidelines you follow? Are those voted for? Are they subject to the opinions of the pastor?
 
I hold a low opinion of Luther’s teachings and some of his actions and remarks, but I, for one have never developed a hatred for the guy.
I happen to like his veneration of Mary and acknowledgement that the Catholic Church gave us the Bible…

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are…For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person. (year 1532…Martin Luther, Sermons of Martin Luther, Vol. 3, ed. John Nicholas Lenker. ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 291.)*

And thanks to Teflon93 for this one:
"We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics – (for example), that they possess* the Word of God, which we received from them**; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it." —Martin Luther, Commentary on John, Chap 16.*
 
A question to protestants:

What does it take to be a pastor at your church? Could anyone do it or do you have to go to schooling of some sort. Also, how do you decide what rules and guidelines you follow? Are those voted for? Are they subject to the opinions of the pastor?
In some churches its:
“When you can take the pebble from my hand Grasshopper, it will be time for you to leave.”
😃 😃
 
Αυτό που είναι η ιστορία σας στη μελέτη των ελληνικών και γιατί θα έπρεπε εγώ να σας θεωρήσει
ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον
 
I disagree. Not only does history tell us that the church became corrupt, there are many incidents in scripture where the church is rebuked for its corruption, both doctrinal and political.
IT is not wise to believe everything that “history” teaches, especially when it contradicts the Word of God.

the Church is never rebuked in scriptire, but only the members thereof. The church cannot become corrupt, but men can become docrtinally and politically corrupt.

The failure to distinguish the Holy Bride of Christ from the fallible persons who are joined to her is, in my opinion, one of the greatest errors of the reformation.
I agree. And the Reformation was a large part of God’s plan to protect the integrity of the church.
It is too bad that this concept is not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles. The Apostles taught that God, by HIs spirit, would protect the Church from error, not men who departed from the authority that Jesus appointed. 🤷
“Legitimate wrongs and practices”? I thought you just said that the church cannot do this. Which is it?
It is men, who commit wrongs, and practice error.
First of all, Luther may have had pride, but I don’t believe that he ever demanded that people kiss his ring or defer to him as God’s representative on Earth.
Neither does the Pope. It is a sign of courtesy and obedience, but is not “demanded”. What must be deferred to is the authority appointed by Christ. He told the Apostles “he who hears you, hears me”. This is Jeuss making them His representatives on earth.
Second, Lutheranism was not called Lutheranism by Luther.
I agree. I think Luther did not intend to create the harvest of separation that his seeds planted.
It’s not malarkey at all. There is a man in that little booth to whom you must confess.
Well, perhaps you are somewhat behind on your understanding of Catholic practice. Many don’t use a “booth” anymore.

However, it is not “must confess” but are graced to confess. It is a blessed gift from Jesus that we have this opportunity. He has not body now on earth but ours. It is through the mouth of the priest that we can hear audibly His words “you are forgiven, go in peace”. 👍
Protestantism revolves around the Church
Not only that, but a deficient conception of what Church is. However, Catholicsim revolves around Jesus Himself, and His notion of Church, which has not been made a part of the Reformation.
My home is in Christ, not in any religious organization. While Christ gave the church to be a teacher (although I do not believe it is your church), He also gave the church His word to guide it in all matters doctrinal and practical.
Well, at least we agree on something! 👍
Which part of this passage do you believe says that we can lose our salvation?
Since Catholic teaching is based upon the Apostles, then it is not necessary for us to find any doctrine in a particular passage.

We also do not build doctrine on single passages or handfuls of passages. We look at all the scriptures together.
Yes, I have heard of people who have left the Catholic church because of the rampant preist sex abuse and because of that institution’s unwillingness to do anything about it.
If a person needs an excuse, one is sure to find one. This is like the rest of the Apostles leaving Jesus because of the Jews that did not believe His words about His Body and Blood.
Because it’s foolish to tell somebody that they’re wrong when you don’t know what you’re talking about.
All protestants have departed from Apostolic Teaching to one extent or another. What defines all Protestants is rebellion against Catholicism.
I agree, but we’re not talking about Christianity in general, we’re talking about one organization within Christianity.
This is part of the thinking error that arises from the reformation. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and has only ONE BODY!
Simply put, infused righteousness means that God gives you a measure of righteousness that you either keep or lose, depending on your actions.
Not entirely. It is God who is able to keep us until the day of redemption. All one need do is cooperate with that grace that makes us righteous.
Imputed righteousness means that God knows that **we are not righteous **and considers us righteous,
This is the part that we consider not only non-biblical (man made) but non-Aposotlic in origin.
 
Why is it that Catholics refer to anyone who disagrees with them as “anti-Catholic”, but they never refer to themselves as anti-Protestant? Seems a little hypocritical to me.

I don’t know that automatically labeling anyone who disagrees with you as “anti-Catholic” really helps things.
I agree that not all Protestants are anti- Catholic, even if some of their doctrines are.

As I said, all Protestant denominations are based upon the nature and degree of rebellion they have against Catholic Theology. Catholics don’t have to be “anti-Protesant”, since the standard from which the doctrines depart comes from the Catholic Church.
 
Cute … I laughed myself. But, CFL. James … the good Pastor has the scriptures to back up his use of ‘imputed’.
Scriptures, verily, but not the correct understanding of them. God does not impute that which does not exist. He imputes righteousness because we are righteous. We are righteous because His righteousness has been infused into us. 👍
 
the Church is never rebuked in scriptire, but only the members thereof. The church cannot become corrupt, but men can become docrtinally and politically corrupt.
I disagree. I can think of several examples.
It is too bad that this concept is not consistent with the teaching of the Apostles. The Apostles taught that God, by HIs spirit, would protect the Church from error
That’s right. And in this case, he did it by calling Godly men out of Catholicism to gather a remnant.
Neither does the Pope. It is a sign of courtesy and obedience, but is not “demanded”.
Oh, so then the pope only “allows” such adoration?
We also do not build doctrine on single passages or handfuls of passages. We look at all the scriptures together.
Then you shouldn’t have posted it. It’s hypocritical of you to post a passage of scripture in order to make your point but then, when it is pointed out that your point is wrong, to claim “but the passage I just cited doesn’t really mean anything”.

Second, I disagree that you look at all of the scripture together.

Many times, just in the short time I’ve been here, I’ve tried and tried to get your fellow Catholics to understand that scripture is meant to be read as a whole.

For instance, when I appealed to the analogy of scripture to show them that Jesus did not say that He is a piece of bread, then ignored every single verse I cited (ironically, even those who had just cited the verse, themselves, when they believed that it supported their position) and told me that John 6:51 negates all of those verses.
This is part of the thinking error that arises from the reformation. Jesus only founded ONE CHURCH, and has only ONE BODY!
I agree and, although you don’t believe so, we Protestants and Baptists are a part of that body.
Not entirely. It is God who is able to keep us until the day of redemption. All one need do is cooperate with that grace that makes us righteous.
In other words, do good works.
 
I agree and, although you don’t believe so, we Protestants and Baptists are a part of that body.
quote]

Yes all christian are a part of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church. Some have separated themselves from the Church that Christ founded to a certain extent, like that groups that you mentioned. But, yes they still are a part of the one true Church, the Catholic Church. Most protestants will never agree with that statement. They are still protesting the Church, thus the name “protestant”. Who knows why, a misplaced and ungodly since of pride is usually the reason.

You can disagree of course it won’t change that fact any.
 
Imputed righteousness means that God knows that we are not righteous and considers us righteous, not because of our own works, but because of our standing in Christ.

– Romans 4:22-25
  • James 2:23
    – Romans 4:11
Nowhere in these verses does it say that “imputed” righteousness means the person is still really “not righteous” as you stated. The word imputed can be translated there, but it does not contain the definition you have given it. This interpretation that our old, unrighteous self remains is in conflict with the rest of Scripture:

2 Cor 5:17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.

Romans 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

Luther held the same notion of covered righteousness, which actually challenges Christ Himself:
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.

For a Christian, the righteousness of Christ enters the person and he is a new creation, a sharer of His divinity (2 Pt 1:4), and ontologically cleansed.
 
A question to protestants:

What does it take to be a pastor at your church? Could anyone do it or do you have to go to schooling of some sort. Also, how do you decide what rules and guidelines you follow? Are those voted for? Are they subject to the opinions of the pastor?
Each Church has it’s own guidelines. Among Baptists, each Church governs their own affairs so anyone that the local church votes in as pastor becomes the pastor. Deacons and ministers are ordained by having other deacons and ministers come lay hands on them. There are no formal requirements to this happening, although most follow the biblical guidelines in Timothy.
 
Since the great pastor never answered my question on how one becomes a protestant pastor, here is another (i’m sure it will be avoided also):

Do you take the words and actions of the apostles as their own personal opinions and incorrect? Example: They confessed sins to each other, ate bread and declared it to be the body of Christ, etc.
 
According to James, faith without works is dead. So works that come from faith is indeed cooperating with God’s grace.
We have more Scriptural reference than that Pastor Jim; There are many passages in Scripture where Jesus and the sacred writers teach that works are required for salvation.

For example, in the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that those who increased their talents with good works were saved. Those who buried their talents by not doing good works were condemned (Matt 25:14-30).

When Jesus comes at the end of the world, He grants salvation based upon what we have actually done, not how much faith we had (Matt 25:31-46; 16:27). Jesus determines our eternal destiny based upon what we have done with our lives.

In Rev 2:5, Jesus warns the faithful to do the good works they did at first, otherwise he will remove their place in heaven. This proves that good works are necessary for salvation. Our deeds follow us, and determine our eternal destiny (Rev 14:13; 20:12; 22:12). That is why Jesus says “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:22).

Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching about good and bad works and how they determine our salvation (see Rom 2:5-8; Rom 14:10,12; 2 Cor 5:10). Romans 2:5-8 is especially clear. There is a polarity between bad works which lead to hell, and good works which lead to heaven, not just more rewards. Paul also explains this in 1 Cor 3:15 where he describes how a person must pass through fire based on the works he performed during his life. If the works are bad enough, the person is condemned. If the works are mixed good and bad, the bad works retard but not prevent his salvation.
See also James 2. James is speaking about salvific justification when He says “Can his faith save him?” (v.14). James’ answer is an unqualified NO. If the Christian does not perform good works, he cannot be saved. “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
 
We have more Scriptural reference than that Pastor Jim; There are many passages in Scripture where Jesus and the sacred writers teach that works are required for salvation.

For example, in the parable of the talents, Jesus teaches that those who increased their talents with good works were saved. Those who buried their talents by not doing good works were condemned (Matt 25:14-30).

When Jesus comes at the end of the world, He grants salvation based upon what we have actually done, not how much faith we had (Matt 25:31-46; 16:27). Jesus determines our eternal destiny based upon what we have done with our lives.

In Rev 2:5, Jesus warns the faithful to do the good works they did at first, otherwise he will remove their place in heaven. This proves that good works are necessary for salvation. Our deeds follow us, and determine our eternal destiny (Rev 14:13; 20:12; 22:12). That is why Jesus says “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt 10:22).

Paul echoes Jesus’ teaching about good and bad works and how they determine our salvation (see Rom 2:5-8; Rom 14:10,12; 2 Cor 5:10). Romans 2:5-8 is especially clear. There is a polarity between bad works which lead to hell, and good works which lead to heaven, not just more rewards. Paul also explains this in 1 Cor 3:15 where he describes how a person must pass through fire based on the works he performed during his life. If the works are bad enough, the person is condemned. If the works are mixed good and bad, the bad works retard but not prevent his salvation.
See also James 2. James is speaking about salvific justification when He says “Can his faith save him?” (v.14). James’ answer is an unqualified NO. If the Christian does not perform good works, he cannot be saved. “A man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
Very good points.

If Jesus did not mean anything by “good works” then why would He mention it so many times? Why didn’t He just say “The one who has faith to the end will be saved” or “God gives His treasure to the faithful, and is happy they possess it”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top