Baptists vs. Catholicism

[peary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by **peary **
Don’t ever make a mission trip to the Far East. They’d send you home immediately with that attitude. It would be an insult not to greet someone with a bow, particularly in Japan.

Oroginally posted by Pastor Jim
Funny, I was in Okinawa for 18 months and it’s perfectly acceptable there to shake hands.

I never had anyone there suggest that I kiss their feet.

Good for you. And you insist on putting things into my posts which are originally not there which reveals to me that you are not honest with discussing the matter. If you read my post above, I said that it would be an insult not to greet someone with a bow, particularly in Japan. I said nothing about kissing anyone’s feet.

Originally quoted by peary
We are saved by Grace ALONE. We are justified by our works.

**We are saved by GRACE ALONE. Faith justifies initially but our works perfect and complete our justification:

James 2:24 - “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Hebrews 11:6 - “But without faith it is impossible to please him, for anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.”

Luke 24:47 - “…that repentance, for the forgiveness of sins, would be preached in his name to all the nations…”

Acts 2:38 - "Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.”

Acts 3:19 - “Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be wiped away…”

Acts 17:30 - “God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now he demands that all people everywhere repent.”

2 Cor. 10:15 - “We are not boasting beyond measure, in other people’s labors; yet our hope is that, as your faith increases, our influence among you may be greatly enlarged, within our proper limits.”

Gal. 5:6 – thus, the faith that justifies us is “faith working through love,” not faith alone. This is one of the best summaries of Catholic teaching. Faith and love (manifested by works) are always connected. Faith (a process of thought) and love (an action) are never separated in the Scriptures. Cf. Eph. 3:17; 1 Thess. 3:6,12-13; 2 Thess. 1:3; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:4-5,19. Further, all faith (initial and perfected) are gratuitous gifts from God, and not earned or merited by any human action. God effects everything, both the willing and the achievement. But God also requires human action, which is necessary to perfect our faith. **

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. - Romans 3:28

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight - Romans 3:20

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: -Romans 5:1

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. - Galatians 3:11

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace - Galatians 5:4

The Bible has the only correct answer I have ever seen.

All the cited passages refer clearly to works of the law, ie the Mosaic Law. No one has stated that we are saved by “works of the mosaic law.” Your individual passages are way out of context for the “faith working thru love” agrument here.

The cited passages answer a question that no one has asked.

The Bible has the only correct answer that you have seen. Where is that in the bible, that bible is the sole source of proof for matters of faith and morals? It seems to be a doctine of your faith so it must be in the bible word for word. What is the chapter and verse, please.

 

[trrocks03]

When did I ever “disdain” parables?

Same way I did before: by pointing out that vv22-23 tell us that Abraham was saved because of his faith, not his works.

The Bible has the only correct answer I have ever seen.

A)

Actually, that’s just a parable.

Just a parable? Not a big deal to you huh?

B) So the Catholic says that there is a scripture verse that argues against w22-23 and to dispute him, you reuse the same verse. Okay, so now the fellow catholic can now reuse his verse to counter your verse. We are really getting somewhere now.

C) And where did the bible come from? According to you the Catholic church is incorrect and imperfect, but they produced a correct and perfect book? Thats quite an accomplishment!

Here’s another question that will not be answered:

Lets compare two simple lines of thought. The catholic view of faith and works lead to salvation vs. the protestant view of faith alone (good works are a result of good faith) leads to salvation.

Why is the Catholic way bad? All the Catholics are saying is that you cannot be guaranteed of your faith and strive to work hard by helping others, praying constantly, asking for repentance, and keeping the faith. The protestants can live with just accepting Jesus. Do you think that God will condemn those who believe AND do good works? He will say, “You helped your brother, you helped the needy, you visited the sick, you are condemned to hell”?

Seeing as how you haven’t met God personally, and are not God, then you cannot say that you fully know the entire purpose and way to live your life. If you did there is no reason to live right now, because you could just go straight to heaven. Since this is not the case, then why do you ridicule those who are trying to be the best person possible? How can you feel “secure” about your faith when you haven’t witnessed God? St. Paul witnessed God and still was insecure! How could you be so confident?

 

[BRB]

You are correct. This is apostolic teaching. God’s Justice would not permit Him to extend a false “righteousness” on a thing that was not intrinsically righteous.
James

Why would God need to impute [or infuse] righteousness on a person ALREADY righteous ? The righteousness we get is that of Christ’s.

Furthermore, God has no false ‘righteousness’ … so your statement makes zero sense.

 

[MrS]

Well, after breezing through these 8+ pages, I must say that nothing will be resolved because the problem is one of authority.

Baptists were started by a man as a rebuttal of some or many teachings of the Church begun by Christ.

I have seen “reformation” mentioned… but in reality it was a divorce, … there was no reformation possible when the “reformers” elected to leave the Church, and not stay to reform it.

So we have a sincere Pastor who claims most of the Catholic Scriptures as his authority.

and

we have Catholics who claim the Church (re:Timothy) as the authority to both give us the Scriptures, and to interpret.

Only Peter was given the authority to “…feed my sheep…tend my flock…”

The pastor has no real authority from Christ.

.

 

[TobyLue]

Pastor Jim

And I believe, based on the teachings of the Bible, that your church is wrong.

This statement is flawed. It would be more correct if it was said thus:

And I believe, based on MY INTERPRETATIONS

on the teachings of the Bible, that your church is wrong.
To me this sums up Pastor Jim. He fails to realize that the Church’s teachings were around for several hundred years before the Bible was put together. Protestants fail to realize that the Bible verifies the teachings of the Church who got Her teachings from Jesus through the Apostles. After people were going their merry way teaching heresies the Church through the grace of the Holy Spirit thought it best to compile the teachings of Jesus into one book which actually was comprised of several books. The Church used its Traditions of Her teachings and backing it up with scripture to say which interpretations were correct. Unfortunately M.L. without authority other than his own self, removed some books from the Bible, claimed anybody could interpret scripture and that’s why now we have so many thousands of interpretations all claiming that the Church is wrong. They point to scripture and say “See, it’s right here, that’s what it says. The CC is wrong”. But what PJ does not seem to understand is that the replies he is getting from Catholics are things that the Church has been teaching from the year one. His interpretations are a novelty that has seen many changes since the deformation.

Question: Who and how declared the heresy of Aranism and by what authority? Was it the Baptists?
Question: Who and how declared the heresy of Donatism and by what authority? Was it the Baptists?
Question after question who and how declared such and such a heresy and by what authority? Was it the Baptists?

 

[BRB]

The pastor has no real authority from Christ.

.

Hello … Please reconsider this statement.

Your Catholic Church recognizes his Trinitarian baptisms as valid, … same for marriages.

And, if he were to teach his flock that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist … [this we don’t know] , would not that allow graces to flow ?

Furthermore, all he leads to discipleship in Christ … are they not adopted by Christ ?

Does Scott Hahn teach he had no valid authority for his Presbyterian ministry before he became Catholic ?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You go ahead and respond to the scriptures I’ve cited

Already did it. Even cited it in my last post. Are you even reading our posts?

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, after breezing through these 8+ pages, I must say that nothing will be resolved because the problem is one of authority.

Quite possibly true…the Pastor has effectively appointed himself as the Magisterium. I say that factually, and not flippantly. It would be interesting to hear why Pastor Jim’s personal interpretations should trump a couple millennia of Tradition… To whom can we go who has the authority to resolve a doctrinal conflict in the Church… http://www.cvreefers.org/images/smilies/headscratch.gif

But other than that, you should set your forum preferences to show 100 posts per page…this thread is only in it’s 2nd page for me.

 

[jmcrae]

Hello … Please reconsider this statement.

Your Catholic Church recognizes his Trinitarian baptisms as valid, … same for marriages.

And, if he were to teach his flock that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist … [this we don’t know] , would not that allow graces to flow ?

What would the good of him teaching it do, if he does not intend to become Catholic? It is only in the Catholic Church that this can actually happen.

Does Scott Hahn teach he had no valid authority for his Presbyterian ministry before he became Catholic ?

He was an extremely well educated layman - just as he still is, today. He had no authority (nor ever claimed any) to give the Absolution for sins confessed, nor to confect the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is what priests can do that lay people cannot do.

The Protestant worship service is analogous to a lay-led Catholic Bible study group or prayer group - one or two lay people with a special interest and knowledge of the subject (perhaps with degrees in theology) take leadership, and gather likeminded others around them for learning and prayer.

 

[trrocks03]

Quite possibly true…the Pastor has effectively appointed himself as the Magisterium. I say that factually, and not flippantly. It would be interesting to hear why Pastor Jim’s personal interpretations should trump a couple millennia of Tradition… To whom can we go who has the authority to resolve a doctrinal conflict in the Church… http://www.cvreefers.org/images/smilies/headscratch.gif

But other than that, you should set your forum preferences to show 100 posts per page…this thread is only in it’s 2nd page for me.

“But see, that’s not what the bible says. So you are wrong.”

 

[averheyen]

I have always found that rather than looking for divisions, it is better to focus on what we share (which is quite a lot). I also think that you can fairly easily demonstrate that Catholicism has everything that Baptists have, and a load of stuff they are missing!

That’s all and good, but in this day and age, I need to know where I stand and how others differ. I don’t think I could truely respect or even appriciate other religions/demoninations if I don’t know where I am first and where they are second.

 

[jmcrae]

Is there a website, or could someone please summarize some of the core areas where Baptists differ from Catholics in terms of theology, Christology, and the Bible? I am going to be among a small group teaching an RCIC (Rite of Christian Initiation for Children) and the parents will be attending with the children. The father of one of the boys is a Baptist, and while he’s not opposed to letting his son become Catholic, he himself seems to pretty staunch to remain Baptist. I would like to know what Baptists believe so that I might use “sleight of hand” in my presentations to show the boys plus this father why Catholicism is different and true.

Thanks.

In response to this, what I have found in my own RCIA work (I did this for four years) is, rather than attempt to learn the theology and teachings of every other religion out there (there are thousands, and you will always have someone coming in from a religion that you have never even heard of, before) , just focus on the teachings of the Church. Answer every question as well as you can, while making sure that everything you do and say is in line with the Catechism and with the law of the Church. When in doubt, consult your priest, and keep asking questions yourself until you get the answers you need, so that you can help the RCIA participants as much as possible.

One of the most important sentences you will ever use is, “I don’t know, but I will have an answer for you on that next week.” And then, do it.

 

[peary]

Hello … Please reconsider this statement.

Your Catholic Church recognizes his Trinitarian baptisms as valid, … same for marriages.

And, if he were to teach his flock that Christ is actually present in the Eucharist … [this we don’t know] , would not that allow graces to flow ?

Furthermore, all he leads to discipleship in Christ … are they not adopted by Christ ?

Does Scott Hahn teach he had no valid authority for his Presbyterian ministry before he became Catholic ?

**I believe Scott Hahn recognizes that he had no valid authority for his Presbyterian ministry before he converted.

I personally consider protestant ministers as “lay leaders” who have been blessed by God in a special way to impart the word of God to their congregations, no matter how imperfect that may be. But they have no official capacity to do so other than in their own ecclesial communities. We are all adopted by Christ because of our baptism, and we are all called to discipleship.

I have also personally interpreted Mark 9:38-41 with regard to those ecclesial communities outside of the Catholic Church:

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
Jesus replied, “Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward.”

**

 

[CentralFLJames]

The cited passages answer a question that no one has asked.

Bingo!

This is because Protestantism at large in all its many-splendored denominational flavors ranging from fundamentalist plain-vanilla to the exotic and flamboyant tutti-fruity variants are appealing to individual human tastes and preferences; and because they have to create and market new problems to sell new flavors; and because they must manufacture strawmans to create the motive force necessary to advance itself against questions and problems that don’t exist and God nor anyone else ever invited them to answer.

Protestantism is nothing but a euphemism for “don’t try to teach us us anything - we don’t like authority - God given or not”.

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

“But see, that’s not what the bible says. So you are wrong.”

http://www.pclincs.co.uk

 

[sodak]

Funny, I was in Okinawa for 18 months and it’s perfectly acceptable there to shake hands.

I never had anyone there suggest that I kiss their feet.

I lived there for 3 years, and everyone bowed to each other. You are the one who said that everyone had to kiss the Pope’s feet. I asked where that is a requirement, I’m waiting for your answer.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. - Romans 3:28

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight - Romans 3:20

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: -Romans 5:1

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16

But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. - Galatians 3:11

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace - Galatians 5:4

Then James is in direct contradiction to Paul. How do you explain that?

When did I ever “disdain” parables?

This has already been answered.

Then you shouldn’t have posted those verses to try to show that it does if you’re now saying that it doesn’t.

I didn’t, you did.

Actually, I did. I showed from scripture where it said that Abraham was saved because of his faith, not his works. The Catholic poster I was responding to even conceded that this is tha case.

Same way I did before: by pointing out that vv22-23 tell us that Abraham was saved because of his faith, not his works.

See my posts on James. The Catholic Church can explain this, but you seem intent upon ignoring the part of the Bible that you disagree with.

The Bible has the only correct answer I have ever seen.

Only if you know how to put it in it’s proper context, which you have shown that you cannot do…

 

[BRB]

He was an extremely well educated layman - just as he still is, today. He had no authority (nor ever claimed any) to give the Absolution for sins confessed, nor to confect the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is what priests can do that lay people cannot do.

The Protestant worship service is analogous to a lay-led Catholic Bible study group or prayer group - one or two lay people with a special interest and knowledge of the subject (perhaps with degrees in theology) take leadership, and gather likeminded others around them for learning and prayer.

Hahn led his flock… as an ordained minister. To call him a layman at that time is disrespectful. I’m certain he will say he helped others find Christ during his former Protestant ministry … teaching them how Christ forgives our sins.

He elected to join the Catholic faith and abide by their rules … giving up the cloth to become a lay person. He teaches @ a Catholic institution, and has become perhaps the Catholic faiths finest apologist.

When Paul learned some with faith in Christ had not heard of H.S., did he tell them they were heretics and treat them as unclean or ignorant ? Paul enlightened them to the truer teaching of Christ … and God was glorified.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Hahn led his flock… as an ordained minister. To call him a layman at that time is disrespectful.

We are requied to respect God’s ordinances not man’s ordinance. Hahn was ordained by quite ordinary secular men who had absolutely no sacerdotal nor apostolic relationship with God through Jesus. Thus these men were not ordained by God and are not recognized as anything but secular leaders within their own secular eccleasial communities. That is worthy of all the respect that a cubscout den leader or small town mayor is given - nothing more and nothing less.

James

 

[peary]

Hahn led his flock… as an ordained minister. To call him a layman at that time is disrespectful. I’m certain he will say he helped others find Christ during his former Protestant ministry … teaching them how Christ forgives our sins.

Ordained by whom? Not the Church which has only authentic ordination and apostolic succession. He may have been ‘ordained’ by the Presbyterian body but they do not believe either in the priesthood or the Eucharist. It is not disrespectful to refer to him as a layman, and if you read my post, I said that he preached the word of God, albeit incompletely.