Catholic vs Southern Baptist

[DerekD]

For nearly 20 years I was a dyed in the wool Sola Scriptura guy…until I realized that it was not in the Bible.

Probably because you don’t know what Sola Scirptura is? It has always been there; but not put into to a quantifiable understanding unlike the priesthood or the pope, which was added, not discovered.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Probably because you don’t know what Sola Scirptura is? It has always been there; but not put into to a quantifiable understanding unlike the priesthood or the pope, which was added, not discovered.

Ok! Show us where scripture says that about itself and be prepared to be slapped down.

 

[pipper]

You went from one form of legalism into another far more works based; you are 0 for 2 AISI; you might try the person of Christ; He is the only one that can save; it was one of His purposes for coming to earth in the flesh. You are pretty typical for this forum; you accuse someone of twisting the Scripture w/out showing how in any manner; yet it is laid before your eyes, then you defend the Church because well because it is the Church; that shows great faith on your part; greater than mine for sure.

The passage about water baptism was shown before your eyes; yet you can’t even see what you read; I know the Lord has a veil over people; but yours is extra thick I guess.

I’ll give you the NLT version; some say it it easier to understand, but I don’t care much for it myself.
Luke 3:16
John answered their questions by saying, "I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am – so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

In case your eyes still overlooked; I will give you the cross reference in Matthew
"**I baptize with water **those who turn from their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is far greater than I am – so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Just in case i will add another, which I have already shown:
47 “Surely **no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized **who have received the Holy Spirit just as we {did,} can he?”

Do you now see? I would be totally embarrassed to have someone put in my face a clear teaching about baptism and water baptism, claim to be a Christian, then make a statement that you have no inkling about water baptism and it is not in Scripture. We all make mistakes, but you obviously do not read or care to read the Scripture; Catholicism is very easy; the Church does all the work.

DD you obivously have no Idea whereof you speak. You think your ideas are formed by scripture when they are obviously formed by the theology of John Calvin and never existed before the 16th century.

Your arrogance reminds me of the cofc I left which was founded by Calviinists itself

AS another member said this is CATHOLIC ANSWERS and not a platform for Calvinist proseletytizing.

I will not respond to none of your continued propaganda. Find someone else to insult. You are not the only one to know the bible!

 

[DerekD]

If you hold to the standards taught in the Bible why do you only baptize believers? Peter told the crowd at Pentecost to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.

I’m not sure what your point is other than you are trying to make Acts 2:38 say something that it does not. Water baptism does not remit any sin; only God can forgive a persons sin. You put Acts 2:38 in the wrong context of sin remission, then you have a bunch of reconcilliation to do with a few other parts on baptism in the Bible; especially with Peter, Paul and John the Baptist.

I have not ever baptized anyone; have you?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Your comments show ignorance of God; yet the veil remains which does not allow you to see.

As I said, the redeemed know exactly what I am talking about; you obviously have nothing to add other than your sarcasm. 3 nails + 1 cross = 4 given

I’m certain Calvin knew a great deal more about God and His character and attributes than you may ever begin to know; however no one knows when the HS will remove the veil of unbelief. I pray that happens to you soon as you are getting up there in age.

Unfortunately there you go with your dogmatism again - “Hands over ears everyone, someone else is talking.”

Catholics believe in co-operation through grace, if a person is not free, he is no longer responsible for his acts, and cannot be punished or rewarded for them.

As you have aready said, a soul is attracted by what is good and repelled by what is evil. Man is a rational being, given the power to reason, we act on information given. This is where much Protestant theology differs from Catholic theology: Protestant theology (at least those who follow Calvinism) teaches predestination to condemnation, Catholic theology teaches our first parents never lost free will.

According to Calvinism and Lutheranism Original sin annihilated free will. Man is reduced to a toy, a puppet; every act of man is seen as sin.

Be careful not to make a Pope of Calvin. To get his ideas across Luther re-wrote Scripture, adding and subtracting (famously calling The Epistle of James, “an epistle of straw”). For the sake of brevity for now I shall leave it at that.

 

[izoid]

I’m not sure what your point is other than you are trying to make Acts 2:38 say something that it does not. Water baptism does not remit any sin; only God can forgive a persons sin. You put Acts 2:38 in the wrong context of sin remission, then you have a bunch of reconcilliation to do with a few other parts on baptism in the Bible; especially with Peter, Paul and John the Baptist.

I have not ever baptized anyone; have you?

As a matter of fact, yes I have. I spent nearly 3 years as the children’s pastor in a Bible Church. Was there a point to your question?

I am not saying anything regarding Acts 2:38. I am simply asking you what it means to be baptized for the remission of sins.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Luke 3:16
John answered their questions by saying, "I baptize with water; but someone is coming soon who is greater than I am – so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

In case your eyes still overlooked; I will give you the cross reference in Matthew
"**I baptize with water **those who turn from their sins and turn to God. But someone is coming soon who is far greater than I am – so much greater that I am not even worthy to be his slave. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

It is admirable that you are so determined to read the Bible so literally.
But I guess certain things are to be read figuratively or else one could be adding another text: “Believe and burn, perish in the flames” as the baptiser literally sets on fire a new convert. Scarry stuff !!!

Please for the sake of safety, add reason to your talents.

It reminds me of Oregen who for the sake of the kingdom became a eunuch cutting off his penis and bleeding to death.

 

[izoid]

Probably because you don’t know what Sola Scirptura is? It has always been there; but not put into to a quantifiable understanding unlike the priesthood or the pope, which was added, not discovered.

Would you kindly point me to the verses that teach this very important doctrine?

When I read scripture I find scripture to be profitable but not sufficient. I find scripture to be “God breathed” but not the only way to know the truth. I see Paul’s words, traditions, to be given equal treatment as the written word. Paul himself tells us that his words are from God and not his own. Should we not listen to them and give them a place of prominence in determining our faith?

Now Derek, please give this some thought and don’t simply repeat what you have been taught. Set your preconceived ideas aside and really look at what scripture says. You do not need to prove a point, you do need to find the truth. I see a lot of myself in you and I know where you are coming from. Your zeal for God and His truth is clearly driving your life. Set aside your doctrinal position and really look into hat the Bible teaches, you may be surprised.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Probably because you don’t know what Sola Scirptura is? It has always been there; but not put into to a quantifiable understanding unlike the priesthood or the pope, which was added, not discovered.

The “Bible alone” doctrine was unheard of until Martin Luther.

DerekD I’m willing to learn, show me evidence supporting your claim the priesthood or the pope are inventions of man.

 

[DerekD]

Unfortunately there you go with your dogmatism again - “Hands over ears everyone, someone else is talking.”

Catholics believe in co-operation through grace, if a person is not free, he is no longer responsible for his acts, and cannot be punished or rewarded for them.

As you have aready said, a soul is attracted by what is good and repelled by what is evil. Man is a rational being, given the power to reason, we act on information given. This is where much Protestant theology differs from Catholic theology: Protestant theology (at least those who follow Calvinism) teaches predestination to condemnation, Catholic theology teaches our first parents never lost free will.

According to Calvinism and Lutheranism Original sin annihilated free will. Man is reduced to a toy, a puppet; every act of man is seen as sin.

Be careful not to make a Pope of Calvin. To get his ideas across Luther re-wrote Scripture, adding and subtracting (famously calling The Epistle of James, “an epistle of straw”). For the sake of brevity for now I shall leave it at that.

Kevin, try to remain focused. You do not understand the concept of free-will; it is a very difficult paradox to understand; I do not fully comprehend it nor will I ever in this life. You do not understand the lighter things of God; so you must first get the basics before you move to the weighter things of God…agree? Really for a basic understanding you only need to look at what God has chosen to reveal as is with everything concerning the things of God.

A soul is NOT attracted to what is good, but what is evil and lustful by our sin nature which puts extreme limits on our ability to seek after that which is “good”; for only God is good and no one seeks after God. God removed the veil for the Called or Elect; so we can see His unsurpassing beauty, which the human heart will desire, but NOT until God makes Himself known; no one will seek after Him according to Scripture.

If you are married, think of what it was that made you first attracted to your spouse; it wasn’t anything she did or said; she laid before your eyes and you had a desire for her and as you got to know her, your desire was affirmed and stregthened; in a similar manner this is how I would describe how God removes the veil before the ones He has choosen that those who have been choosen have a desire and chose to persue.

You seem to know less about Calvinism than I do; but since I keep hearing myself in relation to him; he must have read the same book I have been reading and lead by the same Spirit; therefore I will not insult him by making him a type of pope.

Luther added a single word and it wasn’t even out of comtext, I don’t condone it, but it is so hypicritical everytime I hear someone like yourself bring that up; your religion has added volumes to Scripture through your rituals and traditions. Mainly because your rituals and traditions define the Scripture or define what God has said…how convenient; yet wrong in the sight of God-see Matthew 23.

 

[DerekD]

As a matter of fact, yes I have. I spent nearly 3 years as the children’s pastor in a Bible Church. Was there a point to your question?

I am not saying anything regarding Acts 2:38. I am simply asking you what it means to be baptized for the remission of sins.

You asked “why do you only baptize believers”? I have never baptized anyone, then I asked if you have?

Now you are not telling the truth; you say you are not saying anything about Acts 2:38, then you ask a question about a phrase in Acts 2:38? Pleas try to be straight forward.

But to answer your question; I have no idea what it means to be water baptized for the remission of sins? Do you? I do know that only God can forgive sins and that water cannot according to Scripture.

What is a Bible church? Is it shaped like a book?..just kidding on the latter but what is a Bible church; is the implication that the church you now belong to is NOT a Bible church?

 

[DerekD]

It is admirable that you are so determined to read the Bible so literally.
But I guess certain things are to be read figuratively or else one could be adding another text: “Believe and burn, perish in the flames” as the baptiser literally sets on fire a new convert. Scarry stuff !!!

Please for the sake of safety, add reason to your talents.

It reminds me of Oregen who for the sake of the kingdom became a eunuch cutting off his penis and bleeding to death.

You really have nothing to say except a filthy and immoral comment; happy trails you are in deep need of the Savior; I hope He finds you or at least you enjoy yourself in this life.

 

[izoid]

You asked “why do you only baptize believers”? I have never baptized anyone, then I asked if you have?

Now you are not telling the truth; you say you are not saying anything about Acts 2:38, then you ask a question about a phrase in Acts 2:38? Pleas try to be straight forward.

But to answer your question; I have no idea what it means to be water baptized for the remission of sins? Do you? I do know that only God can forgive sins and that water cannot according to Scripture.

What is a Bible church? Is it shaped like a book?..just kidding on the latter but what is a Bible church; is the implication that the church you now belong to is NOT a Bible church?

A Bible church is a non denominational evangelical church. To give you an idea of my background, I was introduced to Christ 19 years ago and spent the first 2 or 3 years of my walk under the teaching of John MacArthur. I have been a member of either Southern Baptist or non denomination churches. I have always believed in the reformers calls of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I studied at Liberty University, a good conservative Baptist college. I am educated in Christian theology and Philosophy.

It has recently become clear to me that the scriptures can be made to say whatever we want them to. It is so easy to take them out of context in order to prove a point. I decided to go back to the beginning in my search for the 1st century church, it’s beliefs, teachings and practices. I was amazed that the early church was not familiar to me, it was Catholic. Scripture validates the teachings and the Early Church Fathers validated that the earliest of Christians understood these doctrines to be true. Imagine how surprising it was for me to find no references to my beloved Sola’s that I had built an entire theology around.

The first pillar to fall was Sola Scriptura and then the rest sort of crumbled apart. Acts 2:38 is one of those difficulty verses. The early church practiced baptism for the remission of sins, exactly what scripture says in this and other verses. The ECF’s verified the belief that baptism somehow applies the forgiveness of sins. I really did not want this to be true but in all my research I have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation of this verse other than its plain meaning, I was curious if you had one, I know I don’t.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Kevin, try to remain focused. You do not understand the concept of free-will; it is a very difficult paradox to understand; I do not fully comprehend it nor will I ever in this life. You do not understand the lighter things of God; so you must first get the basics before you move to the weighter things of God…agree? Really for a basic understanding you only need to look at what God has chosen to reveal as is with everything concerning the things of God.

A soul is NOT attracted to what is good, but what is evil and lustful by our sin nature which puts extreme limits on our ability to seek after that which is “good”; for only God is good and no one seeks after God. God removed the veil for the Called or Elect; so we can see His unsurpassing beauty, which the human heart will desire, but NOT until God makes Himself known; no one will seek after Him according to Scripture.

If you are married, think of what it was that made you first attracted to your spouse; it wasn’t anything she did or said; she laid before your eyes and you had a desire for her and as you got to know her, your desire was affirmed and stregthened; in a similar manner this is how I would describe how God removes the veil before the ones He has choosen that those who have been choosen have a desire and chose to persue.

You seem to know less about Calvinism than I do; but since I keep hearing myself in relation to him; he must have read the same book I have been reading and lead by the same Spirit; therefore I will not insult him by making him a type of pope.

Luther added a single word and it wasn’t even out of comtext, I don’t condone it, but it is so hypicritical everytime I hear someone like yourself bring that up; your religion has added volumes to Scripture through your rituals and traditions. Mainly because your rituals and traditions define the Scripture or define what God has said…how convenient; yet wrong in the sight of God-see Matthew 23.

God is always present to us with what the Catholic calls “actual” grace. It also teaches God treats us as individuals who have been given free will and responsibility.
It is possible to be in a state of grace and at the same time experience an inclination to sin (Rom 6:12-13; 7:7; 7:14-20). The Christian must struggle against sin. Grace does not excuse him from serious effort (Rom 6:12)
‘One thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus’ (Phil 3:13-14)
The Church provides means to grace - the doctrine of faith and morals, the sacraments, the directives of those in ecclesiastical authority, communion of saints. Central to this is the Holy Spirit, which brings to life the Mystical Body.

 

[DerekD]

Would you kindly point me to the verses that teach this very important doctrine?

When I read scripture I find scripture to be profitable but not sufficient. I find scripture to be “God breathed” but not the only way to know the truth. I see Paul’s words, traditions, to be given equal treatment as the written word. Paul himself tells us that his words are from God and not his own. Should we not listen to them and give them a place of prominence in determining our faith?

Now Derek, please give this some thought and don’t simply repeat what you have been taught. Set your preconceived ideas aside and really look at what scripture says. You do not need to prove a point, you do need to find the truth. I see a lot of myself in you and I know where you are coming from. Your zeal for God and His truth is clearly driving your life. Set aside your doctrinal position and really look into hat the Bible teaches, you may be surprised.

Yeah, show me where it says it is not sufficient and I will show you where it is. Since I have mercy on the ignorant concerning Scripture; you might do a careful reading of Psalm 19 for starters, that will keep you busy for about a year.

Traditions in Paul’s context is the teaching of the Word revealed to him by God, which if you havn’t noticed Paul does not deviate from the gospel in all of his letters; therefore what was orally taught by Paul we reasonably and ratonally assume it is the same. However we cannot assume that a religious organization has some special revelation outside the bounds of Scripture unless you have great faith in a body of men, which many have and many do and Jesus had a lot to say about that type of thinking in Matthew 23.

Don’t repeat what I have been taught by God; I cannot be a parrot for a religion as you appear to be AISI. Set aside doctrinal or teaching from god and you have no leg to stand on; stick with the teaching sof God and you have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…thanks, but I’ll stick with those three, you stick with your 3.

Believe me I understand what the Bible teaches but only because the HS spirit leads all the father has given to the Son into the truth concerning the thngs of God; exactly what Scripture teaches. Scripture does not teach that a body of men that make up somenon existent heirarchy will have the HS and will teach another body of men and women His truth; He says He dwells in each individual and without such a dwelling that person is not saved nor can they know the truth.

 

[DerekD]

The “Bible alone” doctrine was unheard of until Martin Luther.

DerekD I’m willing to learn, show me evidence supporting your claim the priesthood or the pope are inventions of man.

You cannot prove a negative; it would be like me asking you to prove Jesus preferred apples over oranges; the Bible has nothing to say in that regards and likewise has nothing to say about a Pope or a Livitical showdow-like priesthood in the NT. We can show that there is a priesthood of believers and that Jesus finshed the work that the earthly priest could not and we can show from Hebrews as well ; that there was no longer a need for a priesthood or a sacrafice. One only needs to look at history of the ever changing and evolving paplacy and priesthood; nothing in the first 2oo plus years after the death of John shows anything remotely resembling what we see in your church. Look you love your church and the mass makes you feel closer to God, that might be the closest you will ever get to a good feeling of God. I am just telling you what He has said and how He looks toward legalism - Matthew 23.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

2 Tim 3:16-17

• Scripture is “profitable”. St Paul does not say it alone will be enough.
• Scripture is inspired by God. St Paul does not say only Scripture, he does not say God does not give His Authority to men to speak in His name (Cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2)
• The preceding verse shows St Paul is speaking of the Old Testament (implication, the New Testament is not necessary!)
• The New Testament was not yet complete.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

You cannot prove a negative; it would be like me asking you to prove Jesus preferred apples over oranges; the Bible has nothing to say in that regards and likewise has nothing to say about a Pope or a Livitical showdow-like priesthood in the NT. We can show that there is a priesthood of believers and that Jesus finshed the work that the earthly priest could not and we can show from Hebrews as well ; that there was no longer a need for a priesthood or a sacrafice. One only needs to look at history of the ever changing and evolving paplacy and priesthood; nothing in the first 2oo plus years after the death of John shows anything remotely resembling what we see in your church. Look you love your church and the mass makes you feel closer to God, that might be the closest you will ever get to a good feeling of God. I am just telling you what He has said and how He looks toward legalism - Matthew 23.

References to these offices within the Church are found throughout Scripture:

• St Paul writes that the Christ’s Church has bishops (in Greek, episkopoi) serving the Church in a particular location
• St Paul writes that Christ’s Church has priests (in Greek, presbyteroi) serving the bishop
• St Paul writes that Christ’s Church has deacons (in Greek, diakonoi) serving the priests

(Cf Acts 20:17,28; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1,8, 5:7; Titus 1:5,7; James 5:14)

• Demonstrating that Christ intended to leave behind a visible and hierarchical Church (in Greek, ecclesia)

(Cf 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 4:11)

The hierarchical and visible nature of the early Church stands in opposition to the common Protestant view of church as an invisible community of believers linked together by faith in the Bible alone.

 

[izoid]

Yeah, show me where it says it is not sufficient and I will show you where it is. Since I have mercy on the ignorant concerning Scripture; you might do a careful reading of Psalm 19 for starters, that will keep you busy for about a year.

Traditions in Paul’s context is the teaching of the Word revealed to him by God, which if you havn’t noticed Paul does not deviate from the gospel in all of his letters; therefore what was orally taught by Paul we reasonably and ratonally assume it is the same. However we cannot assume that a religious organization has some special revelation outside the bounds of Scripture unless you have great faith in a body of men, which many have and many do and Jesus had a lot to say about that type of thinking in Matthew 23.

Don’t repeat what I have been taught by God; I cannot be a parrot for a religion as you appear to be AISI. Set aside doctrinal or teaching from god and you have no leg to stand on; stick with the teaching sof God and you have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit…thanks, but I’ll stick with those three, you stick with your 3.

Believe me I understand what the Bible teaches but only because the HS spirit leads all the father has given to the Son into the truth concerning the thngs of God; exactly what Scripture teaches. Scripture does not teach that a body of men that make up somenon existent heirarchy will have the HS and will teach another body of men and women His truth; He says He dwells in each individual and without such a dwelling that person is not saved nor can they know the truth.

You appear to be confused Derek. Here you challenge me to show where the bible states a negative but in the very next post you open by saying you can’t prove a negative?

As for your assertion that Paul only taught what he later wrote down; show me the scripture that says this.

You see Derek, it is not my responsibility to prove or disprove a doctrine that was invented by men who rejected the teaching of 1500 plus years. That onus is on you my friend.

Your argument that anyone who believes differently than you is ignorant of the scriptures and does not posses the HS to guide them is really scary. It sounds very cultish to me. Is it possible that it is you Derek who is ignorant of the truths of God?

This type of conversation is exactly what drove me to the Catholic church. The tendency to divert the conversation when tough questions are raised, the arrogance and anger that many protestants bring to the table. Honest disagreement i fine, hostility and name calling is not. Please look for the answers to my question instead of reverting to the you show me first argument.

Where does scripture teach sola scriptura? It should be easy Derek. If you can’t prove your doctrine from scripture, your entire belief system needs to be re evaluated. After all, it i the basis of all you hold dear.

Why don’t you start here:
1 TIM 3:15
ACTS 16:4
2 TIM 1:13-14
2 TIM 2:2
ACTS 2:42
2 PETER 1:20
1 COR 11:2
1 THES 2:13
2 THES 2:15
2 THES 3:6

 

[DocProct]

A Bible church is a non denominational evangelical church. To give you an idea of my background, I was introduced to Christ 19 years ago and spent the first 2 or 3 years of my walk under the teaching of John MacArthur. I have been a member of either Southern Baptist or non denomination churches. I have always believed in the reformers calls of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I studied at Liberty University, a good conservative Baptist college. I am educated in Christian theology and Philosophy.

It has recently become clear to me that the scriptures can be made to say whatever we want them to. It is so easy to take them out of context in order to prove a point. I decided to go back to the beginning in my search for the 1st century church, it’s beliefs, teachings and practices. I was amazed that the early church was not familiar to me, it was Catholic. Scripture validates the teachings and the Early Church Fathers validated that the earliest of Christians understood these doctrines to be true. Imagine how surprising it was for me to find no references to my beloved Sola’s that I had built an entire theology around.

The first pillar to fall was Sola Scriptura and then the rest sort of crumbled apart. Acts 2:38 is one of those difficulty verses. The early church practiced baptism for the remission of sins, exactly what scripture says in this and other verses. The ECF’s verified the belief that baptism somehow applies the forgiveness of sins. I really did not want this to be true but in all my research I have yet to come up with a reasonable explanation of this verse other than its plain meaning, I was curious if you had one, I know I don’t.

You cannot show another verse in Scripture that shows baptism for the remission of sins because it just isn’t there. You will depend on your understanding of the ECF’s and you don’t know which were really Christians which were not do you? Of course you don’t. The earliest fathers were the apostles and writers of the NT. You do not understand the proper grammatical structure for the Greek in Acts 2:38; if you did it would not even be an issue. god bless you and good luck with your search for God.