Desperate Help Needed In Answering a Baptist

[Little_Mary]

My responses are in blue…hope it helps. Do not ever let anyone put the burden of proof on you, especially if they are just bashing and criticizing. If they honestly want to know what Catholics teach/believe, they will ask you and then charitably await an answer.

"yes I agree that the lord searched the hearts of and chose (from among the kindred of David)a pure and innocent young earthly woman,Mary. let us not forget the "earthly "part.But let us also not for get that Mary did her part, she raised to… manhood, the savior of mankind.But i’d like to point out that Mary never fed 5000 souls from a few fishes and loves,The Catholic Church does not teach that she did Mary never taught common people to be “fishers of men” The Catholic Church does not teach that she didMary never rose anyone from the dead nor has she risen from the dead,The Catholic Church does not teach that she didMary never sat with thousands and taught how to pray(Jesus said: do not pray as the heathen do,repeating prayers over and over!)or how to love or how to live. The Catholic Church does not teach that she did any of these things.

I feel the need at this point to add that the “catholic church” was not formed by Jesus when he said “upon this rock I shall build my church”( that is a total mis-interpretation of the words of Christ She is going to have to back this up; she cannot just say this without explaining it furthre. Once you get her to do that, she WILL paint herself into a corner. You also should remind her that we do not hang Peter’s primacy on that one verse) because Peter the disciple was a “Baptist”,She cannot just say this, she must prove it with reliable sources he was “Baptized by immersion” not by a sprinkling of water on his scull in his infancy without his freewill and testimony.Baptists are not “protest-ants”.We are not and have never been “protesting” anything, we trace our lineage right back to the discipleship after the actions of Jesus, when he requested of his cousin John, to be “baptized” by immersion.Again, she is going to have to prove this.The “Catholic church” was not formed until nearly 400 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus! by the emperor Constantine This is also going to have to be proven, Hint: she cannot back this up. She is blindly believing things she reads/hears just as she expects you to blindly believe her.to quell unrest among hostile factions of “Christian” leaning groups, and and appointing Rome the center of the governing body.

This was meant to be posted between my two other posts: EPHESIANS 2:18> For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the FATHER "

I think you can see where I’m going, she must back up her statements. Stay on her like white on rice until she does. You, on the other hand, as a defender of the Catholic faith, can most certainly back up what our Church teaches and believes. To be ignorant of the beginnings of the Catholic church is to be ignorant of history. Period.

 

[CEAbbott]

My responses are in blue…hope it helps. Do not ever let anyone put the burden of proof on you, especially if they are just bashing and criticizing. If they honestly want to know what Catholics teach/believe, they will ask you and then charitably await an answer.

"yes I agree that the lord searched the hearts of and chose (from among the kindred of David)a pure and innocent young earthly woman,Mary. let us not forget the "earthly "part.But let us also not for get that Mary did her part, she raised to… manhood, the savior of mankind.But i’d like to point out that Mary never fed 5000 souls from a few fishes and loves,The Catholic Church does not teach that she did Mary never taught common people to be “fishers of men” The Catholic Church does not teach that she didMary never rose anyone from the dead nor has she risen from the dead,The Catholic Church does not teach that she didMary never sat with thousands and taught how to pray(Jesus said: do not pray as the heathen do,repeating prayers over and over!)or how to love or how to live. The Catholic Church does not teach that she did any of these things.

I feel the need at this point to add that the “catholic church” was not formed by Jesus when he said “upon this rock I shall build my church”( that is a total mis-interpretation of the words of Christ She is going to have to back this up; she cannot just say this without explaining it furthre. Once you get her to do that, she WILL paint herself into a corner. You also should remind her that we do not hang Peter’s primacy on that one verse) because Peter the disciple was a “Baptist”,She cannot just say this, she must prove it with reliable sources he was “Baptized by immersion” not by a sprinkling of water on his scull in his infancy without his freewill and testimony.Baptists are not “protest-ants”.We are not and have never been “protesting” anything, we trace our lineage right back to the discipleship after the actions of Jesus, when he requested of his cousin John, to be “baptized” by immersion.Again, she is going to have to prove this.The “Catholic church” was not formed until nearly 400 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus! by the emperor Constantine This is also going to have to be proven, Hint: she cannot back this up. She is blindly believing things she reads/hears just as she expects you to blindly believe her.to quell unrest among hostile factions of “Christian” leaning groups, and and appointing Rome the center of the governing body.

This was meant to be posted between my two other posts: EPHESIANS 2:18> For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the FATHER "

I think you can see where I’m going, she must back up her statements. Stay on her like white on rice until she does. You, on the other hand, as a defender of the Catholic faith, can most certainly back up what our Church teaches and believes. To be ignorant of the beginnings of the Catholic church is to be ignorant of history. Period.

********Thank you “LittleMary” and so many others who have come to my aid on this thread. Believe it or not, I have not received a direct retaliation from her since the last message I posted answering her comments on my FB wall. I saw in my email in-box that she had left another comment, but strangely enough, all she said is “my name is Lee, not Lisa” . I was surprised there was no disputing the answers I had borrowed from “Nathan” and others from this thread. I’m sure that she (or whomever is brainwashing her with Baptist nonsense) needs time to research some more Jack Chick (or other heretical protestant writer) to manuever another attack against the Catholic Church. Let’s just wait and see and I will post every remark I receive back from her on these forums.

Please know that you guys and gals are great! What a blessing this website is to all Catholics!

Once again I thank you all for your kind responses, wisdom, and love for Holy Mother Church!
God bless you all once again!CEA**

 

[Defender1]

In particular, I find the claim that the Baptist denomination was founded by John the Baptist to be very curious, indeed, since John was clearly under the old covenant. If you believe in the One who came after John, why on earth would you retain a pre-Christian tradition that John used to prepare the way for Him? I’ve never heard a good explanation of that one.

John did also say he shall increase and I shall decrease. No Baptist faith meant to come of this . Their founding date is 1611

 

[Randy_Carson]

"

yes I agree that the lord searched the hearts of and chose (from among the kindred of David)a pure and innocent young earthly woman,Mary. let us not forget the "earthly "part.But let us also not for get that Mary did her part, she raised to… manhood, the savior of mankind.But i’d like to point out that Mary never fed 5000 souls from a few fishes and loves, Mary never taught common people to be “fishers of men” Mary never rose anyone from the dead nor has she risen from the dead,Mary never sat with thousands and taught how to pray(Jesus said: do not pray as the heathen do,repeating prayers over and over!)or how to love or how to live.

There is no problem with any of this. A Catholic can agree with all of it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I feel the need at this point to add that the “catholic church” was not formed by Jesus when he said “upon this rock I shall build my church”( that is a total mis-interpretation of the words of Christ)

No, the words have been interpreted correctly by Catholics…and Protestant scholars agree. Here are six of the more than two dozen quotes I have from Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Frank E. Gaebelein

The Greek makes the distinction between petros' and petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ``petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . ."In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . ." (Frank E. Gaebelein, General Editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368.

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[FaithJoy]

Protestants will not listen for the most part unless they want to be Catholic. When Jesus was speaking of Peter as the “Rock that I shall build my Church”, the word was changed to a masculine noun to suite Peter to be the Rock. Considering in the Greek language, rock was a feminine noun. So in the bible’s original Greek, why was Petros used instead of Petras?Petros should never be used in correct grammar unless for a name. Peter WAS the Rock that Jesus was speaking of.

 

[po18guy]

There is no problem with any of this. A Catholic can agree with all of it.

I had no problem with that either. However, in their over-reaction to Catholicism, they tend to suppress or demean the life and meaning of Mary, and in so doing, risk criticizing God Himself. They oftentimes refer to Mary as “blessed, but…”

I note that scripture makes no such distinction.

 

[Bussi]

I would start by asking him to be charitable and ask you what you in fact believe, rather than being antagonistic. Otherwise you may as well touch a hot stove.

1. Jesus prayed the exact same prayer multiple times in the garden of Gethsemane, and the statement about “vain repetition” is taken entirely out of context. The pagans of that time essentially tried to manipulate their gods with repeated rote prayers. Union with the deity was never the purpose, merely manipulation through repetition. The whole idea of vain repetition is a bit interesting, because Christian prayer is not in vain. Were Christ’s repeated prayers in vain? What about the liturgical repetition of set prayers every day (the third, sixth, ninth hours), the Psalms on feast days, etc? All his other comments about Mary are beside the point, because we don’t worship Mary.

The real reason Mary is important, aside from being the absolutely Holy Mother of God, is the fact that she is the sole link, the righteous remnant, the bridge between the people of the Old and the New Covenant. Mary is the last of the Old that was the first of the New. She is the visible sign, the validation of God’s covenant faithfulness. She is also the Christian hope, as the first example of a person to be graced with the covenant promises of God through her example. The “first fruits” concept is rife throughout Scripture. She is Daughter Zion. Ripping the obvious Marian significance out of Genesis 3:15 will rob his understanding of the Gospel of John, God’s covenant faithfulness, the nature of holiness, redemption, recapitulation, etc.

You won’t find the words “baptism of immersion” anywhere in the Bible. Baptism does not always refer to immersion, and there are liturgical documents, such as the Didache, that some have dated to before the NT was even finished being written (let alone compiled), that refers to baptism of infants by pouring. The next question would be to ask why Christians would compile a Bible that directly contradicts their practice. Who compiled the Bible he uses? What did they believe? Shouldn’t that affect interpretation or are his opinions more valid? By what authority?

The Catholic Church was mentioned by name by Ignatius in AD 107. His history is a bit…off. Rome was the governing body because that is where Peter and Paul died, unanimously. The succession of those after Peter took place in Rome from then on, and this would have been AD 67-68 if memory serves.

You might also want to ask how 3,000 people were baptized in one day away from a large water source in a desert climate. Hmmm…immersion? Doubt it.

Most of the arguments you will find answered ad nauseum on this forum, so don’t fret about answers, just do a little digging. But seriously, if he can’t be charitable, then shake the dust off your shoes and leave him to God’s grace. There is no reason to suffer his abuse and attacks on the sacred. God Bless you.

In Facebook, I think if someone becomes obnoxious, they can always be blocked from accessing your page.