R
rev_kevin
Guest
I have seen and heard some compelling evidence that he was there.
- Status
R
rev_kevin
Guest
Thats how I see it.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Well then, how can you be baptist if you believe that chronology to be true knowing that your church was started by a man in defiance of Christ’s will?
You said before that Christ’s Church is not about dogma. But as I have pointed out before, any church is about dogma because that is what defines a church: their dogmas, their beliefs.
Back during the time of the reformation, if Luther, Calvin and Zwingli had not come up with their own doctrines, there would not have been these many different Churches.
If all these people had done was complain about the corruption in the Church then that would have been a very good thing to do. As a matter of fact, we are called to do that.
But what they did was come up with new doctrines, that is why we now have different churches.
What delineates Christ’s Church from others is dogma.
And while other’s may sneer at dogma as if it is something stale and non-essential, dogma is of utmost import for they are the articulation of truths.
When there was question about circumsion -the Church came up with the dogma that circumcision is not necessary.
When there was a question as to the humanity and divinity of Christ, the Church came up with the dogma that Christ is fully human and fully Divine in a hypostatic union.
When there was a question of Mary’s role in the plan of salvation, the Church declared here Theotokos.
And the Church is able to do this because the Holy Spirit was promised to her.
When Berengarius in the 12th century claimed that the Eucharist is symbolic, the Church said no - Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.
You are indeed a part of His Church by virtue of your baptism. And that is a wonderful gift that God gave you even before you could acknowledge Him as Lord.
But at this stage, you are a separated member, but a member none the less.
B
benedictus2
Guest
I have recently finished reading “Chosen”, a collection of conversion stories.
The story that struck me the most was that of Russel Ford’s.
You can find out about him here: secondexodus.com/html/russford/russfordbio.htm.
I would however highly recommend getting a copy of the book as I can’t find his story on line.
You can get a copy of the CD of his conversion here fromtheabbey.net/si/163.html
What has all this got to do with this thread?
I mentioned in an earlier post that what defines a church are her dogmas.
When Russel Ford was a Baptist the more he studied the Bible the more he realized that Baptist theology did not agree with the Bible.
He wrote:
Members of my home church was planning my career for me. It was decided I would earn my bachelor’s degree at Southwest Baptist University and then go to Forth Worth for master of divinity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Following school I would serve as a pastor for several years to gain practical experience, then go into full-time evangelizatoin and hold crusades all across the country.
Everything looked great from the outside. I was only a teenager, and it looked like I had nowhere to go but up. However, I was beginning to experience a whole new misery that was getting harder and harder to justify in my conscience. I took my mentor and other adults in my church at their word when they told me to read and study the Scriptures. That produced an insurmountable problem, as what I was being taught about Baptist theology simply did not agree with the Bible.
As as Baptist, I was taught that baptism was not necessary for salvation but was merely an ordinance that should be obeyed. My take from the Bible, though, was not only that baptism is necessary but also that it has a supernatural effect on the soul.
As Baptists, to be forgiven, all we had to do was ask God to pardon us, but that seemed to nullify John 20:23. Througout His ministry Jesus told us to forgive, forgive, forgive. This passage in John is different. He tells His apostles after His resurrection that they have the choice to forgive or not forgive. I had to ask myself several questions behind this passage: Why give only the apostles the choice to forgive or not forgive? Why use the word retain? Was He given them a power not given to others? If so, who are those taking the place of the apostles today? Since Jesus is God and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if He is giving the apostles a new power, it is impossible for that power to cease with the passing of the apostles. I could not figure this out.
The Lord’s Supper was special to Baptists. We observed it only on the last Sunday of those months with five Sundays, but it was an important and moving event for us. Then I stumbled across something Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink teh cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29)
That passage stopped me in my tracks. The only thing I could understand about what Paul has written was that there would be condemnation for anyone unworthy to participate in the Lord’s Supper. I never felt worthy, but I could not see how I could be condemned for memorializing Jesus’s Last Supper by being unworthy to eat an oyster cracker and drink a swallow of grape juice. I could not understand this at all, but it worried me.
Russel’s conversion began when Mike Mayola, a fellow inmate at Bullock Prison asked him to answer a questionaire on the Baltimore Catechism. Mike was surprised that Russel passed a Catholic test.
Russel wrote of this event:
To Mike’s shocked suprise, I passed his test. Though I got all the answers right, the experience left me troubled. The answers I gave Mike were not those I was taught as a Baptist but rather those I had figured out for myself years earlier. This disturbed me by raising the possibility that the Catholic Church might have answers to all my questions.
The story that struck me the most was that of Russel Ford’s.
You can find out about him here: secondexodus.com/html/russford/russfordbio.htm.
I would however highly recommend getting a copy of the book as I can’t find his story on line.
You can get a copy of the CD of his conversion here fromtheabbey.net/si/163.html
What has all this got to do with this thread?
I mentioned in an earlier post that what defines a church are her dogmas.
When Russel Ford was a Baptist the more he studied the Bible the more he realized that Baptist theology did not agree with the Bible.
He wrote:
Members of my home church was planning my career for me. It was decided I would earn my bachelor’s degree at Southwest Baptist University and then go to Forth Worth for master of divinity at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Following school I would serve as a pastor for several years to gain practical experience, then go into full-time evangelizatoin and hold crusades all across the country.
Everything looked great from the outside. I was only a teenager, and it looked like I had nowhere to go but up. However, I was beginning to experience a whole new misery that was getting harder and harder to justify in my conscience. I took my mentor and other adults in my church at their word when they told me to read and study the Scriptures. That produced an insurmountable problem, as what I was being taught about Baptist theology simply did not agree with the Bible.
As as Baptist, I was taught that baptism was not necessary for salvation but was merely an ordinance that should be obeyed. My take from the Bible, though, was not only that baptism is necessary but also that it has a supernatural effect on the soul.
As Baptists, to be forgiven, all we had to do was ask God to pardon us, but that seemed to nullify John 20:23. Througout His ministry Jesus told us to forgive, forgive, forgive. This passage in John is different. He tells His apostles after His resurrection that they have the choice to forgive or not forgive. I had to ask myself several questions behind this passage: Why give only the apostles the choice to forgive or not forgive? Why use the word retain? Was He given them a power not given to others? If so, who are those taking the place of the apostles today? Since Jesus is God and He is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and if He is giving the apostles a new power, it is impossible for that power to cease with the passing of the apostles. I could not figure this out.
The Lord’s Supper was special to Baptists. We observed it only on the last Sunday of those months with five Sundays, but it was an important and moving event for us. Then I stumbled across something Paul wrote: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink teh cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 11:27-29)
That passage stopped me in my tracks. The only thing I could understand about what Paul has written was that there would be condemnation for anyone unworthy to participate in the Lord’s Supper. I never felt worthy, but I could not see how I could be condemned for memorializing Jesus’s Last Supper by being unworthy to eat an oyster cracker and drink a swallow of grape juice. I could not understand this at all, but it worried me.
Russel’s conversion began when Mike Mayola, a fellow inmate at Bullock Prison asked him to answer a questionaire on the Baltimore Catechism. Mike was surprised that Russel passed a Catholic test.
Russel wrote of this event:
To Mike’s shocked suprise, I passed his test. Though I got all the answers right, the experience left me troubled. The answers I gave Mike were not those I was taught as a Baptist but rather those I had figured out for myself years earlier. This disturbed me by raising the possibility that the Catholic Church might have answers to all my questions.
T
tqualey
Guest
The real tragedy lies here - a non-answer trying to masquerade as a response:
"I have said what Church time and time again and won’t say it anymore because if I do then I would, as many here and you included, say, All he does is repeat the same thing over and over again. If you want to know what Church, go through the posts and find it."
Ultimately, this person has simply dug in his heels, refuses to engage in either meaningful or logical dialogue and rebuffs efforts to come forward to present his opinion. Whatever took place, apparently has nothing to do with Matt. 16:18 and that Jesus founded the Church - which can historically be traced from 33AD to 2011AD. This Church is the Catholic Church.
It appears that Baptists have a lot of flexibility in determining their own origin…
According to Wiki:
“Baptist Historian Bruce Gourley outlines four main views of Baptist origins: (1) The modern scholarly consensus that the denomination traces its origin to the 17th century via the English Separatists, (2) the view that it was an outgrowth of Anabaptist traditions, (3) the perpetuity view which assumes that the Baptist faith and practice has existed since the time of Christ, and (4) the successionist view which argues that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ.”
In my opinion, his refusal to respond to questions really ends dialogue. Simply repeating the same non-answers and claiming that the questions have been answered is truly a failed approach. It fails for the following reasons:
1.) Multiple posters have asked that if Christ did not found the Catholic Church on Peter, than who did. To this we have yet to have a logical or even chronological response.
2.) Multiple posters have asked about the Canon of Scripture (not Canon Law!) and it looks like it may not be complete!
Yet, there is no explanation on how God’s Sacred Word may have things left out of it.
3.) You just have to wonder how a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church could be considered inadequate or deficient in some manner so that it must be repeated in a Protestant church. No response on this item has been provided.
I submit there will be no responses. Now, I may be wrong - and only a post that actually answers the questions presented will satisfy at this point. So, there’s the challenge.
God bless
"I have said what Church time and time again and won’t say it anymore because if I do then I would, as many here and you included, say, All he does is repeat the same thing over and over again. If you want to know what Church, go through the posts and find it."
Ultimately, this person has simply dug in his heels, refuses to engage in either meaningful or logical dialogue and rebuffs efforts to come forward to present his opinion. Whatever took place, apparently has nothing to do with Matt. 16:18 and that Jesus founded the Church - which can historically be traced from 33AD to 2011AD. This Church is the Catholic Church.
It appears that Baptists have a lot of flexibility in determining their own origin…
According to Wiki:
“Baptist Historian Bruce Gourley outlines four main views of Baptist origins: (1) The modern scholarly consensus that the denomination traces its origin to the 17th century via the English Separatists, (2) the view that it was an outgrowth of Anabaptist traditions, (3) the perpetuity view which assumes that the Baptist faith and practice has existed since the time of Christ, and (4) the successionist view which argues that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ.”
In my opinion, his refusal to respond to questions really ends dialogue. Simply repeating the same non-answers and claiming that the questions have been answered is truly a failed approach. It fails for the following reasons:
1.) Multiple posters have asked that if Christ did not found the Catholic Church on Peter, than who did. To this we have yet to have a logical or even chronological response.
2.) Multiple posters have asked about the Canon of Scripture (not Canon Law!) and it looks like it may not be complete!
Yet, there is no explanation on how God’s Sacred Word may have things left out of it.3.) You just have to wonder how a valid Baptism in the Catholic Church could be considered inadequate or deficient in some manner so that it must be repeated in a Protestant church. No response on this item has been provided.
I submit there will be no responses. Now, I may be wrong - and only a post that actually answers the questions presented will satisfy at this point. So, there’s the challenge.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Benedictus2,
Excellent post!
I will see about getting a copy of “Chosen” - thanks for sharing!
God bless
Excellent post!
I will see about getting a copy of “Chosen” - thanks for sharing!
God bless
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Would you mind sharing where you copied and pasted that from rev kevin?
Thanks
B
benedictus2
Guest
It is a most wonderful book. Some of the stories can truly make you cry. I did not know that Austin Ruse was a convert but then I read his story there.Hi, Benedictus2,
Excellent post!
I will see about getting a copy of “Chosen” - thanks for sharing!
God bless
I think God for Donna Streichen for collating the stories.
R
rinnie
Guest
The CHurch is God, The CHurch is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit. I said that the Church is Jesus and Jesus is Consubstantial with the Father and the Son.
I said there is no difference between Jesus being here in person as the 2nd person of the Trinity or the Holy Spirit they are all made up of ONE GOD. THat is what I have been trying to same from the beginning.
Catholic’s believe that God dwells with us by the gift of the Holy Spirit. IT is the Holy SPirit of his Son that is Truly God.
What I was saying all along and yes I do still stick by my point, there is no difference between Jesus leading the Church in the form of the Son, or leading it in the form of his Spirit. They are all ONE in being with the Father.
That was a WAY I was trying to show Rev, Kev, that Jesus is still with us, in the form of his Spirit.
What I was trying to explain to him after he understood this was it does not matter that we cannot see Jesus he is still here in the Church leading us by the power his Spirit which is still led by God.
I was tying to let him see in different manner that the mystery of the Holy Trinity is there is still ONE GOD and how 3 divine persons are all EQUAL, all ETERNAL, and each Truly God in their own way. BUt you refused to let me show it this way,
IT is the Spirit that gives life and power to the CHurch a new life that has taught us to call God Father and lets us tramsform this world into the very presence of Gods Kingdom.
It is through the Holy Spirit alive and living in the CHurch that brings us to everlasting life with God in heaven. Rather it is through Jesus Christ in the 2nd person of the Trinity which I explained was the Father. or The 3rd person of the Trinity the Holy SPirit it is still the same ONE IN BEING with the GOD THE FATHER.
WHat I was trying to explain to him from the beginning is GOD the Father is who started the CC. He did it by the 2nd person in the Trinity the Son, and completed it by sending the Holy Spirit to continue the work of Salvation.
What I said and will continue to say that the Church that was started is still led by the same power the Holy Spirit as it was when Jesus walked this earth. Jesus was led by the same Power, the Holy SPirit. But just because we do not see him in the form of the 2nd person of the Trinity his Spirit is still here. They are all still one in being with the Father.
That is how I was trying to explain to him the Church is both Human and divine.
I was trying to show him that there are 3 distinct Persons in the Trinity that are all equal to God.
R
rinnie
Guest
I wanted to share with him the true mystery of the Church, that is so very complicated.
I wanted to shake his Catholic roots if he has them or remember’s them.
What I was trying to show him was the body of Christ in the 2nd person of the trinity, and then show him HIS new Body, the Church made up of members united to him as head.
There is so much I wanted to show him, but you jumped on me, and made me try and try to defend myself. I was trying to show him a different way of our faith and show him how God works through the Trinity, but it is still God,
For now Rev Kev, God Bless, And I will keep you in my prayers, Please keep asking, and studying the faith, and I am sure that God will find a way to lead you back to the Church.
But remember what I told you, for now concentrate on the Sacraments. Look up in the bible right now and find them. If you have any trouble finding them let me know, I will do my best to help you find them.
I wanted to shake his Catholic roots if he has them or remember’s them.
What I was trying to show him was the body of Christ in the 2nd person of the trinity, and then show him HIS new Body, the Church made up of members united to him as head.
There is so much I wanted to show him, but you jumped on me, and made me try and try to defend myself. I was trying to show him a different way of our faith and show him how God works through the Trinity, but it is still God,
For now Rev Kev, God Bless, And I will keep you in my prayers, Please keep asking, and studying the faith, and I am sure that God will find a way to lead you back to the Church.
But remember what I told you, for now concentrate on the Sacraments. Look up in the bible right now and find them. If you have any trouble finding them let me know, I will do my best to help you find them.
R
rinnie
Guest
This is where I felt I made myself clear!
What I was hoping to continue and wanted to do was build on this. This is how I wanted to show the NEW BODY of Christ the CHURCH made up of members united IN HIM as HEAD. But I never got there.
P
pablope
Guest
Okay…but has it changed your thinking that Peter was not in Rome? (Sorry if I asked here, may have missed your post if you had changed your mind).
R
Roy5
Guest
I’m one of those Christians who isn’t all that limited by tradition. I’m interested in scripture, although I don’t worship that either. So I guess I’m not a good Catholic nor would I make an evangelical Protestant.
**My tendency is to sympathize more and more with those expressions of Christianity -mainly found in mainline Protestantism - which allow differing opinions without acrimony. **So, I may doubt the lifelong sinlessness of Mary, for example, as I do. That should be an opinion tolerated in the church since the Bible certainly doesn’t say anything concerning it, except that “all have sinned”. And what theologians centuries ago came up with doesn’t impact me very much, either. Over the years I have read the Church Fathers and various medieval saints and doctors, etc… They were brilliant for their time, but they also are full of false information, superstitions, and lack of knowledge because they had no decent telescopes nor any microscopes. Relying too heavily on them is damaging to the church.
** In other words, I find that traditional Catholics place too much emphasis on tradition, while evangelical Protestants are too literalistic with the Bible.** What do they do with verses like Ex. 22:18, 20? And traditional Catholics, too. They take literally various verses that may be allegorical - such as ‘upon this rock’ or ‘this is my body’ etc. I know, I know. I’ve been influenced by ‘higher criticism’ and take seriously the J, E, P, D thesis re the Torah. And I even find contradictions that trouble me in the gospels. Maybe I’ve read too widely?
** Did Christ start the Catholic Church? He started the Christian Church, and over the years many streams developed.** Some were judged heretical, others schismatic - that is, so judged by the church in Rome. Take the poor Egyptian Copts, who have endured considerable oppression over the years. Apparently they didn’t go along with the Council of Chalcedon, so they’re not entirely ‘kosher’. It’s that mindset - you agree completely with us or you’re wrong - that I think is not only poor church policy but conflicts with the major emphasis of Jesus. That emphasis was not on doctrine or church affiliation, but on love. Sadly, too many Christians have substituted prejudice, arrogance and church affiliation for love, humility, and the freedom I believe we have in Christ. I wonder what he would say today about the church. So much liturgy, so many beautiful churches, such ornate vestments, so much adulation of the Pope. Hm! I doubt if this would impress him. He would, of course, salute those priests and nuns and lay people who focus on the poor and the sick and the disabled and are less interested in religious tribalism, or in precise liturgy or proper colors on the altar. As for the hierarchy… well… Mt. 7:1 - so I’d better stop leave that alone.
** Meanwhile, may God bless people of every creed, color, country and culture, and may religion become a bridge rather than a barrier.**
**My tendency is to sympathize more and more with those expressions of Christianity -mainly found in mainline Protestantism - which allow differing opinions without acrimony. **So, I may doubt the lifelong sinlessness of Mary, for example, as I do. That should be an opinion tolerated in the church since the Bible certainly doesn’t say anything concerning it, except that “all have sinned”. And what theologians centuries ago came up with doesn’t impact me very much, either. Over the years I have read the Church Fathers and various medieval saints and doctors, etc… They were brilliant for their time, but they also are full of false information, superstitions, and lack of knowledge because they had no decent telescopes nor any microscopes. Relying too heavily on them is damaging to the church.
** In other words, I find that traditional Catholics place too much emphasis on tradition, while evangelical Protestants are too literalistic with the Bible.** What do they do with verses like Ex. 22:18, 20? And traditional Catholics, too. They take literally various verses that may be allegorical - such as ‘upon this rock’ or ‘this is my body’ etc. I know, I know. I’ve been influenced by ‘higher criticism’ and take seriously the J, E, P, D thesis re the Torah. And I even find contradictions that trouble me in the gospels. Maybe I’ve read too widely?
** Did Christ start the Catholic Church? He started the Christian Church, and over the years many streams developed.** Some were judged heretical, others schismatic - that is, so judged by the church in Rome. Take the poor Egyptian Copts, who have endured considerable oppression over the years. Apparently they didn’t go along with the Council of Chalcedon, so they’re not entirely ‘kosher’. It’s that mindset - you agree completely with us or you’re wrong - that I think is not only poor church policy but conflicts with the major emphasis of Jesus. That emphasis was not on doctrine or church affiliation, but on love. Sadly, too many Christians have substituted prejudice, arrogance and church affiliation for love, humility, and the freedom I believe we have in Christ. I wonder what he would say today about the church. So much liturgy, so many beautiful churches, such ornate vestments, so much adulation of the Pope. Hm! I doubt if this would impress him. He would, of course, salute those priests and nuns and lay people who focus on the poor and the sick and the disabled and are less interested in religious tribalism, or in precise liturgy or proper colors on the altar. As for the hierarchy… well… Mt. 7:1 - so I’d better stop leave that alone.
Code:
**Fortunately, most Catholics I know are quite broad-minded, and in this community Catholics and Protestants work amicably together - as it should be.** I'm watching carefully to see the direction of Catholicism. Will it remain stuck with those past traditions that seem out of touch with the 21st century, or will it make reforms re such matters as priestly celibacy, role of women, birth control and other issues that would increase its relevance to our present age?
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Do I disagree with the Filioque? No. Do I see and understand the issue that the addition of it without an ecumenical council presents and in specific the issue that arises in the Greek church with the addition? Yes. Do I care that it came from the Throne of Peter? Could care less. Peter didn’t add it. And just because one man said it sitting on some chair in Rome, does not necessarily make it good thing or something that the universal church need accept without consultation.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
I did read the article and I believe I responded to it. The only truth I could discern out of it is that there is the Church in the West and the Church in the East.
M
Mikeoffaith
Guest
Yep same thing for Lutherans. But guess what it stuck. Oh and by the way, this is one of yours isn’t it?
stanastasia.org/
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
What do you mean by ‘I don’t worship that either’? It almost sounds like you might think that Catholics worship tradition and Protestants worship scriptures.
B
benedictus2
Guest
And that is exactly why I say you are a heretic of the first order.
Post that across to the CAF apologist corner and see what kind of answer you get (though they will probably be more gentle with you but the answer will be the same)
Just extend that stupid statement a little further
We say that we (as baptized persons) are the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit.
Based on your own statement above, you are therefore saying that you are God, I am God and every single person is God.
A total load of hogwash.
You never corrected me when I told you several times that you must have started imbibing some New Age rubbish. I am thinking that that would be because I am right on the mark on that one.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Exactly. He is the Head and the Church is the Body. But the Body is not the totality of Christ. That is where you got it wrong.This is where I felt I made myself clear!
What I was hoping to continue and wanted to do was build on this. This is how I wanted to show the NEW BODY of Christ the CHURCH made up of members united IN HIM as HEAD. But I never got there.
You are making ridiculous exegesis. Leave it the way the Church stated it. Don’t start making your own doctrines.
B
benedictus2
Guest
One more thing. If the Church is the dwelling place and the Holy Spirit is the dweller, you are in effect saying that the abode and the dweller are the same.
Think of it this way, if the vase is the abode and the water is the content, you are saying that water and vase are one and the same thing. Please, exercise some logic here.
- Status