Help Discussing Catholic faith with a Southern Baptist

[Cinette]

TeJay,

My purpose was not to “stump” Calgar, but to point him to truth. I’ve had a long journey myself, coming from the Southern Baptist Church to Anglicanism; and my journey may not be over yet the way things are going in the Anglican Communion (topic for other threads.)

I know what it’s like to be in Calgar’s position, because I’ve been there. And we really don’t know what his personal circumstances are.

I know that I can be somewhat aggressive during discussions; but it’s not a job “well done,” if Calgar gets overwhelmed and leaves. . . .

I know what it’s like to be on a thread where no one agrees with you. It’s tough for anyone.

Cinette,
I disagree. I’m happy to discuss these issues with Calgar by PM. Isn’t that better than leaving things the way they are? And why would you not want him to stay on the forums? Isn’t CAF a Catholic Evangelism tool?

Peace,
Anna

*Certainly! It is precisely because I am interested in the discussion that I would want him to stay on CAF. But if he wishes to switch to PM then what is the point? I learn from everyone’s opinion. But you can disagree - we all have our own way of seeing things!

*

 

[Cinette]

I’m sorry, Cinette. I came to these forums for faith questions and faith building. What are you here for?

*I came to these forums for faith questions and faith building - same as you Calgar.

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

Okay, first lets define our terms carefully. The name ‘Roman Catholic Church’ didn’t come about until the Anglican Church broke off from the Catholic Church in 1534; it was a name that the Anglicans gave to the Catholic Church as a way to usurp the authority of the Catholic Church. They wanted to claim that they were the true Catholic Church by making the true Catholic Church just the Church of Rome.
…

It was the Apostles and their close associates (like Luke) who wrote the New Testament. These writings were collected and preserved by the Catholic Church and were standardized into a universal canon in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. This was done because there were many different canons among Christians and the Church wanted to be able to standardize them so that everyone would be teaching the same things. How can you have unity if everyone holds different books to be scripture?

For example, the book of ‘Barnabas’ and the book called ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’. Some thought of these books as scripture. And, they are found listed in some of the earliest bibles (see codex website -http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx ). So, why don’t you have these books in your bible? Because the Catholic Church at the Council of Carthage decided these books were not scripture but still profitable for reading. Thus, the only reason you don’t have these books is because of the Catholic Church. And, the reason you have the books that you do in your NT is because those are the books the Catholic Church deemed as scripture. There were many other books that were deemed as spurious and altogether rejected.

Thanks for that Fisherman!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I came to these forums for faith questions and faith building - same as you Calgar.

Cinette

Nice. I also look at it as a laboratory through which I can practice being charitable in wide range of conversations.



Alan

 

[Anna_Scott]

*Certainly! It is precisely because I am interested in the discussion that I would want him to stay on CAF. But if he wishes to switch to PM then what is the point? I learn from everyone’s opinion. But you can disagree - we all have our own way of seeing things!

*

Cinette,
Glad you are interested in the discussion; and I do agree that we all have our own way of seeing things----but it isn’t for you to decide that a discussion between two people by PM is pointless.

I’ve had many breakthroughs in my own journey through PM discussions here on CAF. Many were with Catholics.

Sometimes it’s difficult when everyone on a particular thread disagrees with you (I’ve been there many times.)

There are times when a respectful discussion between two people can be very beneficial. I’m not attempting to proselytize through PM–only discuss what Holy Scripture says about Original Sin, Baptism, and the Holy Eucharist–none of which is in contradiction with Catholic teaching (except for the Catholic claim that Anglican orders are invalid)–but Holy Orders are not the point of the discussion. You’ve seen my posts on this thread. You know what I believe.

No one is stopping Catholics from helping Calgar. Has anyone offered?

Peace,
Anna

 

[stewstew03]

No one is stopping Catholics from helping Calgar. Has anyone offered?

I’m not sure Calgar needs any help - he can usually hold his own even when we gang up on him!

:ballspin:

 

[fnr]

My mother was raised Catholic but says that she claims the Southern Baptist Faith is the right religion. She claims that Catholics teach false teachings and they are all going to hell. I have tried to discuss this with her but she is so emotional and I am so uneducated about religion, I need some help. Please help… What verses can I point to that shows the Catholic faith is correct and the baptist faith is false. Please let me know.

I would recommend the book Evangelical is Not Enough by Thomas Howard. It documents his odyssey to Catholicism. It helped me very much when I was dating a non-denominational Evangelical Christian years ago!

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m not sure Calgar needs any help - he can usually hold his own even when we gang up on him!

:ballspin:

stewstew03,
You’re probably right.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cinette]

Cinette,
Glad you are interested in the discussion; and I do agree that we all have our own way of seeing things----but it isn’t for you to decide that a discussion between two people by PM is pointless.
I think you have not understood me or vice versa. I understood that Calgar wanted to discourse by PM instead of CAF and that is pointless.

I’ve had many breakthroughs in my own journey through PM discussions here on CAF. Many were with Catholics. I have also used PM and it has been beneficial but, again, I do not use it exclusively.

Sometimes it’s difficult when everyone on a particular thread disagrees with you (I’ve been there many times.) I think it is interesting to debate with people who have opposite views. Not much point with debating exclusively with those who agree. How can we learn otherwise? When discussing with people with opposite views they make us dig deeper into our own Faith.

There are times when a respectful discussion between two people can be very beneficial. I’m not attempting to proselytize through PM–only discuss what Holy Scripture says about Original Sin, Baptism, and the Holy Eucharist–none of which is in contradiction with Catholic teaching (except for the Catholic claim that Anglican orders are invalid)–but Holy Orders are not the point of the discussion. You’ve seen my posts on this thread. You know what I believe.

No one is stopping Catholics from helping Calgar. Has anyone offered?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Cinette,

I understand what you are saying. Keep in mind that Calgar and I do not agree.

Considering how the PM’s have gone; I have changed my mind about it.

So, I think you are right after all.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Calgar]

I’m not sure Calgar needs any help - he can usually hold his own even when we gang up on him!

:ballspin:

I thought I could, but I can’t keep up with 6 or more different questions coming from the same number of different people.

Questions deserve answers and I just don’t always have the time for it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

*Certainly! It is precisely because I am interested in the discussion that I would want him to stay on CAF. But if he wishes to switch to PM then what is the point? I learn from everyone’s opinion. But you can disagree - we all have our own way of seeing things!

*

*I think you have not understood me or vice versa. I understood that Calgar wanted to discourse by PM instead of CAF and that is pointless.

. . .I have also used PM and it has been beneficial but, again, I do not use it exclusively.

. . .I think it is interesting to debate with people who have opposite views. Not much point with debating exclusively with those who agree. How can we learn otherwise? When discussing with people with opposite views they make us dig deeper into our own Faith.*

Cinette,

I understand what you are saying. Keep in mind that Calgar and I do not agree.

Considering how the PM’s have gone; I have changed my mind about it.

So, I think you are right after all.

Peace,
Anna

I thought I could, but I can’t keep up with 6 or more different questions coming from the same number of different people.

Questions deserve answers and I just don’t always have the time for it.

Just to clarify: my agreement with Cinette is not a negative reflection on Calgar in our PM discussions. Because of some of the responses, I feel like I am failing him–and there are many here who could probably do a better job or at least add to the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

 

[stewstew03]

Just to clarify: my agreement with Cinette is not a negative reflection on Calgar in our PM discussions. Because of some of the responses, I feel like I am failing him–and there are many here who could probably do a better job or at least add to the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

Seems the OP’s question has been answered and the thread has reached its conclusion…

 

[pablope]

I thought I could, but I can’t keep up with 6 or more different questions coming from the same number of different people.

Questions deserve answers and I just don’t always have the time for it.

Sorry if you got overwhelmed…perhaps, you would like to do your own reading in your own time…I would recommend the Journals here, written by former protestants…so they have views of both sides…and these journals deal with protestant issues…chnetwork.org/resources/coming-home-journals/

Or perhaps…start with this story…it is a real story…freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

How I Solved the Catholic Problem (in 3 parts)

 

[Calgar]

I feel like I am failing him–and there are many here who could probably do a better job or at least add to the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

No, you haven’t “failed” anything. You have given given very good arguments regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that have caused me to give real pause for consideration.

I’m not going to be jumping over any fences soon, but I will be asking a few ministers some questions using some of the evidence you’ve brought up.

As for the PMs. Anna and I could never had this discussion in public. I was able to post some pretty personal stuff with her that would not have been appropriate in public and I was able to focus on the arguments presented rather than 8 other people.

stewstew03 is right. The OP has probably been answered.

 

[Anna_Scott]

No, you haven’t “failed” anything. You have given given very good arguments regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that have caused me to give real pause for consideration.

I’m not going to be jumping over any fences soon, but I will be asking a few ministers some questions using some of the evidence you’ve brought up.

As for the PMs. Anna and I could never had this discussion in public. I was able to post some pretty personal stuff with her that would not have been appropriate in public and I was able to focus on the arguments presented rather than 8 other people.

stewstew03 is right. The OP has probably been answered.

Calgar,
I’m very relieved to hear that. I pray things will go well with the ministers.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by Calgar
Just curious, when did the Roman Catholic Church write the New Testement?

Better yet,if those Christians who wrote the NT were NOT part of a universal church,then to what Christian sect did they belong to?

 

[Calgar]

Better yet,if those Christians who wrote the NT were NOT part of a universal church,then to what Christian sect did they belong to?

I don’t understand. All Christians make up the church.

 

[Cinette]

Just to clarify: my agreement with Cinette is not a negative reflection on Calgar in our PM discussions. Because of some of the responses, I feel like I am failing him–and there are many here who could probably do a better job or at least add to the discussion.

Peace,
Anna

*Dear Anna,

Do not feel that you are failing Calgar. Remember you can only state the truth as you see it and the rest is up to the Holy Spirit.

You must not be so intense. Just pray for Calgar.

God bless
Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

No, you haven’t “failed” anything. You have given given very good arguments regarding Baptism and the Lord’s Supper that have caused me to give real pause for consideration.

I’m not going to be jumping over any fences soon, but I will be asking a few ministers some questions using some of the evidence you’ve brought up.

As for the PMs. Anna and I could never had this discussion in public. I was able to post some pretty personal stuff with her that would not have been appropriate in public and I was able to focus on the arguments presented rather than 8 other people.

stewstew03 is right. The OP has probably been answered.

*Just an observation. We all have “noms de plume” on these forums so we are anonymous - we can say whatever, can we not? It would still be “private and confidential” in that noone knows who we are!

Cinette*