Help Discussing Catholic faith with a Southern Baptist

[pablope]

I meant to give an example where one persons interpretation of scripture should not have been followed.

Right…and the cause of this…Bible alone…sola scriptura, pirvate interpretation, isn’t it?

The lack of an authority…where one can be accountable to…

And you just made the case why there should be a teaching authority…a Magisterium…

 

[pablope]

He lists the passages of the Bible each lesson is derived from for the express purpose of us studying it for ourselves in detail outside of that particular sermon.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

A few office friends wanted to go out for lunch. Of course it’s always in the spring in Lent. So we went to a Pizza Hut buffet lunch and they had several options I could have, and they made a veggie and put it out. So Tim, a Shouthern Baptist, sits down next to me and when the waitress brought me a beer his eyes popped open and he said, “you can’t eat meat but you can have a beer?” I said, “yessir.” He said, “I want to be a Catholic.”

Alan

PS I know I was setting a Bad Example, so if you were going to mention that I have you covered.

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

If you truly know God’s Word then you know that we have been told us to judge what others say by it. So your claim that we should just blindly follow what those in authority tell us about the Holy Bible rings false.

The disciples followed Jesus because they put their faith in Him, which means they trusted Him. The problem is that many people today say they have faith in Jesus but distrust the teachings of His Church. What is ironic and it becomes downright silly for anyone who knows Church history, is that in order to trust the Bible you have to trust the authority of the Church. You need to stop thinking that the Bible fell out of the sky or that Jesus handed out Bibles.

I would suggest you read carefully read the entire Acts of the Apostles. You will discover that people who converted to Christ had to trust the teachings of the apostles. A good example are the people of Berea mentioned in Acts 17. The Bereans, after they were convinced that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament scriptures, put their entire faith in the teachings of the Church. Jesus said “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16

When Paul and Silas went to Berea, the Berean Jews received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said about Jesus was true. As a result, many of them believed in what Paul was teaching, even though what he was teaching was not written down.

 

[annspazz]

Wow. OP you have your hands full. I am in a similar situation with my husband, he was raised Protestant, but is not affiliated with any church. He can’t win any of his positions with me on the Catholic church…one by one they are falling away, but he still is hesitant to admit he was misguided…interesting.

I am assuming your mom is using KJV interpretation of the Bible? Why is the “extra” books not in it? They exist in the original KJV, therefore they were part of that Bible…where did they go? google.com/products/catalog?rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS416US418&q=kjv+apocrypha&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15025049530427765063&sa=X&ei=qw5iT_DRGePq0gGxxYy2CA&ved=0CIsBEPMCMAU#

Just some thoughts/comments to think about:

First off, if the Bible is the sole authority of the church, where in the Bible does it state this? [hint: it does not]

Luther taught “faith alone” not sola sciptura. Calvin did not teach sola sciptura either. In fact, both looked to the authority of the bishops for interpretation of the scriptures not lay people. So, where did the concept of “scripture alone” come from? Their other teachings were also more in line with Catholic teachings than Protestantism today.

Maybe start by having your mother read the writings of the reformers. That may raise some questions in her mind.

Why are there so many denominations? Are they all wrong??? It seems like every time there is a disagreement on doctrine, a new church(denomination) pops up.

I am not sure if this is an argument you can win. When one’s mind is closed, the only way it will be opened is if she opens it. I would take the approach of asking her a question and have her do the reserch…maybe she may find something that will open her mind.

My thoughts are with you.:ehh:

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . .If you truly believe in “Bible alone,” you would not need Pastors to give sermons and tell you what the Bible means. Once one word of commentary has been spoken, Bible alone ceases to exist. . . .

. . .He lists the passages of the Bible each lesson is derived from for the express purpose of us studying it for ourselves in detail outside of that particular sermon. . .

That doesn’t mean you can interpret Scripture in a way that is outside the core beliefs of Southern Baptists.

The Baptist Faith & Message is called a statement of generally held convictions (sbc.net/aboutus/basicbeliefs.asp) and is outlined on the Southern Baptist Convention website (sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp). The beliefs are stated and a list of Scripture appears at the end of each statement. If you are a Southern Baptist, you are expected to hold these beliefs.

When Former President Jimmy Carter decided, after 65 years, that he can no longer be associated with the Southern Baptist Convention; the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. James Merritt, said that Carter evidently has a set of personal convictions that are at odds with what Southern Baptists believe. Link: adherents.com/largecom/baptist_SBC_Carter.html

If you are claiming to be Southern Baptist, you must adhere to The Baptist Faith and Message.

Let’s look at the Scripture cited for VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper:

Matthew 3:13-17; 26:26-30; 28:19-20; Mark 1:9-11; 14:22-26; Luke 3:21-22; 22:19-20; John 3:23; Acts 2:41-42; 8:35-39; 16:30-33; 20:7; Romans 6:3-5; 1 Corinthians 10:16,21; 11:23-29; Colossians 2:12. Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

IMHO, there are some serious sins of omission in the sources for VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

The Scriptures that connect Baptism with the forgiveness of sins–the Baptism that now saves you, and the promise being for you and your children, are omitted .

Acts 2:
38 And 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. 39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

1 Peter 3:
18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, 20 because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

1 Corinthians 1 (ESV):
16 (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)

1 Corinthians 7 (ESV):
14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Colossians 2:12 is listed, but the connection between circumcision and Baptism (verses 8-11) is omitted.

Colossians 2:
8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,

So, where in the Bible does it say that Baptism is a Church ordinance, and is only a symbolic act of obedience?

There is a similar problem with the Scripture passages cited for the Lord’s Supper. John Chapter 6 is omitted entirely. So, the reality of the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Christ, the true food and true drink, which one must consume in order for Christ to abide in us and to be raised on the last day and have eternal life, is omitted.

John 6:
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.

So, any Scripture that reveals the graces imparted during Baptism and The Lord’s Supper are omitted. The SBC has stripped Baptism and The Lord’s Supper of their Sacramental graces.

So, Calgar, how you you claim Southern Baptist beliefs are based on Bible alone?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Calgar,

More thoughts on the Southern Baptist claims of Bible alone.

The Baptist Faith and Message was revised in 2000 (BFM2000), and the revision is not without concerns, as expressed by The Center for Baptist Studies, Mercer University, 1400 Coleman Avenue, Macon, GA:

"Some have built-in suspicions of BFM200 because it was crafted by the “party” who succeeded in a two-decade effort to take control of the SBC. One Baptist editor describes the implied scenario behind this distrust:

Twenty-one years ago a master plan for the repositioning of the SBC would have looked something like this. Elect SBC presidents sympathetic to fiercely conservative principles. Appoint like-minded trustees to govern SBC institutions. Hire to the staffs of convention agencies employees who buy into the SBC’s rightward shift. Create a new SBC infrastructure that reflects a more conservative direction. Rewrite the history of this era with the victor’s spin. Revise the SBC theological statement, the 1963 BFM, to codify the new, more fundamental, direction of the SBC. With the release of the report of the Committee on the BFM last week the final stage of this reimaging is set in motion (Religious Herald, May 25, 2000, p.8)." link: centerforbaptiststudies.org/hotissues/dildayfm2000.htm

The article goes on to voice concerns that the revision committee was made up exclusively of those who are sympathetic with the new leadership. One of the new SBC leaders was quoted as saying, “If we say ‘pickles have souls.’ then the seminaries must teach that pickles have souls” (Fort Worth Star Telegram October, 1998).

The “pickles” quote is attributed to Adrian Rogers, former President of the Southern Baptist Convention.

MAINSTREAM MESSENGER
Vol. 1, No. 3 November 1998
SO MUCH FOR ACADEMIC FREEDOM . . . !
by Gene Garrison

“Adrian Rogers, a leader of the takeover movement, said at the meeting. Of Southern Baptist seminary professors, he said they must teach, “whatever they are told to teach. And if we tell them to teach that pickles have souls, then they must teach that pickles have souls!” Those were his exact words. Everybody in the room heard them.”
Link: mainstreambaptists.org/mob/somuch.htm.

My point is that the SBC does not always adhere to Bible alone and the individual right to interpret Scripture.

It has been my personal experience in the SBC that SB’s are expected to believe what they are told to believe.

This information is also important for the OP to know in discussing the Catholic faith with a Southern Baptist.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Calgar]

Calgar,

It has been my personal experience in the SBC that SB’s are expected to believe what they are told to believe.

Peace,
Anna

I only have minor contacts within the puzzle palace.

Is there a group of Christians where the leadership doesn’t want the people to believe what they are told to believe?

I know my religion reads SB, and I argue for them from time to time, I’m just a Christian. I’ve had many arguments with SBC leadership on many occasions. I haven’t been removed from service yet.

 

[David_Castlen]

please consider “search and rescue” by patrick madrid.

stop everything that you are reading and get peter kreeft’s catechism… It sent me back home

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

I’m just a Christian.

What does this mean? Do you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I only have minor contacts within the puzzle palace.

What does the above statement mean???

Is there a group of Christians where the leadership doesn’t want the people to believe what they are told to believe?

Probably not; but you are claiming your beliefs come from the “Bible alone:”

. . .Second: We put our trust in the teachings of men? We are Bible alone, you guys are the ones that take tradition along with that. . . .

To which I replied:

Calgar,
I know you claim Bible alone (as you already know, I am a former Southern Baptist); but some of the basic SB beliefs are not actually found in the Bible----such as Baptism being a Church ordinance that is symbolic and is done in obedience; or that The Lord’s Supper is purely remembrance, just to name a few.

If you truly believe in “Bible alone,” you would not need Pastors to give sermons and tell you what the Bible means. Once one word of commentary has been spoken, Bible alone ceases to exist… . . .

Pablope asked:

. . . .How would you know what your pastor tells you is indeed the truth? Or is it the truth as he sees it, based on his tradition of what he understands the Bible says?

You replied:

. . .He lists the passages of the Bible each lesson is derived from for the express purpose of us studying it for ourselves in detail outside of that particular sermon.

You are painting a picture of SB’s basing beliefs on Bible alone; and in reality, that just is not the case–as I have demonstrated in previous posts.

I know my religion reads SB, and I argue for them from time to time, I’m just a Christian. I’ve had many arguments with SBC leadership on many occasions. I haven’t been removed from service yet.

What does this mean? Do you believe in The Baptist Faith and Message? Would you be willing to name a few disagreements you have with SB theology?

Peace,
Anna

 

[Calgar]

What does the above statement mean???

Probably not; but you are claiming your beliefs come from the “Bible alone:”

To which I replied:

Pablope asked:

You replied:

You are painting a picture of SB’s basing beliefs on Bible alone; and in reality, that just is not the case–as I have demonstrated in previous posts.

What does this mean? Do you believe in The Baptist Faith and Message? Would you be willing to name a few disagreements you have with SB theology?

Peace,
Anna

My word. You are a quote ninja. I usually mess them up. This discussion is getting far deeper than what I’m willing to get into on an open internet forum.

Anna, I will continue our discussion through PM’s so I can pay attention to your arguments and not 5 or 6 peoples arguments and re-arguments.

 

[Anna_Scott]

My word. You are a quote ninja.

I may not be a brilliant apologist or even a mediocre one; and I’m wrong more often than not----but I am persistent. :egyptian: Not saying that’s a great quality.

I usually mess them up. This discussion is getting far deeper than what I’m willing to get into on an open internet forum.

Anna, I will continue our discussion through PM’s so I can pay attention to your arguments and not 5 or 6 peoples arguments and re-arguments.

No problem.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Cinette]

Many teach that all you need is faith, others teach against infant baptism, some preach Christ without the cross, others preach a health and wealth gospel, some teach a false understanding of the Communion of Saints and attack the reality of Purgatory, and most don’t even know what a sacrament is (let alone offer them). Some teach that artificial contraception is not a sin, others say you don’t need to confess your sins to a priest, others teach that Catholics aren’t Christian and that the pope is the antichrist, some claim Catholicism is the Whore of Babylon, etc.— but worst of all is that they deny or are clueless about the reality of the Most Holy Eucharist, which is the precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ given to us in Holy Communion at the Mass. —And that’s just the start.

The chaos, confusion and incomplete or false teachings coming from the mouths of countless self-appointed freelance Bible interpreters has disregarded the teaching authority of the Church and offered a false or incomplete and shallow Christianity, teaching a Christ without the cross and a rejection of the authority given by God to the Church to bind and loose things in heaven and on earth, ad help souls reach eternal life. Satan is the master of lies and half truths, and his aim is to guide souls into error away from the truth.

So yes, many may parrot some basic theological truths about God and Jesus Christ, but all those denominations lack the primary means for sanctification, which are the 7 Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ to give us sanctifying grace. Most denominations only have 2 sacraments, which do not require a valid priesthood (Baptism and Matrimony).
http://www.goddiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Preacher-300x191.jpg
By the way, up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. In 1930 the Anglican church announced that contraception would be allowed in some extreme circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in. Today most Christian denominations teach the use of artificial contraception is good. It’s no coincidence society has been rotting at a rapid pace since the proliferation and widespread use of The Pill since its introduction in the 1960s.

*The Pill has bad side affects. Many years ago I took the pill for one month and felt strange. I wondered what the effects would be in the long term and decided not to take it. One hears of women getting cervical cancer, breast cancer etc. It is not organic!!!

Cinette*/COLOR

 

[TeJay]

All who posted for Calgar have answered him very well. Anna Scott you did an exceptional job. In fact you have stumped Calgar. He is doing what most do when they can’t effectively counter your statements. He changed the direction of the thread or simply mentions something completely different and off topic.
Well Done All.
TeJay

 

[Cinette]

stop everything that you are reading and get peter kreeft’s catechism… It sent me back home

*While I have no doubt Kreefs’s “catechism” is excellent, Search and Rescue is more about the approach one should have with family and friends. How to get the message across without offending etc.

Cinette*

 

[Cinette]

My word. You are a quote ninja. I usually mess them up. This discussion is getting far deeper than what I’m willing to get into on an open internet forum.

Anna, I will continue our discussion through PM’s so I can pay attention to your arguments and not 5 or 6 peoples arguments and re-arguments.

*If you wish to conduct discourse by PM only then you should not be on these Forums!

 

[TheRealJuliane]

A few office friends wanted to go out for lunch. Of course it’s always in the spring in Lent. So we went to a Pizza Hut buffet lunch and they had several options I could have, and they made a veggie and put it out. So Tim, a Shouthern Baptist, sits down next to me and when the waitress brought me a beer his eyes popped open and he said, “you can’t eat meat but you can have a beer?” I said, “yessir.” He said, “I want to be a Catholic.”

Alan

PS I know I was setting a Bad Example, so if you were going to mention that I have you covered.

:tiphat:

Yep and on top of that, we get the Real Presence and not just crackers and grape juice!

 

[Anna_Scott]

All who posted for Calgar have answered him very well. Anna Scott you did an exceptional job. In fact you have stumped Calgar. He is doing what most do when they can’t effectively counter your statements. He changed the direction of the thread or simply mentions something completely different and off topic.
Well Done All.
TeJay

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.

*If you wish to conduct discourse by PM only then you should not be on these Forums!

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

 

[David_Castlen]

*While I have no doubt Kreefs’s “catechism” is excellent, Search and Rescue is more about the approach one should have with family and friends. How to get the message across without offending etc.

Cinette*

Now, you do as I say and get Peter kreet’s Catechism or I will kick your baptismal faunt.