How do southern baptist feel about catholics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cradlecathlic26
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My son is more succinct. He likes to ask such people what the status of their church was in the 1500’s. 😃 This usually causes a lot of confusion until they realize that THEIR church, along with all the others, was the Catholic Church back then because it was the ONLY one back then!
The Orthodox, Oriental non-Chalcedonians and the Assyrians also were in existence well before the Reformation, but the Protestants share less in common with them than they do with the Church of Rome…
 
If you want to go crazy, find their links to “true” Church History (as opposed to “Roman Catholic” Church History) under Baptist History–that is, on the Baptist website mentioned. There is a link for a site that talks about “true” Church history. In it, they summarize three lines of historical churches. The really false ones (Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian), the semi-false ones (Lutherans, Methodists, etc.) and the true ones (“Welsh Believers, Anabaptists, Valdese, Bogomols, Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Culdee, Baptists, Waldensians, and any who hold to historic “Baptist” doctrines & Practices.”). If you know anything about Church History, you know that those groups were heretics and many were dualist and gnostic. Traditional Baptist theology = Gnosticism…:eek:

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius:cool:
 
Another thing all those so-called “true” churches (Welsh Believers, Anabaptists, Valdese, Bogomols, Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Culdee, Baptists, Waldensians) have in common is that they are all founded by ordinary people ~ as many of their names even show ~ instead of Jesus Christ.

I’m sticking with Jesus instead of all those other guys 😃
 
Another thing all those so-called “true” churches (Welsh Believers, Anabaptists, Valdese, Bogomols, Paulicians, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Culdee, Baptists, Waldensians) have in common is that they are all founded by ordinary people ~ as many of their names even show ~ instead of Jesus Christ.
The Culdee were independent monastics within the ancient, now-defunct Celtic Rite of the Catholic Church. They were isolated and not under the control of Rome, but they were still Catholic. There are a lot of misconceptions about them now (even so, it’s hilarious to see them referred to as a “true church” on a Baptist site) but the reality is more mundane.
 
Yes, so apparently we are led around by “drunken fornicators”. I don’t see any rationality behind Baptist theology. Tell me, how can they not ban the Baptist who told me such drivel, when I only said that I pitied them? (And only in response to having them tell me how they pitied me.) It’s just so frustrating and so illogical!
 
Yea, I’m about to be banned also. I guess solo scriptura is only sufficient for this group if you agree to be brainwashed by them first.
Wasn’t hilarious when you proved indulgences with the KJV? The only reason why Martin Luther was able to thwart them was because he cut off quite a few necessary books from the Bible. They couldn’t disprove indulgences or the sin of artificial contraception with the Bible, and could only blame the Pope. Terribly, and disdainfully hilarious.
 
Wasn’t hilarious when you proved indulgences with the KJV? The only reason why Martin Luther was able to thwart them was because he cut off quite a few necessary books from the Bible. They couldn’t disprove indulgences or the sin of artificial contraception with the Bible, and could only blame the Pope. Terribly, and disdainfully hilarious.
This reminds me of a girl who was in my RCIA class. I don’t know if she was previously Baptist or some other kind of Protestant but when confronted with some of the books of the Bible that were unfamiliar I remember her asking “what ARE these books” and of course the answer was that those were the books of the Bible that the Protestants deleted. She thought they were something “new”. 😉
 
Wasn’t hilarious when you proved indulgences with the KJV? The only reason why Martin Luther was able to thwart them was because he cut off quite a few necessary books from the Bible. They couldn’t disprove indulgences or the sin of artificial contraception with the Bible, and could only blame the Pope. Terribly, and disdainfully hilarious.
Yea it was quite an argument. A former Lutheran myself, I came to realize that Protestantism, in the end, derives from pure ignorance and stubbornance. When the theology of these heretics and reformers are truly torn apart and analyzed, it always shows man-made beliefs and interpretations of Scripture. As you said, it got to the point where Luther ripped out books that disagreed with his man-made theology.
 
I think the only reason why i have not been banned yet is because i told them i was Baptist, but am about to change to Catholic. They are trying to help me…
Nice, sounds like you are having a little to munch fun with them.
 
Yes, it comes from ignoring the Scripture that doesn’t agree with you. We Catholics don’t ignore any Scripture.
 
I think i am giving up on them. I cant listen to their garbage anymore, it is too frustrating. They are just ignorant.🤷
 
I think i am giving up on them. I cant listen to their garbage anymore, it is too frustrating. They are just ignorant.🤷
Yeah, do I ever hear ya on that one! I just spent a couple of hours reading some of those threads with a morbid fascination. Kinda like one huge Chick Tract, the gross ignorance is truly amazing; and it’s not just one or two people, it’s almost all of them. The general quality of their writing skills patently reflects a low level of education, and that probably accounts for much of it.
 
The Orthodox, Oriental non-Chalcedonians and the Assyrians also were in existence well before the Reformation, but the Protestants share less in common with them than they do with the Church of Rome…
However, most Protestants don’t even know those Churches exist.
 
I love to see Orthodox argue the Papacy like a Protestant. The Orthodox I have encountered are by no means heretics, however when you try to argue the Papacy with them there responses turn Protestant-ish. They try to quote Church Fathers to no avail, and ignore people like Pope St. Innoccent I.
 
That depends. Some EO do accept Papacy they just say the Pope is overreaching his mandate.
The general quality of their writing skills patently reflects a low level of education, and that probably accounts for much of it.
I never has seen people so produly ignorant and God forgives me, proudly stupid that among fundamental Baptists and Non Denoms (just fundie Baptist in blue jeans).The level of hatred and ignorace is like the one displayed by some Al Quaeda fans.
 
That depends. Some EO do accept Papacy they just say the Pope is overreaching his mandate.

I never has seen people so produly ignorant and God forgives me, proudly stupid that among fundamental Baptists and Non Denoms (just fundie Baptist in blue jeans).The level of hatred and ignorace is like the one displayed by some Al Quaeda fans.
I got the same feeling, they seemed completely ignorant and radical about their viewpoints. And of course, when I proved certain doctrines using sola scriptura, they clearly just panicked (oh no, its a Catholic actually using sola scriptura, let’s ban him!).
 
Brainwashed is a very, very good description of many Fundamentalists.

Another good description of them is insecure, wounded people who have not fully healed and who lash out in fear and prejudice.

Others are wonderful, open, deeply Christian, loving people who genuinely love the Lord and are our (doctrinally separated) brothers and sisters in Christ.

The ones who are not like this will actually listen when you explain your faith to them, and will see that while we may disagree, both Protestants and Catholics are truly Christians who are saved by grace.

There is a Fundamentalist on this board who actually went out of her way to send me an email explaining to me that “she was born again” and implied that I must not understand that because I am Catholic.

I was happy to correct her mis-understanding of my faith and my relationship to Jesus and explained to her that I understood what she was talking about, and I am, but am also Catholic.

She then began telling me that Catholicism is wrong because of infant baptism, the real presence in the Eucharist, and virulently argued that we WORSHIP STATUES :confused: (This is in a thread here.)

She refused to listen to a word that I said when I explained her misunderstanding, and insisted that she knew what was in my heart better than me.

This is sad, ignorant, brain-washed arrogance that is at its roots full of fear and prejudice. She WON’T actually debate any of this because brain-washed people aren’t open to having their beliefs challenged.

What is so sad is that they are Christians… they do wish to follow the Lord. It is hard for me to not be very angry and disgusted at people like this. This is an attitude I must keep in prayer before the Lord to be transformed into a good witness for Him.
 
I have the hardest time putting the “face of Jesus” on the faces of those who are annoying, and worse ~ it goes downhill from there. But this is what we are called to do, are we not? No one said it would be easy 🙂
 
I got the same feeling, they seemed completely ignorant and radical about their viewpoints. And of course, when I proved certain doctrines using sola scriptura, they clearly just panicked (oh no, its a Catholic actually using sola scriptura, let’s ban him!).
You went in there with facts and book-learnin’ too. My favorite responses were “stop making things up” and “there’s more than one Clement in history.” :rolleyes:

At least now I know that there are dinosaurs in the Bible…

I feel sorry for anyone with that much hate in their heart. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top