I am bothered by why some Baptists...

[ahimsaman72]

Malachi4U:

Where in the Bible is that? I used to think you were a Bible believing Christian opposed to man-made tradition? I admit, I was wrong on that one.

Gods peace to you,

JMJ

As you well know, we Baptists believe only those with enough faculties to understand salvation (that is: babies and young children) may be saved and therefore become baptized as an outward sign of inward grace. As you also well know which verses Baptists use as their source, then repetition here is not warranted. I realize the Catholic teaching on baptism and denoms like Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists is quite different.

I’m not opposed to man-made tradition as long as it doesn’t contradict established Bible teachings. I don’t worship the Bible like some do. I view it as a guideline - a standard - a revelation of who God is and His purpose for His creation. In other words, it contains God’s words, it is not God’s word. If I encounter something which seems to lead away from those guidelines and revelations, then I dismiss them.

The recent article about the bishops in the UK who talk about some parts of the Bible not being historically or scientifically accurate pretty much reflects what I believe also. The Bible (as you know) is filled with different types of literature. There’s narratives, apocalyptic and poetic chapters and books throughout. Some don’t view them as such and therefore mistake the meanings.

Peace and God bless…

 

[ahimsaman72]

deb1:

I am sorry that you had to leave Rcia due to your family obligations. Perhaps one day they will want to convert. I am not going to criticize your decision. Having a spouse that would divorce you-I gather that is what you meant- over such spiritual matters must be painful. You will be in my prayers.

Deb1,

Thank you for your sincere post. I always have left the door open for me to convert (my family knows this) when and if the conditions are right. My wife refused to convert or have our children convert. We have yet to come to a compromise. Considering these children are both ours she should have a say in their upbringing and life-changing events like conversion. Thank you for not criticizing. It’s one of those, “till you’ve walked in my shoes” things.

We had serious problems throughout the beginning of the process and then she ultimately refused to let me raise them Catholic and I stopped pursuing conversion. Right or wrong, that’s what I did with the best of intentions to keep my family together and share things with my children as they grow older. I can share wonderful things with them that I believe without causing a lot of trouble.

I don’t look for people to support my decisions, but to support me regardless of my decisions. Thanks for doing that.

Peace and God bless…

ps. thanks for your prayers.

 

[E.E.N.S]

ahimsaman72:

Having divorced parents and being pulled back and forth is not what I believe God would want for us and our kids.

Peace…

Luke 18:29-30
And [Jesus] said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

 

[E.E.N.S]

ahimsaman72:

Deb1,

Thank you for your sincere post. I always have left the door open for me to convert (my family knows this) when and if the conditions are right. My wife refused to convert or have our children convert. We have yet to come to a compromise. Considering these children are both ours she should have a say in their upbringing and life-changing events like conversion. Thank you for not criticizing. It’s one of those, “till you’ve walked in my shoes” things.

We had serious problems throughout the beginning of the process and then she ultimately refused to let me raise them Catholic and I stopped pursuing conversion. Right or wrong, that’s what I did with the best of intentions to keep my family together and share things with my children as they grow older. I can share wonderful things with them that I believe without causing a lot of trouble.

I don’t look for people to support my decisions, but to support me regardless of my decisions. Thanks for doing that.

Peace and God bless…

ps. thanks for your prayers.

Just to share a brief part of my family’s conversion; I was the oldest of three children mind you - however, like you, my mother and father did not see eye to eye on becoming Catholic, in fact my mother outright refused. For a while I thought they may end up getting a divorce over it, but then my mother made a turn around (I think she was reading Not By Faith Alone written by Robert Sungenis at the time.) And now BOTH of my parents are not only very much active in the Church (as I am myself), but they very much love the Church as well, and it has brought them closer together than ever. They converted in 1999-2000.

I am not saying that this will happen with everyone, but you must trust in God, seek the Truth, and if you find His Truth persue it and He will bless you dearly.

 

[ahimsaman72]

E.E.N.S.:

Just to share a brief part of my family’s conversion; I was the oldest of three children mind you - however, like you, my mother and father did not see eye to eye on becoming Catholic, in fact my mother outright refused. For a while I thought they may end up getting a divorce over it, but then my mother made a turn around (I think she was reading Not By Faith Alone written by Robert Sungenis at the time.) And now BOTH of my parents are not only very much active in the Church (as I am myself), but they very much love the Church as well, and it has brought them closer together than ever. They converted in 1999-2000.

I am not saying that this will happen with everyone, but you must trust in God, seek the Truth, and if you find His Truth persue it and He will bless you dearly.

Thanks E.E.N.S.!!!

 

[E.E.N.S]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks E.E.N.S.!!!

You are more than welcome, brother.

 

[Orionthehunter]

The common theme between all the Baptists that posted in this thread is that either they or their pastor is their Magisterium (the Bible means what I believe it says). If this was Christ’s intent, he must have intended that there be millions of “churches” each with there own interpretation of the Truth of Revelation. Is this really Biblical?

Acts 6:2-6: The apostles chose who would be Priests and did so by laying of hands on them. This is the basis that all Catholic Priests are given the responsibility to spread the Word. It was done to insure that nobody was self-appointed to be ministers.

Acts 14: Paul and Barnabas came upon a community preaching falsely in the name of Christ. They “fired” these preachers and appointed new ones.

Mathew 16: 16-20: This is when Christ annointed Peter as the Rock. He didn’t annoint anyone else ever in this way, not even John who stayed with Him until His death on the cross.

Luke 22: 31-32: This is when Christ again singles out Peter to be the one to be the leader among equals.

John 21: This to me is the most beautiful singling out Peter to feed and tend Christ’s flock.

I could go on to point out that Jesus addressed Peter directly I believe 7 times more than all other Apostles directly as final evidence of Peter’s supremacy.

My point is that Christ was so darn clear that even among the Apostles that Peter was to be their leader and even after Peter’s death, Linus became the Pope and not John or any of the other Apostles still living.

Finally, if I were Protestant and especially if I thought it was my authority to interpret God’s law and read these passages (esp. Act 14) and the ones one false prophets, I would be trembling in fear for my very soul.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Orionthehunter:

The common theme between all the Baptists that posted in this thread is that either they or their pastor is their Magisterium (the Bible means what I believe it says). If this was Christ’s intent, he must have intended that there be millions of “churches” each with there own interpretation of the Truth of Revelation. Is this really Biblical?

Acts 6:2-6: The apostles chose who would be Priests and did so by laying of hands on them. This is the basis that all Catholic Priests are given the responsibility to spread the Word. It was done to insure that nobody was self-appointed to be ministers.

Acts 14: Paul and Barnabas came upon a community preaching falsely in the name of Christ. They “fired” these preachers and appointed new ones.

Mathew 16: 16-20: This is when Christ annointed Peter as the Rock. He didn’t annoint anyone else ever in this way, not even John who stayed with Him until His death on the cross.

Luke 22: 31-32: This is when Christ again singles out Peter to be the one to be the leader among equals.

John 21: This to me is the most beautiful singling out Peter to feed and tend Christ’s flock.

I could go on to point out that Jesus addressed Peter directly I believe 7 times more than all other Apostles directly as final evidence of Peter’s supremacy.

My point is that Christ was so darn clear that even among the Apostles that Peter was to be their leader and even after Peter’s death, Linus became the Pope and not John or any of the other Apostles still living.

Finally, if I were Protestant and especially if I thought it was my authority to interpret God’s law and read these passages (esp. Act 14) and the ones one false prophets, I would be trembling in fear for my very soul.

I personally believe the Bible is clear about salvation. It’s translated into English and there are many translations available.
I can read about God sending Christ for our sins - of the need for repentance - and the need to live a holy life.

I can agree with apostolic succession. It makes sense for it be so. However, my interpretation of that succession would not just include bishops instituted by Rome, it would be those in the Anglican Church and the Orthodox Church. Then, my definition would be quite liberal compared to yours.

Peace…

 

[scylla]

I can understand how hard it is when one converts, I almost wished death upon myself it was so stressful. This tears apart many marriages and sometimes it is prudent to just wait. I recommend to be an example to your wife and love her and your family.

You are in my prayers.

People rarely convert by force, nagging, fear of separation, obedience, or clever internet postings, but out of a change of heart and only God can do that.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

As you well know, we Baptists believe only those with enough faculties to understand salvation (that is: babies and young children) may be saved and therefore become baptized as an outward sign of inward grace. As you also well know which verses Baptists use as their source, then repetition here is not warranted. I realize the Catholic teaching on baptism and denoms like Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists is quite different.

Do Baptists believe that babies are saved?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Do Baptists believe that babies are saved?

In Christ,
Nancy

The majority agree that babies and mentally ill/mentally disabled will be saved due to ignorance. Some would say it depends on the faith of their parents. There are verses where Paul says the believing husband/wife covers their spouse and the same is believed to apply obviously to their children. Some would say it’s just inconceivable that God would send babies to hell. Frankly, I feel that all 3 are valid reasons in believing in salvation of babies/children and those without mental capacity to understand.

Peace…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

The majority agree that babies and mentally ill/mentally disabled will be saved due to ignorance. Some would say it depends on the faith of their parents. There are verses where Paul says the believing husband/wife covers their spouse and the same is believed to apply obviously to their children. Some would say it’s just inconceivable that God would send babies to hell. Frankly, I feel that all 3 are valid reasons in believing in salvation of babies/children and those without mental capacity to understand.

Peace…

I wasn’t really asking if babies WILL BE saved but rather ARE they saved?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

I wasn’t really asking if babies WILL BE saved but rather ARE they saved?

In Christ,
Nancy

The answer is the same either way - whether in the past, present or future tense.

Peace…

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

The answer is the same either way - whether in the past, present or future tense.

Peace…

If babies ARE saved, at which point do they lose their salvation?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

If babies ARE saved, at which point do they lose their salvation?

In Christ,
Nancy

One way to consider this:

They are “covered” by grace till they can reasonably accept Christ. There is no loss of salvation. The same goes for disabled. This would be similar to the Old Testament saints before Christ. The Old Testament believers would sacrifice animals to “cover” their sins till the Messiah came who would wipe it all away. If this was not true, then you could say that because they didn’t know Christ then they are damned. This could not be true.

It is explained in Scripture that “without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins”. Christ’s blood wasn’t shed till He appeared obviously. So, the animal sacrifices in the OT were a foreshadowing - a “covering” till the ultimate sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

Actually, since Christ died for all, it is simply a matter of accepting Him. Therefore, the ignorant (whether simply because of lack of knowledge of Christ or mentally unable) are actually saved to begin with. It’s when they make a decision about Christ one way or the other that they choose heaven or hell.

I hope that makes sense. You probably know the theologies of John Calvin and Joseph Arminius. I frankly don’t agree with either one. Baptists fall under being either full fledged Calvinist, full fledged Arminian or somewhere in between. I’m in between - riding the fence. Calvinists declare predestination of all - including babies while Arminius posited free will of all creatures.

Above is my personal experience and belief. There is no defined theology on the subject officially from the Southern Baptist Convention that I can find. I did however find a good article on the subject from John MacArthur who is a pastor/teacher of Grace Community Church in California. He has some baptist affiliations.

Here is a link to an article from his website. It is very short.

gty.org/bible_faqs/bible_content.php?qa=heaven7.htm

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

Above is my personal experience and belief.

But are we to each, individually, simply decide for ourselves what’s true or did Jesus actually leave a voice in the world that we are to listen to and not reject lest we be rejecting Christ himself as well as the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16)"?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

One way to consider this:

They are “covered” by grace till they can reasonably accept Christ. There is no loss of salvation.

So babies are NOT saved, they are “covered”, is that right? Do you have a scripture to support this saved vs. covered idea?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

But are we to each, individually, simply decide for ourselves what’s true or did Jesus actually leave a voice in the world that we are to listen to and not reject lest we be rejecting Christ himself as well as the One who sent Him (Luke 10:16)"?

In Christ,
Nancy

That’s why there are Catholics and protestants. We all decide what is true for us. That’s called logic and reason. If you don’t make decisions for yourself and let someone else make them for you, then that would be a very dangerous road, don’t you think?

At some point - given evidence for A and evidence for B, we have to logically decide which has the most merit - which one makes more sense based on the evidence. That’s what I do - weigh the evidence and when there are times when I can’t decide one way or the other - if it’s a stalemate, then I go to others and listen to their viewpoints (i.e. my pastor, teachers and/or other believers).

If God gave us the ability to reason He expects us to use it. If we unwittingly take someone’s word for something without challenging it and running it through our logical processes then we have denied the creation of God and are liable for that mistake.

We’ve all seen the danger in people following their political leaders idealogy blindly or simply accepted their leaders unethical behavior. Then they put up with their behavior. “Well, he IS the leader of our country after all” - “We should just do what he says to do”. That’s the danger.

Most of the Catholics I have spoken with on this forum are not that way. You don’t just accept something because your Bishop said so or the Pope said so. If you did accept anything your Bishop or Pope said, then you would be in danger of following incorrect doctrine and possibly put your soul in danger.

I realize you would rebuff with the argument that the Holy Spirit must lead some to truth and some to others. But, I really think that is a false dichotomy. It’s people seeing the same accident, but viewing it 10 different ways. Are all the people who saw an accident and put it in their own words wrong? No, they simply see things from their own viewpoint - relative truth.

Peace…

These are undeniable human traits - the ability to reason.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

That’s why there are Catholics and protestants. We all decide what is true for us. That’s called logic and reason. If you don’t make decisions for yourself and let someone else make them for you, then that would be a very dangerous road, don’t you think?

At some point - given evidence for A and evidence for B, we have to logically decide which has the most merit - which one makes more sense based on the evidence. That’s what I do - weigh the evidence and when there are times when I can’t decide one way or the other - if it’s a stalemate, then I go to others and listen to their viewpoints (i.e. my pastor, teachers and/or other believers).

If God gave us the ability to reason He expects us to use it. If we unwittingly take someone’s word for something without challenging it and running it through our logical processes then we have denied the creation of God and are liable for that mistake.

We’ve all seen the danger in people following their political leaders idealogy blindly or simply accepted their leaders unethical behavior. Then they put up with their behavior. “Well, he IS the leader of our country after all” - “We should just do what he says to do”. That’s the danger.

Most of the Catholics I have spoken with on this forum are not that way. You don’t just accept something because your Bishop said so or the Pope said so. If you did accept anything your Bishop or Pope said, then you would be in danger of following incorrect doctrine and possibly put your soul in danger.

I realize you would rebuff with the argument that the Holy Spirit must lead some to truth and some to others. But, I really think that is a false dichotomy. It’s people seeing the same accident, but viewing it 10 different ways. Are all the people who saw an accident and put it in their own words wrong? No, they simply see things from their own viewpoint - relative truth.

Peace…

These are undeniable human traits - the ability to reason.

Truth is absolute, not relative. God is real, absolutely, even for atheists who sincerely believe He’s a myth. Truth is truth even if no one believes it. It has nothing in the world to do with following political leaders or believing every word that comes from the mouths of popes and bishops. Those are red herrings.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

So babies are NOT saved, they are “covered”, is that right? Do you have a scripture to support this saved vs. covered idea?

In Christ,
Nancy

Well, I explained the example of the complete Old Testament treatment of salvation. They were saved “without the shed blood of Christ”. Their animal sacrifices atoned for their sins till the Lamb was slain and atoned eternally for their sins. Are the OT believers damned because they knew nothing of Christ? No, they had faith in God. They had faith in the promise of a coming Savior.

I admit that using two different terms may cause confusion to the belief. However, as I already said, there is no explicit Scriptural proofs to back up this belief. There are implications - as John MacArthur points out in his article.

There are no explicit passages bearing the belief of the Trinity either. You have to piece together verses to come up with the whole. It’s the same here. Not everything is black and white.
If my understanding is correct, apparitions of Holy Mother Mary are not binding on the Catholic faith. It’s left up to the individual to decide to believe or not because there’s no explicit proof either way.

Give prots the same liberty in their beliefs. That’s reasonable to expect.

Peace…