What is a baptist church like?

[Julianna]

Alot of Baptists are curious about Catholic wedding receptions…especially my cousins. I can tell you…it’s not cookies and punch in the church hall and everyone goes home in an hour.

Having grown up in both worlds…it’s not half bad. It was a kind of an education to me. My mom never converted, but she made sure we went through our sacraments and to catechism class.

 

[FantomScholar]

So if it was present, why do the Baptists reject the concept of the Real Presence? I’ve never understood that.

For the same reason that one rejects various views that were present in the early church. We don’t accept Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. simply because numerous theologians of the time espoused those views.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

How do you know that your private interpretation of Roman documents is correct over against the private interpretation of other Roman Catholics?

Both sides can play such epistemological gymnastics. But it doesn’t really solve much, does it?

It’s not my interpretation. It is by the authority of the church that Christ himself founded! The Catholic church. The church that wrote the bible and the only church that has the authority to interpret scriptures.

Matthew

 

[Rolltide]

For the same reason that one rejects various views that were present in the early church. We don’t accept Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. simply because numerous theologians of the time espoused those views.

Except that Gnosticism, Arianism, and many other doctrines were clearly rejected and eventually died out. The church embraced the Real Presence by a wide consensus very early on.

 

[FantomScholar]

It’s not my interpretation. It is by the authority of the church that Christ himself founded! The Catholic church. The church that wrote the bible and the only church that has the authority to interpret scriptures.

Matthew

How can you be certain since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that Rome is right?

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

How can you be certain since all you have to go on is your own fallible private judgment that Rome is right?

The holy spirit guides the church in ALL truths. For you to say the church is wrong is to say the holy spirit is wrong! Is that what your defending?

Matthew

 

[FantomScholar]

Except that Gnosticism, Arianism, and many other doctrines were clearly rejected and eventually died out. The church embraced the Real Presence by a wide consensus very early on.

Yes, they were clearly rejected at various points. That doesn’t help anyone living at the time of any stated controversy, however. Is the majority always right? There was a point in time where the vast majority of bishops were Arian, and Athanasius had to fight them practically by himself. If you rely solely on what the majority position happens to be at any point in time, it’s not going to solve the problem to say check back in 500 years and see which position eventually won out.

 

[FantomScholar]

The holy spirit guides the church in ALL truths. For you to say the church is wrong is to say the holy spirit is wrong! Is that what your defending?

Matthew

No, I am asking you to explain how you can be certain that your fallible understanding that Rome is infallible is any greater than anyone elses fallible understanding.

 

[Nicea325]

No, I am asking you to explain how you can be certain that your fallible understanding that Rome is infallible is any greater than anyone elses fallible understanding.

Easy! Jesus founded only ONE church way back in the 1st century and promised to guide His Church through all truths. He never promised to found thousands of different churches all teaching different things.

Now try to justify the thousands of different churches as being infallible is a much more difficult task to prove.

 

[Nicea325]

Yes, they were clearly rejected at various points. That doesn’t help anyone living at the time of any stated controversy, however. Is the majority always right? There was a point in time where the vast majority of bishops were Arian, and Athanasius had to fight them practically by himself. If you rely solely on what the majority position happens to be at any point in time, it’s not going to solve the problem to say check back in 500 years and see which position eventually won out.

And there was a point when the majority were Arianist and some semi-Arianist. Where are they today? Where are any of the major heresies of the early church today? Orthodoxy always triumphs over heterodoxy. No man’s private judgment (Arianism,Montanits,Adoptionists X hundreds) is over God’s promise to defend His Church from false teachings.

 

[FantomScholar]

Easy! Jesus founded only ONE church way back in the 1st century and promised to guide His Church through all truths. He never promised to found thousands of different churches all teaching different things.

Now try to justify the thousands of different churches as being infallible is a much more difficult task to prove.

That doesn’t answer the question, though, Nicea. Jesus did found a church in the 1st century. How do you infallibly know that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded?

 

[FantomScholar]

And there was a point when the majority were Arianist and some semi-Arianist. Where are they today? Where are any of the major heresies of the early church today? Orthodoxy always triumphs over heterodoxy. No man’s private judgment (Arianism,Montanits,Adoptionists X hundreds) is over God’s promise to defend His Church from false teachings.

How does that help you during a controversy if you have wait to see who won out? What if the majority at the time, like the Arian bishops, is wrong. Do you go against the majority in the hopes that you’re another Athanasius? Or do you go with the majority in the hopes that since its the majority, and the Spirit promises to preserve the majority, your obedience to them is required? It won’t help you to say “Well, I will wait 100 years and find out who eventually lost the debate.” If you had gone with the majority at the time of Athanasius, you’d have been dead and condemned to perdition before anyone ever won out.

 

[FantomScholar]

Alot of Baptists are curious about Catholic wedding receptions…especially my cousins. I can tell you…it’s not cookies and punch in the church hall and everyone goes home in an hour.

LOL Julianna… We serve liquor at ours. Which makes any visiting Baptists not a part of our church angry on the outside, and on the inside wondering how they can sneak in without anyone noticing,

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by a priori
But FantomScholar, when a Calvinist and an Arminian armwrestle, who is correct and where does one go to confirm the victory? We know that there are Calvinist Baptists and Arminian Baptists. There are dispensationalists, antinomians, etc., etc. Where is the truth?

FantomScholar:

**Scripture. One must begin with the proper understanding that any dogmatic issue can be resolved using the text of Scripture. That then raises the question of who is using Scripture properly. Taking the example of the Arminian, one must look at whether the way he uses Scripture is grammatically correct, consistent with itself, etc. The same goes for the antinomian. Can either side use various passages of Scripture to support their views? Absolutely. So could an Arian, a Monophysite, etc. But could any of them use those passages consistently with other passages of Scripture? I don’t believe so. **

Scripture? True but to a certain degree.But in the end, it is the CHURCH,not scripture alone who decides. Precisely why there exists thousands of different churches stating scripture is the final arbiter of doctrinal indifferences. Evidently it is not!

For example, Arianism as in many ancient heresies and like today simply practice eisegesis, instead of examing the entirety of scripture. Arianism made an argument using scriptural verses to support their argument. Meaning what? They used the subodinate verses in order to prove Christ was inferior to God the Father. The Catholic Church on the other hand approached it by looking at ALL the gospels and scripture;hence not only specific passages to prove their position.

 

[FantomScholar]

Quote:
Scripture? True but to a certain degree.But in the end, it is the CHURCH,not scripture alone who decides. Precisely why there exists thousands of different churches stating scripture is the final arbiter of doctrinal indifferences. Evidently it is not!

For example, Arianism as in many ancient heresies and like today simply practice eisegesis, instead of examing the entirety of scripture. Arianism made an argument using scriptural verses to support their argument. Meaning what? They used the subodinate verses in order to prove Christ was inferior to God the Father. The Catholic Church on the other hand approached it by looking at ALL the gospels and scripture;hence not only specific passages to prove their position.

Which is precisely why the authority must rest in Scripture and not the authority of the Church. The anti-Arians were successful because they were able to consistently interpret all of the biblical texts and the Arians did not. It didn’t help to say it was because of their authority as bishops. Arius *was *a bishop, all of the bishops that opposed Athanasius were bishops. It didn’t help that they were in positions of authority. What mattered was Scripture interpreting Scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I’m a cradle catholic, My mom was a Southern baptist or baptist im not sure then Converted to catholicism like 20 years ago, she raised me Catholic, but i always wanted what to know is a baptist church like? how come the south has so many baptist churches theres like 5 in my area only 1 catholic church, i always thought the baptist church is racist & they dont support interracial dating is this true? & they think catholics worship mary WE DONT WORSHIP mary & the saints WE Pray to them as an intercessor Mary is our intercessor she’s the patron of Chastity & Purity & We pray to her to get closer to Our Lord

Sorry if i offended baptists i’ve never set foot in to a baptist church before is it like catholic church at all? my uncle who also converted to catholicism said its like a seminar is this true?

and again im Sorry if i offended baptists i’ve never been to baptist church in my life

I’ll give a short answer to the question (1) “what is a Baptist church like?” and (2) “why are there so many in the south [of the USA]?”

(1) It is like any association of people formed to promote and support a religious opinion. It is self governing, the congregation elects their pastor, they elect their elders and deacons, and they usually vote on matters that involve money or major new programs. Their worship is simple, they usually have an opening benediction of some sort, a scripture reading, a sermon, and interspersed are some hymns, most have a closing benediction and most have an opening and a closing prayer surrounding the sermon. The sermons can last from 10 to 45 minutes depending on the zealousness of the congregation and their pastor. The “Lord’s supper” is not usually a part of the worship - it is taken about once a month or once a quarter and sometimes only once a year. Baptists do not believe in the real presence of Christ in their “Lord’s supper”.

(2) In the south during the civil war the Baptist churches needed to separate from their northern brethren to preserve the right to own slaves because northern Baptists were moving progressively away from slavery and towards abolitionism. The southern Baptists received some kudos from their move (among southern people). That may account for the large numbers of southern Baptist churches.

Cheers

 

[Nicea325]

How does that help you during a controversy if you have wait to see who won out? What if the majority at the time, like the Arian bishops, is wrong. Do you go against the majority in the hopes that you’re another Athanasius? Or do you go with the majority in the hopes that since its the majority, and the Spirit promises to preserve the majority, your obedience to them is required? It won’t help you to say “Well, I will wait 100 years and find out who eventually lost the debate.” If you had gone with the majority at the time of Athanasius, you’d have been dead and condemned to perdition before anyone ever won out.

It is npt so much about ‘majority’ or ‘minority’ but ORTHODOXY. Orthodoxy has always existed and has always been challenged,regardless if it is the ‘minor’ or the ‘majority’

 

[FantomScholar]

It is npt so much about ‘majority’ or ‘minority’ but ORTHODOXY. Orthodoxy has always existed and has always been challenged,regardless if it is the ‘minor’ or the ‘majority’

Correct; So how do you, as an individual Christian, tell the difference?

 

[Nicea325]

*Originally Posted by Nicea325
Quote:
Scripture? True but to a certain degree.But in the end, it is the CHURCH,not scripture alone who decides. Precisely why there exists thousands of different churches stating scripture is the final arbiter of doctrinal indifferences. Evidently it is not!

For example, Arianism as in many ancient heresies and like today simply practice eisegesis, instead of examing the entirety of scripture. Arianism made an argument using scriptural verses to support their argument. Meaning what? They used the subodinate verses in order to prove Christ was inferior to God the Father. The Catholic Church on the other hand approached it by looking at ALL the gospels and scripture;hence not only specific passages to prove their position. *

**Which is precisely why the authority must rest in Scripture and not the authority of the Church. **

False premise. No where does wirtten scripture claim exclusive authority.It was THE CHURCH who defended the correct interpretation. Show me where scripture explicitly defined the Trinity? No where! It was the church using scripture implicitly to defend and define the doctrine of the Trinity.

**The anti-Arians were successful because they were able to consistently interpret all of the biblical texts and the Arians did not. It didn’t help to say it was because of their authority as bishops. Arius was a bishop, all of the bishops that opposed Athanasius were bishops. It didn’t help that they were in positions of authority. What mattered was Scripture interpreting Scripture. **

Precisely! The fact that Arian was a bishop did not mean he had exclusive infallibilities. He followed his own heterdoxy,which was completely false. The Church decides and defines doctrines as a CHURCH,not as individuals.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nicea325:

The fact that Arian was a bishop did not mean he had exclusive infallibilities

Are you sure that Arius was a bishop? I recall him being referred to as a presbyter (a priest) from Alexandria.
*Arius (AD 250 or 256 – 336) was a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. * [Wikipedia]]