What is a baptist church like?

[TriuneUnity]

Thank you benidict. I have no idea what gave Danny the idea I am playng games? I am not! He believes the church is fallible,thus I told him how could a **fallible church **have given us a infallible source (The canon of the Bible)? Where is the logic behind such a belief?

I won’t be jumping to the defense of Baptists any time soon. However, the Bible is infallible because God inspired it, not because the Church recognized it. Infallibility is not a prequisite for having a collection of Scripture. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews, yet it would be hard to argue that the Jewish Temple hierarchy was infallible.

 

[eucharisteo]

I won’t be jumping to the defense of Baptists any time soon. However, the Bible is infallible because God inspired it, not because the Church recognized it. Infallibility is not a prequisite for having a collection of Scripture. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews, yet it would be hard to argue that the Jewish Temple hierarchy was infallible.

Tim Staples gave a great explanation of this a few weeks ago. I’d suggest you find it and read it or listen to it from Catholic Answers Radio. I’ll have to look for it. Sorry, but he did give a good explanation that I dare not attempt to repeat for fear of really messing it up.

 

[Nicea325]

I won’t be jumping to the defense of Baptists any time soon. However, the Bible is infallible because God inspired it, not because the Church recognized it. Infallibility is not a prequisite for having a collection of Scripture. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews, yet it would be hard to argue that the Jewish Temple hierarchy was infallible.

Interesting,but I disagree. Yes God inspired it, BUT it was ONLY the Church he also GUIDES who determined it.If infallibility is not a prequisite,then what certitude do you have the very Bible we all have is even inspired or not?

If it is not a prequisite,then tell me which book, if I believe with the exception of John’s Revelation, claimed divine inspiration?

 

[FantomScholar]

phew! for a moment i thought it was me. i do come down pretty hard on fundamentalist from time to time. i wont deny it. but i do have two baptist on my friends list. rev kev is one. shall i make it a third? peace

Anytime, benedict!

You can come down hard on fundamentalists. I do too. I reject the tenets of fundamentalism, as it is expressed in modern American evangelicalism.

 

[FantomScholar]

Three sources teach us that the Church is infallible;

1. • Scripture. Scripture tells us that the Church will be guided into all truth, will decide what sins are not retained and what sins are retained knowing that those decisions will be reflected in heaven, will teach all nations (see John 16:13, Matthew 18:18, John 20:19-23, Matthew 28:19-20).
   Is your interpretation of those Scriptures infallible? If not, how do you know that you’re not misinterpreting it?
   

   • The Church herself. The Church herself testifies to her own calling to infallibly teach the truth of Christ by

   If the presence of the Holy Spirit determines the infallibility of the church, then Protestant churches would also be infallible, since the Catholic Church claims that the Spirit is at work in them, too.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Is your interpretation of those Scriptures infallible? If not, how do you know that you’re not misinterpreting it?

I cited the passages I did not offer an interpretation of them.

I think your question is irrelevant, I am not contenting for my own personal infallibility. Aren’t you, by your comment, avoiding the issue (and the bible passages) by playing the man rather than responding to the topic and the passages?

Circular. The Church cannot infallibly teach her own infallibility. If she is not infallible, then her claims to infallibility are fallible.

I don’t see any reason to accept your statement. Why can’t the Church testify to her own infallibility which is given to her as a gift from God? The Church is not the only one to testify to her infallibility, there is also the witness of scripture and Tradition. If the Church were the only witness then maybe there would be circularity, but as it is not the only witness there is none.

I agree that the apostles are the foundation of the church. This doesn’t mean that the church is infallible, since those same apostles warn of false teachers within the church and never articulate in their writings that their “successors” will be infallible in their teachings. The apostles commend the elders they appointed to hold fast to apostolic doctrine. This implies that they have the possibility of not holding to it.

Your comments are irrelevant. The apostles were themselves gifted with infallibility. Their successors are also gifted with infallibility. Both the apostles and their successors made mistakes. The gift of infallibility does not imply impeccability and it does not imply that every action and statement is an exercise of the gift any more than those who were prophets would always speak prophetic utterances.

If the presence of the Holy Spirit determines the infallibility of the church, then Protestant churches would also be infallible, since the Catholic Church claims that the Spirit is at work in them, too.

Protestant groups are infallible whenever they bear witness to the teaching of Christ which is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Yet again you sidestep the passages by introducing a side issue. Christ promises infallibility to the apostles through the presence of the Holy Spirit among them and He promises to be with them until the end of the ages. The passages to which I referred you are the passages that the Church has cited in her teaching regarding the gift infallibility given to the Church. You are, of course, welcome to interact with the passages and offer your perspective. The Church offers hers in her teaching through the centuries, and in recent times in her catechisms and other teaching documents.

 

[FantomScholar]

I cited the passages I did not offer an interpretation of them.

I think your question is irrelevant, I am not contenting for my own personal infallibility. Aren’t you, by your comment, avoiding the issue (and the bible passages) by playing the man rather than responding to the topic and the passages?

No…you stated those passages teach that the church is infallible. That is an interpretation of those passages.

I don’t see any reason to accept your statement. Why can’t the Church testify to her own infallibility which is given to her as a gift from God? The Church is not the only one to testify to her infallibility, there is also the witness of scripture and Tradition. If the Church were the only witness then maybe there would be circularity, but as it is not the only witness there is none.

Except that the claim that Scripture and “Tradition” teaches infallibility is an interpretation put forward by the Church, which claims that interpretation to be infallible. In either case, the argument would still boil down to “the church is infallible and has infallibly interpreted Scripture and Tradition to teach that the church is infallible.” Hence, the assertion is circular. The only way to avoid the circularity is if another source outside of the church explicitly teaches that the church is infallible, which there isn’t.

If, on the other hand, you state that your interpretation of those passages has convinced you that the church is infallible, that is fine… but since your interpretation is not infallible, you still have no infallible certainty that the church is infallible.

Your comments are irrelevant. The apostles were themselves gifted with infallibility. Their successors are also gifted with infallibility.

Where does Scripture explicitly state this? Not about the apostles, but their “successors.”

Protestant groups are infallible whenever they bear witness to the teaching of Christ which is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

How so? The message being true is not based on any charism inherent in the one proclaiming it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

FantomScholar, your post (#147) continues to address irrelevancies and avoid the issues at stake. Furthermore, your argument regarding infallibility manages only to relativise all discourse because all participants are human beings and (according to you) consequently fallible. If every participant can offer only an opinion about the meaning of anything then no discussion gets beyond opinion swapping.

By the way, do you intend to interact with the passages I cited?

=====

PS: If you want to continue this “opinion swap” it might be a good idea to move to a new thread because I don’t think we’re discussing what the Baptist church is like anymore. How about you start a new thread called “A critique of infallibility - the opinions of a Protestant”

 

[Danny_Clover]

When it comes to salvation and eternity no one is playing games here!

Yes, actually, he was playing games and I’m not going to feed the troll. He knows that I never said any of the things he claims I said and I’m just not going to encourage that.

I suggest you read early church history before you start digging a deeper hole for yourself.
This form is to educate those like yourself who are misinformed on the true teachings of the the church that Christ himself founded!

What have I said that’s “misinformed”?
I need help:

i just wanna know, is the baptist church manmade?

As a denomination, yes. As a part of the one true church that Jesus Christ founded, no.

i probably won’t go to a baptist church im just curious Why don’t you guys pray to mary?

Because the Bible forbids us from praying to the dead.

she can help you out get closer to jesus

If you’re born again, then you’re already as close to Jesus as you’re going to get. I’m not sure how Mary is supposed to help you get closer to Jesus, but as far as growing in holiness and in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, that’s what the Word of God is for.

because of mary & jesus i’ve been clean

The Bible says that it’s Jesus who makes us clean, not Mary.

benedict:

it is a new covenant. the Catholic Church is the embodyment of that new covenant.

I’d really like to read more about that idea. Where in the Bible should I look for that?

 

[eucharisteo]

What have I said that’s “misinformed”?

Evident by the lack of understanding and major statements in this particular post.

As a denomination, yes. As a part of the one true church that Jesus Christ founded, no.

You argue against the man made traditions you believe the Catholic Church teaches at Sacred Tradition yet you openly accept the Man made traditions of Baptists, in this particular case. How confused can you get?

Because the Bible forbids us from praying to the dead.

Another uninformed understanding of scripture based on an 8th grade reading level ability. Remember, a physicist can not base his understanding of science based on an 8th grade math level. Its an obvious sign of someone that lacks full knowledge of what we know now about a subject.
Danny Clover;6673710:

If you’re born again, then you’re already as close to Jesus as you’re going to get. I’m not sure how Mary is supposed to help you get closer to Jesus, but as far as growing in holiness and in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, that’s what the Word of God is for.

Nothing comes closer the Christ in this life than the Eucharist, NOTHING. I’m sad for you to not realize this.

The Bible says that it’s Jesus who makes us clean, not Mary.

I think that the OP means that because Mary said “Yes” to God to have Jesus she participated in that sense to give us our savior Jesus, also her savior. This is a common misunderstanding about Mary by those that have been deprived of a strong grasp of effective communication and a better grounding in language.

I’d really like to read more about that idea. Where in the Bible should I look for that?

Now you’re playing games. (Edited)

 

[eucharisteo]

Many uncatechized Catholics regergitate the standard information taught to them while growing up. They are trying I have to assume. But to truly own information in understanding it requires much more thought that repeating information. I’ve spent my entire life trying to come to an understanding of the truth about God and which church is the right church. Why? Because my parents were on opposite ends of the spectrum. There was no eccumenism at all in their relationship dealing with religion. My loathed the Catholic Church and ultimately my dad. Dad loathed any Protestant doctrine and particularly dissenting Catholics. So in order to reconcile this hate relationship, which ultimately led to divorce by the time I was six years old, I had no choice but to set out to seek truth. But at the same time be reconciled with both parents. That’s what led me to studying scripture at an early age and why I took it so serious during my teen and adult life. There is no doubt in my mind now that the Catholic Church is in fact the Church Christ founded. The question about the existence of non-Catholic Christian faiths -defined as those not in full communion with the Bishop of Rome - continues to baffle me because I have run down most of the major anti-Catholic statements and have reconciled there official teachings by coming to a better understanding the use of the language or definitions applied to that language. Unfortunately, language is not studied well enough to realize that the type of language used is more like legal language or in my case mathematics. When you study philosophy you come to realize the need for definitions and understanding completely what those definitions mean - not just memorizing them.

We are not expected to understand but only to believe. However when doubt enters in we should try to understand. Because of all the sinful lies about the Catholic Church perpetuated by those who hate the Catholic Church for what it teaches we will always have these issues. It wasn’t until orthodoxy gaining control of the Church did the heretics leave. It was sin that caused the divisions in the first place. To teach truth, yet not practice the truth makes one a hypocrite. And from my studies there have always been hypocrites in the Church. Like a parent that tells us not to have sex before marriage or not to drink and drive, yet does it themselves, so have many church leaders within the Church given scandalous examples that now the rest of us have to live with the rest of our existence. It’s unfair, but it is the way things are. For this I understand. But, if I get short with Catholics that teach heresy, I also get short, but attempt to exercise more patience, with non-Catholics who most likely have been exposed to some of the most vile information about Catholics and the Catholic Church. I’ve actively participated in about 4 protestant faiths, all evangelical and the Catholic faith. My first bout with Catholicism was very confusing and because of my anti-Catholic family I became disenchanted with the Church and left for 18 years with my wife. But after studying the scriptures more, everyday, I came to realize the fallacy of some of what was being taught. And some of what we were taught jibed with the bible as well as Catholicism. And if I can come to this conclusion doesn’t mean others will or will allow it. I fought it off for many years after realizing it. I told God that if he wanted me to be Catholic he’d have to convert my wife first without my influence. That’s exactly what he ended up doing. He spared me because I didn’t try to reconcile the bible to my beliefs but rather the other way around. I believe God treated me as the Protestant, who didn’t think of himself as a Protestant but rather a bible Christian.

Hopefully, you won’t make the same mistakes I made along my journey, but if God allows it may He bring you back to the fold in the fullness of Christ, not some stripped down version of the truth.

 

[E.E.N.S]

We like to remember the life of Jesus, not his death.

St. Paul says, “…but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,” (1 Cor 1:23)

we are of the life of Jesus and the CC is about the death of Jesus.

The Catholic Church is about the death AND resurrection of Christ.

…only God can truly forgive sin. not man.

Jesus sent the Apostles as the Father sent Him, (which was to forgive sins!), and told them who’s sins they forgive are forgiven, and who’s sins they retain are retained. (c.f., John 20:23)

No we don’t, We pray from our hearts not what is pre-written.

Jesus taught us how to pray with the Our Father, did He not? (Matt 6:9, Luke 11:2…“When you pray, say, ‘Our Father…’”)

Who made the CC, its said that Jesus did but Jesus never said I started the CC. It was man and the apostles were men they started the CC. Jesus did not. Jesus is the church but he never said what church he only says he is the true church.

I would agree that Christ is the Head of the Church, but that is far from the extent of the matter. No where in Scripture do we see Jesus saying, “I am the Church.” We do see Christ establishing a Church and giving that Church His authority to bind and to loose. Christ renamed Simon to Kepha (Rock in Aramaic), gave him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and said that he was going to build His church upon that Kepha. (c.f., Matt 16:17-18 and Matt 18: 16-18.)

 

[E.E.N.S]

I won’t be jumping to the defense of Baptists any time soon. However, the Bible is infallible because God inspired it, not because the Church recognized it. Infallibility is not a prequisite for having a collection of Scripture. The Old Testament was recognized by the Jews, yet it would be hard to argue that the Jewish Temple hierarchy was infallible.

Christ did say, (Matt 23:1-12) “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. “Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do,”…

This is important to note for several reasons, but I want to digress for a moment to ask the following question: What exactly does it mean that the Scriptures are “the infallible, inerrant Word of God”? ALL Christians agree to this statement, but what exactly does it mean?

Does it mean that the different translations are infallible and/or inerrant? (If so, then why to different translations vary so much, even to the point of serious conflict with one another?)

Does it mean that everything that is in the Bible belongs there without question? (If so, then why are there so many verses simply missing? Look up Acts 8: 37 for example…it’s gone, along with many other verses that “scholars” say may have been added at some point down the road. Interesting, and definitely food for thought!)

So what exactly DOES it mean?

 

[Danny_Clover]

Evident by the lack of understanding and major statements in this particular post.

You argue against the man made traditions you believe the Catholic Church teaches at Sacred Tradition yet you openly accept the Man made traditions of Baptists, in this particular case. How confused can you get?
Danny Clover;6673710:

Because the Bible forbids us from praying to the dead.

Another uninformed understanding of scripture based on an 8th grade reading level ability. Remember, a physicist can not base his understanding of science based on an 8th grade math level. Its an obvious sign of someone that lacks full knowledge of what we know now about a subject.

Nothing comes closer the Christ in this life than the Eucharist, NOTHING. I’m sad for you to not realize this.

I think that the OP means that because Mary said “Yes” to God to have Jesus she participated in that sense to give us our savior Jesus, also her savior. This is a common misunderstanding about Mary by those that have been deprived of a strong grasp of effective communication and a better grounding in language.

Now you’re playing games. The word hypocrite comes to mind. I hope this is not true.

So let’s see…

So far, you’ve impugned my intelligence, my education, my understanding of the Bible, and sincerity, as well as accusing me of making arguments I never made, all without naming one thing I’ve said that’s wrong or backing up any of your claims.

Is this really how you want to represent the Catholic Church? More to the point, to ask your fellow Catholics, is this really how you all want this poster to represent Catholicism?

 

[eucharisteo]

We pray from our hearts all the time, even if the prayers are written for us. If we’re not then we’re no better than those that act like they’re praying from the heart yet repeat the same basic prayers each time you hear them.