Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by MikeS, Nov 12, 2003.
Oh, nevermind, there aren't any...
You had me worried there for a minute...
Always impressed with our "guests" from other religious persuasions who join in the open forums here on the BB.
A dear RC friend from days gone by (Father Frank) said that he always considered us Baptists as more "wayward brethren", as we were Christians - having been baptized - but strayed from Rome.
He was always shocked when Baptists, in turn, did not consider HIM to be a "brother", but rather as an object for proselyting.
Wonder if that same attitude is present on the BB? Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican et al consider us as "brothers" but the feeling is NOT mutual?
Certainly the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that you are Christian brothers and sisters in imperfect union with the Church. And I'm fine with that!
I have born again friends (and family members) of several different denominations, including Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Assembly of God, Church of God, to name a few, and even born again Jews.
There will be a few surprises in heaven, no doubt. And some who are Baptists may not even be there.
Is that why they called us "accursed" and "outside the holy mother church" and tried to kill many of our ancestors?? Are you fine with that too??
Dr. Bob, the feeling might not be mutual for you and your close friends, but I assure you that you don't speak for the majority of Baptists. I have many Baptist friends that would call me and other sincere Catholics brothers in Christ. Most followers of Christ have a problem with passing judgement on people and condemning them to hell, so that might be the reason for the discrepancy there.
Larry, do you mean in the same way that Catholic ancestors have been persecuted and killed by some of those people in "imperfect union" with the Church?
Is that why they called us "accursed" and "outside the holy mother church" and tried to kill many of our ancestors?? Are you fine with that too?? </font>[/QUOTE]Count to 10, take some deep breaths, look at the calendar (it's 2003, not 1553), and try again, brother Larry...
Are you kidding? There are baptists on this very board that consider others on this board brothers, but the feeling is not mutual. Sad.
Our faith in Christ makes us brothers. Our differences of practice makes us human.
I agree with SheEagle: There will be a lot of surprises in Heaven.
Unfortunatley alot of Baptist bashing tends to go on by Baptists themselves targeting other Baptists.
143 Baptist Denominations and counting, yet for some of the rotten ones there are some really decent people too.
Well it only took six posts for this thread to go anti-Catholic ugly!
And by a "pastor" no less.
My grandfather and his ancestors were French Roman Catholics. He was saved at First Baptist Church in Schenectady, New York and always held it against the leaders of the Catholic Church for keeping him in darkness. He believe that he never received Christ as personal Savior [John 1:12] in the Catholic Church.
I have mixed feeings and can understand what Pastor Larry believes. Catholics need to be evangelized into 'justification by faith' churches. Why should they masticate and swallow all the error of Catholicism.
Are Catholics saved people? I believe some are but many are as lost as Judas, because they have a form of religious observance, and, in many cases prefer and adore Mary over Jesus Christ Who died for their sins. [I Cor. 15:3-4; I John 2:2]
The Savior, Jesus, will judge us all as being worthy of Heaven or Hell. [John 5:22] All judgment is committed unto the Son, our Savior.
There are some threads that might seem bashing in some ways. I will concede that point.
But many of them make important points. For instance, the threads about the popes by BobRyan do have elements of bashing in them. However, they make some points. Who from the outside looking in would take seriously a claim that folks who have done some of these things are infallible.
I find it very interesting how Catholics define papal infallibility. It seems to me that if a pope were to be given infallibility, that attribute would apply to all statements about the faith. But there are some inconstent statements about the faith out there...so the Catholic denomination had to limit it to "ex Cathedra" statements. I imagine there haven't been a whole lot of "ex Cathedra" statements prior to the realization that it was only "ex Cathedra" statements which were "infallible." (And I bet that popes prior to that time didn't know they had to speak ex cathedra for their words to have lasting meaning to their successors. But that is only a guess.)
As a Baptist, I actually don't claim that the Baptist denomination is the only true church and the only way to brotherhood with Christ and to salvation. Some Catholics do claim that their denomination is the One True Church. It is for that reason that this denomination receives greater scrutiny, which I'm sure from within this denomination looks like "bashing" or dragging out of "dirty laundry." If the Catholic denomination would recognize Bible-believing Protestants whose practices were entirely in agreement with a reasonable interpretation of Scripture as valid branches of the Vine sharing a common root in Jesus Christ, then Catholic failings would likely receive no greater scrutiny that those of Presbyterians or Anglicans. (And do note that the Anglicans' institutional problems have been discussed here as well.)
Blessings to all my brothers,
Man with his religion has a tendency to paint himself into corners. As long as he rests on his OWN logic, he will have to think of new terminology for his new dogma so as to circumvent Biblical teaching.
Yes, you make a very good point. like Sola Scriptura (term is nowhere in the Bible, neither is the doctrine). In fact I can't get two Protestants to give me the same definition of it.
Sola Fide - Nowhere is the words faith and alone found together in the Bible out of the 273 times the Bible uses the word faith. It doesn't put it with the word alone once. Oh wait there is one time. But it won't help the Sole Fide position much. James 2:24.
Nowhere does Jesus say "the Lord's supper is to be just a symbol". "Baptism, well it's an optional ordinance".
Oh,that's good enough for starters I suppose. I appreciate the point you are making quite well.
Is that why they called us "accursed" and "outside the holy mother church" and tried to kill many of our ancestors?? Are you fine with that too?? </font>[/QUOTE]Gee, why didn't you go ahead and ask us Catholics, "When was the last time you beat your momma?"
Lord, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things that I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
Living one day at a time,
enjoying one moment at a time;
accepting hardship as a pathway to peace;
taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is,
not as I would have it;
trusting that you will make all things right
if I surrender to Your will;
so that I may be reasonably happy in this life
and supremely happy with You forever in the next.
Is that why they called us "accursed" and "outside the holy mother church" and tried to kill many of our ancestors?? Are you fine with that too?? </font>[/QUOTE]I assume your talking about people like the Paulicians spoken of in your Trail of Blood joke book. The ones who had a dual evil and good God and who rejected all of the NT except for some of the Gospels and all of the OT. Well, if you want to call them ancestors you can. How do you feel about Romans 13 and the authority of Governments to punish those who disturb the peace Larry?
I assume you are referring to me. There is no need to put "pastor" in quotes. I am actually a pastor, being qualified according to Scripture and being duly called by a local body of Christ. You don't have to use Pastor at all to refer to me. Larry is fine. I used pastor in my title, only because "Larry" was already taken.
On to the point, I was in no way anti-Catholic. I realize that the truth of the ugly past is sometimes hard to stomach, even by the diehards. But it is a reality. What we believe the Scripture teaches about salvation was condemned by the RCC and those who believe what we believe had an anathema pronounced on them. You cannot just pretend it doesn't exist or that it wasn't said or done. It was. To say that is not anti-Catholic; it is historical. When you study history, that is what you find to be true. I am sure that certain Baptists have done things that I would repudiate. The difference is that I will repudiate them.
It is interesting that this "brotherhood" you think we enjoy never existed in the past. The RCC routinely declared us not to be brothers. Both sides declared the other to be in error and to be unsaved. Again, that is undeniable fact. On both sides today, there is a current willingness that did not previously exist. At the time of the Reformation, Catholics did not call Protestants brothers (or Baptists either is you do not classify baptists as protestants). They were much more rigid than you are. Now was the RCC wrong back then?? Or are they wrong now?
As I previously pointed out, the definition of what it means to be "outside the church" for purposes of salvation keeps changing. Cynically, I would say I am glad I live now rather than several hundred years ago because now I am not considered "outside the church" and am therefore a "brother in imperfect union." Your Catholic ancestors would have condemned. Not that it matters to me for my salvation is in Christ alone and no one can bring a charge against God's elect.
There is a great willingness to rewrite history and historical theology. It should be rejected. Let's look at the past for what it is and deal with it. My point in my post was simply to point out what objective historians know to be true. We have axe to grind. It did not bring about our deaths and did not change anything about our lives. It does not affect our churches or our theology. The RCC is unwilling to really address because it does affect everything they believe. All I am asking for is a more objective view of history.
The sensitivity on your part is unwarranted. We live in 2003 but the past is still the past. The RCC needs a clear and direct repudiation of its past. But such repudiation will not be forthcoming because it would involve a repudiation of its doctrine. Such will not be tolerated.
There are some here who have sold their souls to a man made heirarchy and will buy whatever that heirarchy is selling. In this day of easy to obtain Bibles, and in this day of increasing intellectual ability, we need a clarion call for a return to the study of Scripture and an allegiance to God's revelation. Let us abandon all other loyalties.