Featured Why do you all think what we think

Apology Accepted!!!!! Thank you for recognizing it!!!! And I certainly understand why Wittenburger's post would set you off. Though I agree it would be nice if we were all united and I believe we will all definately be united in heaven! However, my object here is not about evangelization. I recognize this is a baptist site and when I first joined I was baptist. So I know that the views held are going to be primarily baptist. And I entirely respect that. Let me tell you what I like about baptist. Ever since asking Jesus into my heart at the missionary boarding school I attended I've got to sample the wealth of Christian Traditions. The Missionary Boarding School I attended is primarily Non-Denomination (to be available to all missionary kids) run by Africa Inland Missions headquartered at Pearl River New York. Wonderful school by the way. I only have good things to say about it. We were required to attend 1 Sunday a month an African Inland Church service in the town we lived at. It was there I learned all the old praise hymns and still have an affinity to it. Since just about every Christian denomination was represented there I was able to explore the different points of views of the denominations. example... I knew these two sisters who attended and they let their hair grow long and only wore dresses. I asked what denomination they were and they said they were Pentecostal but I knew other Pentecostal girls who cut their hair and wore jeans so the next question is why the difference and I learned about the Eastern Holiness Movement of Pentecostals which developed out of Methodist and certain other evangelical preaching of "Christian Perfection". And how that development of pPentecostalism differend from the Azuza St. Mission. However, baptist always emphasized scripture and dispite the many different types of baptist we always went back to scripture. Some insisted that KJV was the only properly translated scriptures others accepted the NIV. But it was always scripture. Also from a moral and conservative point of view (particularily in the US) I agreed a lot with them. Methodism has been invaded by liberalism and the like. Pentecostals are a wash in emotionalism. Fortunately most baptist I meet have that strong moral compass with conservative thinking. And make attempt to aproach the scriptures rationally. Of course this isn't always the case but if you ask me of all the TV preachers whom I liked the best I would have said there are two James Kennedy and Charels Stanely. I must admit I've listened to Charels Stanely more than Kennedy. In fact, I still recieve my regional baptist New Paper letting me know what going on with the Southern Baptist Convention and regional baptist issues.

No. My purpose is rather to debate issues consider what is presented and make up my own mind about things. I also would like to put out or present a more accurate view of what Catholics actually believe rather than what is often mistaken as Catholic belief. I also enjoy reading responses and thoughts of those who disagree with Catholicism and their reasons for doing so. And this of course is done through debate which this forum is about. In the end it forces me not to take something just because someone says it but to actually research it. And all of you baptist here are knowledgeable of scriptures and your systematic approach to theology so you guys do provide great insight to things. So you won't hear from me a statement like Wittenburger's.

 

I have never compared you to Mormons. Wittenburger did that. I consider Mormons to be a cult and not Christian and the same thing with Jehovah's witnesses as neither of them meet the Trinity test. Baptist on the other hand are Christians, just as are CoC, Methodist, Lutherans, Pentecostals, etc... So please stop applying things to me that I've never said.

I don't mind you disagreeing with Catholic Doctrine and if you provide a rational argument against it I will listen to what you have to say and maybe even debate with you about it. However, it is clear from your words a particular anamosity towards my view is expressed by you in anger which I don't believe is deserved. I can't argue with emotionalism. Debating with an angry person is a pointless proposition. Whatever your cause for anger is I pray God will replace it with Charity and Longsuffering to give you peace in that area of your life. After all they are all three the fuit of the Spirit and we should deal with each other exemplifying this fruit.

I certainly have no animosity towards you.

 

I think it's not a good thing when this 'wide diversity' encompasses mutually contradictory beliefs on important matters. That's what I dislike about the worldwide Anglican Communion.

 

You apologize and then you come back and accuse him of doing it all over again.

BTW, I also came here as a Baptist, but after actually studying the Catholic faith and reading the weak arguments against it's teachings found by people like you on this board, I am now in the process of becoming Catholic. So, while I intend to give people on this board every opportunity to change my mind, so far people like you are making it clearer all the time that I have made the right decision.

 

While you are in the process of becoming a Catholic, then be in the process of joining a Catholic chat. Argue with your own kind. I have no interest in changing your mind. Your thinking is backwards, having come from another denomination to the Baptist faith. I am certainly not in my former denomination chat board badgering its members.

Oh, and while we are talking about false doctrine, why does one has to be "in the process of becoming a Catholic." They claim to be a Christian church, yet Acts says in several places people were added to the church the same day. Again, another false doctrine to add to the hundreds they already practice.

Again, ave maria, gee its good to see ya.

 

My apologies again for the wrong name. It was Wittwhatever. I think you are correct in that there is one issue that I connect you two. It will not happen again.

To get back to the op since you seem to be civil, I cannot in my wildest imagination understand why a Lutheran would ever make such a statement comparing Baptists to JWs and Mormons. I still do not understand him calling for a return to the one true holy catholic church, unless he is talking about a church in the universal sense, such as in the Apostles Creed. Even if he is, what is the beliefs the universal church has in common that Baptists do not. You are correct about JWs and Mormons. Focusing in on the Mormons, what bothers me as much as the Trinity is the status they put on Jesus Christ. They do not think He is God, and believe He is a created being.

You asked where the anger came from, and it was from the statement we are discussing. It was a factor in getting you mixed up with the person responsible twice, maybe because we have discussed similar issues in the past. If it means anything, I do not feel any sense of anger or an agenda for mocking Baptists when I read your posts.

I want to ask you an honest question, because the subject of us going to Catholic or Lutheran chat rooms has come up before. If I went to a Catholic chat room and said, "Fellow Christians of this forum, who have been deceived by the authority of the Pope, false doctrine, praying to false gods, and being lead to the fires of hell, return to the teaching of Jesus Christ and the Bible. You are no better than Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses or Buddhists. Stop marching lock step behind the Pope on the road to hell before it is too late." How long would I be on that board after posting that?

 

And that's what I love about it.

Because despite those mutually contradictory beliefs that we all have with each other, we're all going to share heaven together.

 

I know in the Apostles Creed, when it refers to believing in the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting, the writer is talking about us all in heaven praising the Lord in one voice. While the local church carries out the work of the Lord here on earth, each church roll contains names that are not in the Lambs Book of Life. The universal church is everyone who is a true believer. There are many who look at that phrase and assoicate it with the RCC, which is not the intent of the creed.

 

Thank you.

I can only guess that what Wittenburger suggest is the faith that brought the Nicean Creed into being which according to him probably isn't the curren't "Apostate Catholic Church". (Not that I believe that. I'm attempting to assertain his view and express them but I acknowledge I could be off). In his mind its closer to his Lutheran expression. Keep in mind there are many similarities between Lutheranism and Catholicism to include sacramental grace. He agrees with Catholics that the Universal Chruch should be a visable Church.

Ok.

I honestly don't know. I have seen those statements like that on Catholic boards. I think the issue is the persistance of those comments that become an issue. It its honest debate I don't think that would be an issue. But maybe an infraction.

 

How do you know that? Just for arguments sake. If as you believe the RCC was a hybrid of Pagan/Christian religion started by Emperor Constantine. How do you know you are correct about the Creed? After all Constantine called into order that Council in 325 AD which came up with that creed. If the first two hyposthesis is correct then does it not stand to reason that the council as well as the creed is a Pagan/Christian construct enforced by Constantine on the Hybrid "false" church and that when it says "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" it is exactly referring to Hybrid Church whom Constantine wanted to unite all people under his "false Church"?

 

I read an article once about the differences between Catholic, Protestant and Baptist churches one time in relation to church administration. Basically, it stated that the Catholic church believed the church to be a visible universal church, the Protestants believed the church to be a universal invisible church, and the Baptists believe the church to be a local visible church here on earth.

 

That is a good summary of the differing views. Though I think Wittenberger would prefer the "Universal Visible" Church as he thinks the Church should be.

 

Maybe (hopefully). Or it just might be possible that some of these contradictory beliefs may either lead one down the wrong path or else give one a false sense of security. True Doctrine is important.

 

Quite right!

 

Yes, but who determines what is true doctrine? I'll go with John Wesley on this: "As to all opinions which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think and let think."

 

I am participating on Catholic boards. This is a forum for people who don't necessarily agree with Baptists. Why don't you get that? You have started threads wondering why anyone who do not believe as Baptists are allowed on this forum. Kinda defeats the purpose of this 'Other Christians Debate' thing doesn't it?

And as far as Baptists churches bringing people into their churches as members the same day as they express their interest to do so, you know and I know that is not the case. So, enough with the 'another false doctrine' accusation.

 

TPoint is that the RCC Gospel is NOT the one jesus and His Apsotles taught, it is heretical!
So the RCC teaches many things in common with baptists as you list, but strike out in final analysis!

 

Ahh...there's the question.

That's good advice, but then how do we know (or who determines) which 'opinions' are essential to salvation and which aren't? There seems to be some disagreement among Christian groups even in this regard. So, this basically takes us back to the question above.

 

the Bible "rightly divided" is the sole and final arbitrator!

 

That's true in principle, but how does that work in practice? What happens when different Christian groups disagree on how to "rightly divide" the word of truth, particularly in regards to matters essential to salvation? What then? Who arbitrates between them?