Armchair Apologist
Active Member
Call it what you want. I call it blasphemous and my life is devoted to bringing the true gospel to Roman Catholics and calling them out of this godless cult!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do Guarding Angels exist?
- Thread starter Earth Wind and Fire
- Start date
It’s biblical for the saints to pray for each other, whether on earth or in heaven, we are united by the same Holy Spirit in the Body of Christ. They are not alien to us.
When one part of the Body of Christ is in need, another part of the body aids it.
“so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.
27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.” 1 Cor
You misunderstand the spiritual realities at a fundamental level.
One ailing part of the body supplicates another part of the body.
You bring the human founded earthly interpretations of scripture, Catholics have the supernatural apostolic interpretation of Scripture.
I look at all the human founded Protestant denominations each with conflicting interpretations and doctrines from the same bible, and all of them are blind to the irony.
They all claim to be guided by The Holy Spirit, so why are coming away with every conflicting interpretation and doctrine?
Each grant themselves a pseudo infallibility on reading the Bible yet each comes away with his own interpretations and doctrines calling it the true gospel, not what it really is, traditions of men.
Last edited:
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
What is it that you think the saints in heaven need? Do you pray for them?
We are complete in Christ. We don’t receive any answers to prayer from saints. Every gift is from the Father. You take the glory of the Father and give it to mere men. This is not right.
The saints in heaven don’t need our prayers, but we certainly need theirs.
The prayers of the righteous are powerful, those in heaven are the righteous made perfect, they are greatly concerned with us and their prayers to God for us are very powerful.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
No, they do not. The Roman Catholic Church as it is known today is as far removed as can be from the original apostolic teachings.
I have already addressed this of which you have conveniently ignored.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
1 John 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
Romans 8:26
-- Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Romans 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
What record do you have of the heavenly saints making intercession for us? Angels making intercession?
Says who and by what authority?
Your interpretation of scripture?
No you haven’t. No Bible aloner as ever given me a coherent answer on this.
Besides you haven’t addressed how John was able hear every creature in heaven on earth, under the earth, on the sea and in the sea in situ at the same time.
There is no problem with Mary and the saints and angels seeing everything in Eternity. The limitations of earth don’t apply in Eternity.
Entering the spiritual is in fact to a greater or lesser extent, entering the eternal. Awareness is one of the first things you realise in the spiritual state.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
The sum of all church history.
On post #16, I stated that in the historic confessions, protestants agree far more than they disagree. Interpreting scripture is not rocket science - unless you want it to say something aside from what is obvously written.
I can go to an Astros game at Minute Maid park and hear the entire stadium shout "GO ASTROS!" and this is pretty much what John is stating here in the passage you have cited. In a large room with mixed conversation, I have difficulty distinguishing one conversation from another and it only gets worse as I get older.
It has nothing to do with the limitations of earth but with the limitations of our finite, human nature. Only God possesses the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence. We will never have these attributes even in our final, glorified state.
Where does it record the saints in heaven not being able to pray for people anymore?
There still is that injunction of Paul to always pray for the saints.
You are trying to make any intercessory prayer on others behalf superfluous and only go to God directly, scripture doesn’t teach that.
Scripture teaches both, direct and the intercession of others in prayer to God.
Protestant history began 500 years ago with a human founder, it has no history before that. Since then they have divided into every subjective human interpretation of scripture.
Before that the was The Catholic Church which canonised the Bible in the first place.
If Protestantism was correct and Luther was inspired in his new Bible alone idea, it would have been ratified manifestly by heaven so that all who read the Bible would have arrived perfectly with Luther’s interpretations and doctrines of scripture on reading it.
What Luther thought obvious in scriptures meaning was suddenly dog piled by everyone’s subjective interpretation in conflict with “ inspired “ old Luther.
It was each man’s subjective interpretation, a matter of each man’s fallible opinion.
Under Catholicism, the scriptures had a singular Apostolic objective interpretation going back to the Apostles.
Catholics still maintain the same traditional interpretation of scripture.
Protestantism founded every new conflicting human tradition, interpreting any doctrine they wanted.
It doesn’t say they were all gathered in a stadium or at one place. That’s your human rationalisations.
It says they were in heaven, on earth, under the earth, on the sea and in the sea.
Clearly God granted John the ability to hear them all where they were.
That is truly sad.
I look at it this way - it is possible that a Catholic also be a Christian despite their doctrine. The gospel is there, just obscured by paganism and tradition. If they read their bibles and read the gospel of Jesus Christ and choose Catholicism then I really have nothing to offer. They made a choice. Some will be saved and remain Catholic out of tradition. This is a sad truth, but they are no less Christian. Most will perish, but this probably could be said of any denomination.
What I have witnessed is Christians showing Catholics the gospel and their reply being "by whose interpretation". The answer is not by any interpretation but by God's words.
Christians disagree often on interpretation. But not on the gospel, not on praying to saints being blasphemy, not on praying to Mary, not on so many things inherent in Catholic paganism.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
I completely agree but Catholics who are genuinely "Christian" (Possess a genuine saving faith and personal walk with Christ) are not likely the ones coming onto Baptist forums with their guns ablazing telling us all how we are all wrong! Not that I am questioning anyone's salvation or anything like that.
I would expect a genuinely saved Catholic to tell me that their hope rests entirely upon Christ's finished redemptive work, not the Roman Catholic Church of which they happen to identify. I would accept this and say "AMEN!" as I would any Baptist having the same testimony.
Perhaps our "Cathodic" friend needs to go and find their "Anodic" counterpart and discharge some of their agression?
We all accept that the Bible has Authority, but it cannot be the only Authority, because it is at the point of interpretation in truth that the Bible expresses its full Authority or it is nullified by wrongful interpretations.
So it is the Authority of the Bible’s interpreter that unlocks the Bible’s full Authority.
Each Bible aloner says he is guided by The Holy Spirit in his textual criticism of scripture as if he is his own inspired oracle.
This is not how The Holy Spirit operates.
If The Holy Spirit operated like this, all Protestants would be monolithic and have total unity with each other going back to Luther, despite any human frailty or weakness or ignorance.
I would be totally convinced of the truth of the Protestant position of Bible alone if Protestantism was singular and monolithic in every interpretation and doctrine. That on reading the Bible alone everyone was brought together by The Holy Spirit in the same understandings, interpretations and doctrines.
It would be impossible to argue with, because it would be manifest everywhere and I would be sitting next to you in church on Sunday singing the same tune.
The Holy Spirit is The Spirit of Truth, He is not going to be interpreting conflicting doctrines to different people, it would be the exact same every single time.
Protestantism has the wrong understanding of how The Holy Spirit operates.
The deposit of the Faith laid down once by Christ and The Apostles and preached by The Spirit, was the Truth.
This Truth by necessity became Tradition handed down without alteration guarded by The Holy Spirit teacher to teacher.
The Tradition of The Holy Spirit or as Catholics call it Apostolic Tradition.
Remember what Jesus told the disciples how The Holy Spirit would operate.
“ and will remind you of all I have said to you “
So The Holy Spirit operates on the memory of what was spoken by the preceding teachers. Christ to the Apostles, the Apostles to the Fathers, and the Fathers down to us.
A singular recollection of the same truth and faith and understanding handed down the ages, guarded by The Holy Spirit.
Protestantisms personal oracle idea is a manifest disaster, each comes away whatever his human opinion interprets from the scripture. Traditions of men.
I completely agree but Catholics who are genuinely "Christian" (Possess a genuine saving faith and personal walk with Christ) are not likely the ones coming onto Baptist forums with their guns ablazing telling us all how we are all wrong! Not that I am questioning anyone's salvation or anything like that.
I would expect a genuinely saved Catholic to tell me that their hope rests entirely upon Christ's finished redemptive work, not the Roman Catholic Church of which they happen to identify. I would accept this and say "AMEN!" as I would any Baptist having the same testimony.
Perhaps our "Cathodic" friend needs to go and find their "Anodic" counterpart and discharge some of their agression?
Someone telling you that you are wrong can be a very good thing, because you may very well be wrong.
I pay closer attention to those who bother to tell me I’m wrong, I am grateful to them. The lazy and indifferent path to take, is to not bother to tell me I’m wrong.
Imagine someone knowing better but couldn’t be bothered sharing it with you, especially on a serious matter of consequence. That’s not good will.
I am hoping Protestants leave behind secular human founded Luthic Christianity for supernatural Apostolic Christianity.
Luther wasn’t an Apostle fellas.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Neither is the pope.
Yes he is, he is Peter. Peter governs the Church in his successors.
Jesus gave Peter charge of His sheep.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
I can appreciate this and in such a spirit, we may continue to have reasonable and substantive dialogue.
According to Catholic rationale, Luther was a priest ordained through apostolic succession was he not? Not that I believe this but according to my understanding, this is the core basis of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.
And let's remember our history here. Luther never set out to break away from the Roman Catholic Church and just "do his own thing" in a completely new religious sect! He sought to REFORM the church of which he believed he was a part of and calling on them to return to the historic creeds and confessions that had defined the "One holy catholic and apostolic church!" For this, they excommunicated and denounced him as a heretic. What else was he to do aside from continuing along the path of which God was obviously leading? Luther was far from being alone here. God has always had his "elect" in his church and his elect have been continually persecuted and killed by the false Christians who rose to prominence and power over the centuries. Luther prevailed because he had civil magistrates who were courageous enough to back him up.
The Council of Trent was the "line in the sand" where they dogmatized pretty much every heresy that had creeped into the Roman Catholic Church and anathematized the scriptural doctrines such as forensic justification. It was at this where it was plain that there would be no reformation and that God was calling his elect out of this abomination!
Luther was not perfect but he was certainly making the call to return to the "Supernatural Apostolic Christianity" of which you are speaking. It had taken a thousand years or so to develop this convoluted mess and Luther's contribution was only the beginning.
Armchair Apologist
Active Member
That Peter was a leader among the apostles is undeniable. What is clear though is that he was never an "Overseer" over the other apostles and Jesus made this quite clear right after he charged Peter to "Feed his sheep."
Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee? Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me. (Jn 21:20-22)
At the very most, he was a "First among equals" and a frequent "spokesperson" during the early apostolic era.
There is scant evidence that Peter was the one who founded the Church of Rome or even that he spent any significant time to be their "Bishop" but that is neither here nor there. This is of little consequence to me but means EVERYTHING to someone trying to make the case that the Roman Catholic Church is the "One True Church" that Jesus founded in Mt 16.
The bishop of Rome was regarded by other bishops (Patriarchates) as being "First among equals" based upon a traditional understanding that Peter was ultimately the bishop of Rome as well as the fact that the bishop of Rome was closes to the political power and center of the Roman Empire. When the Roman Empire was divided and Constantinople became the political center, the Bishop of Rome rose in prominence to fill this political vacuum and this was pretty much where the modern papacy emerged. The Bishop of Constantinople requested of Pope Gregory that the two would be considered as equals but Gregory refused and insisted upon the primacy of the bishop of Rome which, among other things, led to the great schism of 1054. The primacy of the pope has never been universally accepted by the church and papal infallibility was purely a Roman Catholic invention later on.
These are cold, hard facts. Check your history.